/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10217565]

How can i prove objectively that another brain is actually thinking?

[Anonymous No.10217608]

>>10217565
Can't. You either don't care about this or you will stop caring about this at some point.

[Anonymous No.10217609]

ask them a unique question. If they are thinking and aren't programmed, it will require thinking to solve it.

[Anonymous No.10217610]

>>10217565
its impossible to prove anything about physics/the universe except for your own existence. thats why math is cooler

[Anonymous No.10217624]

>>10217565
is this about the problem of other minds or just about other people being retarded?

[Anonymous No.10217688]

You can't. Everybody except for your is an NPC.

[Anonymous No.10217916]

>>10217565
>How can i prove objectively that another brain is actually thinking?
What have you tried?

[Tuba Jam !!+Q/vU207C0N No.10217934]

>>10217565
welcome to solipsism, the gateway drug of philosophy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett#Philosophy_of_mind
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=dennett&open=0&res=25&view=simple&phrase=1&column=def
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=B68BA4D35C83F8FBC3A0EEDB74FF75BB
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=husserl&open=0&res=25&view=simple&phrase=1&column=def
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=E4EF8FF65A359D54B3674DA6FAC039F3
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=C65419C6658C94A7624990FC299336DE
have fun!

[Anonymous No.10217951]

>>10217565
Ya gotta' look for them zippity-zaps of the synapse bruh.

[Blank No.10217975]

>>10217565
You cant prove anything objectively, without reffering to a mind that is objective (God).

[Anonymous No.10218171]

>>10217565
Proof is for mathematicians and alcoholics. Read some epistemology, starting with Hume and proceeding to Kant

[Anonymous No.10218196]

>>10217565
>>10217688
all normies are NPCs. they are not so much "people" as biological machines behaving in accordance with with predefined algorithms.
KILL ALLL NORMIES REEEEEEEEEEEEE
they can't comprehend the pain of an internal dialog.

[Anonymous No.10218547]

>>10217565
How can you prove objectively that your own brain is thinking

[Anonymous No.10218811]

>>10217565
There are only three things that you can infer, objectively, with instantaneous proof. These three things are indubitable and cannot be reduced:

You are a thinking thing.
There exists a fundamental logic to thought.
A realm of existence supports your existence.

Everything else relies on external evidence, even your own senses and memories can be twisted. Everything else can therefore be questioned, and should be, from the ground up.

To reach an understanding of the existence of other minds, you must first reach an understanding of the nature of the observer of the universe.

[Anonymous No.10218885]

>>10217565
>>10217688
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7DmA3yWwa6AT5jFXt/zombies-redacted

[Anonymous No.10218892]

There is the self and not self, thus there is an "other" besides yourself.

[Anonymous No.10218935]

>>10217609
How do you know they'er not programmed?

[Anonymous No.10218939]

>>10218811
>You are a thinking thing.
>There exists a fundamental logic to thought.
>A realm of existence supports your existence.

Actually the only thing that an be said with certainty is an analog of Descartes famous quote:
There is awareness therefore there is existence.

[Anonymous No.10219100]

>>10218935
How do you know you aren't programmed?

[Anonymous No.10219282]

>>10218939
i like this re-write

[Anonymous No.10219320]

Objectively define thinking.

[Anonymous No.10219388]

>>10217565
you could physically simulate it in a computer and then observe its conscious state

[Anonymous No.10219394]

>>10218885
>Has many religious friends, might convert himself
Converting to religion is never a rational choice. The chad "rationalist" discredited himself here.

[Anonymous No.10219490]

>>10217565
You can't. We each exist in essentially a pocket dimension of a subjective perceiving an objective world. Our subjectives are in many ways apart in a way far more fundamental than vast distances, they are each worlds next to each other but never meeting. There's no evidence you yourself are thinking to others, everything you do can be explained by purely physical processes without the need of a mental life. However with personal experience and language you can have a good sense that others have mental experience same as you do. For instance the questions you ask - i know personally im a thinking being and feel being alive and so you asking the question implies you are as well. It can never be demonstrated, how would you objectively reveal the subjective.

[Anonymous No.10219504]

>>10217565
Use an MRI scanner to detect electrical activity within neurons

[Anonymous No.10219528]

>>10219504
Meaningless. Nowhere in that activity can you test and reveal thought. A human could work in its entirety without an observing being, with each electrical impulse having a total and sufficient cause by another impulse, that by a chemical etc. A world could exist like ours but entirely without experience.

The subjective remains a totally mysterious aspect to this universe. It's totally unnecessary and unlike anything else, yet it's all we really are.

[Anonymous No.10219540]

>>10219528
Lay off the marijuana, kiddo

Brain activity is routinely measurable using MRI - there's plenty of data as evidence within the field of neuroscience to "objectively prove that another brain is thinking"

[Anonymous No.10219559]

>>10219540
Im a doctor, i know all about MRIs. The OP question however wasn't about brain activity, it was about experience. The latter not required by the existence of the former. For instance you can have anacephalic children with brain activity in their midbrain and cerebellum but they obviously have no subjective due to no cerebrum.

We also have blindsight where people with some dysfunction in their occipital lobe cannot see, but when thrown a ball catch it. The connections are all there from the eye to the occipital lobe to muscles but at no point is sensory experience created.

Brain activity does not equal subjective existence, it's vital to it but not the same.

[Anonymous No.10219639]

Neuroscientist here.
It's impossible

[Anonymous No.10219798]

>>10217565
The idea of proving the subjective with objective is conpletely incoherent, they are different dimensions. It might be like saying can we prove time using only space, no as any answer would just use time as part of it.

Potentially if we developed some neuralink kind of thing and could connect minds we would experience other people in some indescribable way but it wouldn't be objective evidence nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.10220647]

>>10219528
^The hard problem of consciousness.