/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10739171]

Is there even one instance in physics where the subjective world and conscious experience would have any effect whatsoever on the physical world?
I know there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, some of which allegedly suppose that this is the case.
But is there any evidence to such interpretations?

[Anonymous No.10739185]

>>10739171
>Is there even one instance in physics where the subjective world and conscious experience would have any effect whatsoever on the physical world?
No.
>I know there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, some of which allegedly suppose that this is the case.
>But is there any evidence to such interpretations?
No.

[Anonymous No.10739189]

>>10739171
I get where you're coming from. Consciousness remains inexplicable. But leave the quantum out of it.

[Anonymous No.10739193]

>>10739171
Outside of the biological sense, no.

[Anonymous No.10739540]

>>10739171
the “quantum consciousness” thing is a newage meme developed by scam artists to trick yuppies at yoga class into shelling out more money for feelgood nonsense

[Anonymous No.10739547]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAYQsNyMihc

[Anonymous No.10739554]

>>10739171
Any time you create any piece of art

[Anonymous No.10739558]

>>10739171
According to Schopenhauer
>>An aesthetic experience occurs when an individual perceives an object and understands by it not the individual object itself, but the Platonic form of the object. The individual is then able to lose himself in the object of contemplation and, for a brief moment, escape the cycle of unfulfilled desire by becoming "the pure subject of will-less knowing". Those who have a high degree of genius can be taught to communicate these aesthetic experiences to others, and objects that communicate these experiences are works of art.

[Anonymous No.10739565]

>>10739171
Yes. I think "move my hand", and my hand moves. It's basically magic.

[Anonymous No.10739577]

>>10739189
>>10739540
Quantum consciousness and consciousness causes wavefunction collapse are different things.
Much like reading the skeptic dictionary and being scientifically literate through education are different.

The question of the wavefunction collapse through subjective experience is highly debated. For some reason it is the most favored view among the academia, which only shows how backwards the academia really is - it is a rote memorization club.

If I had to choose an interpretation, I would go with Bohm. Yes it still implies wave-particle duality. But it is the most consistent interpretation.

[Anonymous No.10739578]

>>10739565
Actually you move your hand before you think move your hand.

[Anonymous No.10739581]

>>10739565
All of which was pre-determined. The universe is closer to a computational device which operates according to algorithmic laws than to a phenomenological-existentialist-idealist soup.

OP here by the way. I made this thread to spur the debate.

[Anonymous No.10739588]

>>10739577
>For some reason it is the most favored view among the academia,
no
> which only shows how backwards the academia really is - it is a rote memorization club.
buttblasted brainlet
>If I had to choose an interpretation, I would go with Bohm.
you would choose the most retarded and debunked interpretation there is

[Anonymous No.10739589]

>>10739581
you move the goalposts so far it's in another sport's playing field

>>10739578
mind over matter niggy

[Anonymous No.10739593]

>>10739589

[Anonymous No.10739595]

>>10739593
Ah, excellent argument. I concede.

[Anonymous No.10739619]

>>10739577
>The question of the wavefunction collapse through subjective experience is highly debated.
There's definitely still some debate, but

>it is the most favored view among the academia
Lmao no it's not. The most favored view according to polls is Copenhagen, but it isn't a majority.
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/
CCC is the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation, and lies under "Other."

>If I had to choose an interpretation, I would go with Bohm. Yes it still implies wave-particle duality. But it is the most consistent interpretation.
>most consistent
Top kek. Still waiting on that century-overdue relativistic formulation.

[Anonymous No.10739627]

>>10739595
It's as much an argument as the post it's responding to, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10739647]

okay so.. is there any legitimacy to the idea in quantum mechanics that “observation creates reality” or is it all just a bunch of pseudo science bs used to justify the existence of God?
https://youtu.be/LARXSPARbZU

[Anonymous No.10739652]

>>10739581
The universe isn't deterministic so that doesn't make sense

[Anonymous No.10739661]

>>10739647
it's pseudoscience

"decoherence" is what you're looking for, and it has nothing to do with "observers" being special

[Anonymous No.10739682]

>>10739647
Pseudoscience, sorry senpai. Quantum mechanics has the statistical probability argument based on the fact that light, electrons, and other subatomic particles move so fast that we can't generate a location where they exist, but rather a space that they can occupy commonly. Essentially think of the probability of an airplane's propeller; at any moment it moves so fast you can't place its specific location, but you can draw a circle where it probably will occupy.

The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics leads to a lot of people trying to put in some form of determinism when in reality it's both more accurate and more useful to respect the factors that morph a "random" pattern.

[Anonymous No.10739689]

>>10739627
I don't even know what it's responding to and i have no chance in knowing, it's an anonymous forum you fuck your reddit gold ™ accountname doesn't show

[Anonymous No.10739991]

>>10739577
So it’s about interaction, not observation? Awesome, makes a little more sense now.
But how would someone like Inspiring Philosophy come to the conclusion that quantum mechanics is something non material/super natural? How would one go about explaining that to him that he’s wrong?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM&t=652s

[Anonymous No.10741509]

Can /sci/ give a scientific explanation as to why I saw my future in my dreams?

[Anonymous No.10741514]

>>10739647
Yes there is however you do not need the quantum to grasp it. The quantum world just confirms what any spiritualist already fully understands. Which is that the universe is ultimately spiritual and physical wordly things are merely information embedded in spirit. So of course we collapse the wave function we actually collapse everything. The entirety of science/math/existence can't escape from consciousness. It is only through consciousness that existence arises.

[Anonymous No.10741517]

>>10741514
>An aspect of existence is how existence arises

[Anonymous No.10741518]

Yes, infinite amount! On many levels in terms of how quickly it is perceived as executed!

Example, not a positive one but anyways,

Husband sees wife kissing another man, takes off, it's his perception she cheated, just a perception because his wife did not cheat as it was another lookalike with the same coat, hairdo at her favorite coffee shop! Husband returns with a firearm and shoots the man he though was kissing his wife, lol! There lerceltion affecting the physical outcome! The way this occurred is just as valid of a process as instant manifestation is!

[Anonymous No.10741520]

>>10739540
No that is just capitalism. People will literally profit off of anything you can think of. That does not mean that the thing they are profiting off of is somehow less real. "New Age" is just a deflection science bitches use when they face scary truths about reality. You love new agers because it lets you ignore huge flaws in your beliefs and just say "b-but your a new ager".

[Anonymous No.10741523]

>>10741517
Right only one thing exists which is consciousness. Everything else you see is just information. You don't see atoms you see information that represents an atom. Just like how humans communicate through words which are just symbols not "real" things

[Anonymous No.10741528]

>>10739991
>But how would someone like Inspiring Philosophy come to the conclusion that quantum mechanics is something non material/super natural?
Because "observer" was a poor choice of words with unnecessary implications modern people with no formal education read way too much into that we're stuck with now.

[Anonymous No.10741540]

>>10741523
>Right only one thing exists which is consciousness. Everything else you see is just information.

Schizo contradiction

[Anonymous No.10741542]

>>10741520
Please cite some peer-reviewed literature demonstrating quantum woo to be true

[Anonymous No.10741543]

>>10741540
No it isn't Also I take schizo as a compliment. It just means I have psychic powers and you don't

[Anonymous No.10741544]

>>10741542
The point is that science and your "peer reviews" are inadequate to describe reality. They can't possibly capture spiritual reality only the profane.

[Anonymous No.10741557]

>>10739185
I sympathize with this response, although strictly speaking it may be wrong under certain interpretations of what a "mental states" actually are. Namely, in so called token identity theories of consciousness, mental states are litterally identified with the neurological state on which they supervene. Therefore, if we are relying on such interpretations (most neuroscientists and cognitive scientists believe type identity theories, mind you) then we must grant that mental states do have causal efficacy in virtue of the fact that a mental state is identified with a a particular conrete physical state, and that physical states can exert a physical influence on the world. (Of course that doesn't mean we have to grant psychological states causal efficacy in virtue of their content or semantics.)

[Anonymous No.10741572]

see what happens after 4chan goes down for 40 minutes? only the autistic /pol/ posters return immediately and proceed to post total shit in 97 posts. depressing

[Anonymous No.10741579]

>>10741572
Who is /pol/ here? I don't see anyone talking about Jews.

[Anonymous No.10741594]

>>10739647
Yes. Mind = Reality. It's been proven in the CTMU.

>The M=R principle is merely a logical version of what empiricist philosophers long ago pointed out: we experience reality in the form of perceptions and sense data from which the existence and independence of mind and objective external reality are induced. Since any proof to the contrary would necessarily be cognitive, as are all “proofs”, and since the content of cognition is cognitive by embedment, no such proof can exist; such a proof would undermine its own medium and thereby cancel itself.

>On the other hand, the Reality Principle says that reality is self-contained with respect to recognition and control, and to the extent that recognition and control are “mental” (in the sense of being effected according to cognitive and perceptual syntax), so is reality. if the “noumenal” (perceptually independent) part of reality were truly unrelated to the phenomenal (cognition-isomorphic) part, then these two “halves” of reality would neither be coincident nor share a joint medium relating them. In that case, they would simply fall apart, and any integrated “reality” supposedly containing both of them would fail for lack of an integrated model. Where M (mind) is identified with cognition and R (reality) with physically-embodied-information, M=R says that reality everywhere consists of a common substance, infocognition, having the dual nature of mind and (informational) reality.

>If the “noumenal” (perceptually independent) part of reality were truly unrelated to the phenomenal (cognition-isomorphic) part, then these two “halves” of reality would neither be coincident nor share a joint medium relating them. In that case, they would simply fall apart, and any integrated “reality” supposedly containing both of them would fail for lack of an integrated model.

[Anonymous No.10741611]

>>10741594
langan posters need to be institutionalized. the fact you’re shilling quantum woo pseudoscience should imply castration, at least

[Anonymous No.10741627]

>>10741611
The 105 IQ gaytheist trembles before the 200 IQ Gigabrainmore.

[Anonymous No.10741658]

>>10741579
Probably spamming the wrong thread or something

[Anonymous No.10741659]

>>10741594
>It's been proven in the CTMU.

Schizo

[Anonymous No.10741673]

>>10741659
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.10741706]

Explain this, brainlets:

1) Why do dogs know when their owner is about to come home?

2) Why are some people able to identify when they are being stared at from behind with almost 100% accuracy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_staring_effect

3) Why is there still zero proof that memories are stored in the brain?

4) Why does it take ages to try and get a protein to crystallize, but once one lab manages it, lots of others seem to be able to do it with ease?

5) What evolutionary reason is there for plants to produce compounds which 1) so closely mimic neurotransmitters, 2) give rise to ineffably profound mental states?

[Anonymous No.10741739]

>>10741543
>No it isn't

Information is “real”.

>also I take schizo as a compliment.

Of course you do. Bye.

[Anonymous No.10742304]

>>10741594
Chris is basically just a weird Hegelian

[Anonymous No.10743657]

>>10741611
>if I take a shit, and I flush the toilet before I can see the shit I took, then nothing really came out of my ass because I didn’t observe the turd
Quantum woo shills actually believe this

[Anonymous No.10743687]

>>10739682
Whoever explained QM to you was just speaking out of their ass.
Particles actually propagate as a superposition in their probability wave-function, as demonstrated by the double-slit experiment.
If you have one slit and fire single electrons at it, you get a distribution that you would expect with a particle (basically a blob around a line). Add a second slit next to this, and an interference pattern will form, where some regions will have no particles hitting it even if that region previously had particles hitting it with just one slit. The only reason that this can happen is if the particle superposition is interfering with itself, much like a wave would.

[Anonymous No.10743714]

>>10743687
yeah, true. however, i recommend taking the QFT pill

[Anonymous No.10743725]

>>10743714
Based extract, thanks for that anon

[Anonymous No.10743727]

>>10743657
Quantum solipsism is literally shitless-tier.

[Anonymous No.10743728]

>>10743714
I really need to take this pill at some point. I think it is necessary to move forward now that I have fairly well completed a survey of non-relativistic QM. I've perused this book, and I've read the first chapter three separate times. It looks like I'd need to read about 200 pages to get my value for the fine structure constant to "gel" with the rest of QFT. Or I could probably just read Schwinger's 4 page paper. Seems like other people would be jumping on the chance to write their names on these results, however.

[Anonymous No.10743743]

>>10743728
oh, hey Jon. yeah, you do need to learn about QFT for sure, since you already made the big mistake of predicting that the W and Z bosons are massless since you think the Higgs has a nonzero spin....

anyhow, i can make a comment that isn't making fun of you (i only make fun of you like that because i hope one day you will see the light in not trying to be so heterodox all the time, that some of us actually do know our shit and can't be debunked by some 23-year-old kid doing drugs at their occupy gathering). i did a project to compute the first order correction to the first order correction to the fine structure constant (the two first-order loop diagrams) and it took over 15 pages, with hardcore equations all along the way. granted i was a young grad student at the time, and i was trying to show all the steps, but for sure the schwinger 4 page paper is not easy to flesh out on your own unless you were his competition at the time (still, probably wouldn't be easy). learn from a textbook -- research articles are usually sweeping the "obvious" (but only obvious in the sense that a fellow expert or semi-expert in the field could be able to reproduce them) details under the rug, since the more prestigious the journal, the less pages they give you... this is a basic thing to realize when you start reading 3-page papers in PRL that supposedly cover e.g. one result from LIGO (even though there are thousands of technical papers on how they built the goddamn thing, and that's just a small part)

[Anonymous No.10743746]

>>10743743
***oops i just meant "the first order correction to", not "the first order correction to the first order correction to"

[Anonymous No.10743830]

>>10741706
>2) Why are some people able to identify when they are being stared at from behind with almost 100% accuracy?

I think I have a theory about this actually.

When you observe something you are taking light from the enviornment that would be normally bouncing. When a person is observing another, the observer is absorbing the photons which causes a light current in the direction of the observer so the person observed will "feel" the shift of light ever so slightly.

[Anonymous No.10743837]

>>10743743
The Higgs definitely has spin-0, you idiot. That's why it's called "scalar boson." How fucking stupid are you? "Scalar" means "spin-0." Are you sure you're the QFT maestro you pretend to be?

[Anonymous No.10743936]

>>10741739
It is real within spirit but not without. Only spirit is real in itself.

[Anonymous No.10744090]

>>10743837
did you read my post? i am making fun of Jon for his argument that the higgs has nonzero spin, a clear contradiction with obvious facts

[Anonymous No.10745173]

>>10739171
>I know there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, some of which allegedly suppose that this is the case.
They contradict important laws of nature and go into the trash.
>But is there any evidence to such interpretations?
No, they are based solely on naive realism.

[Anonymous No.10745246]

>>10739171
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/#escaping

We are not passive observers in the context of the KS theorem. I believe Von Neumann was right to say consciousness causes collapse.

[Anonymous No.10745406]

>>10739185
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.10746958]

>>10741509
How detailed was it? Precognitive dreams is one the phenomena reported of under the psychism umbrella, and yours may well have been one. Never happened to me before, though.

>>10739171
Remote viewing and certain forms of telepathy are essentially undeniable at this point, scientifically. The studies have been done, the evidence is statistically significant, the repeatability is there, and there's no valid argument from skeptics against it. It's merely not in line with scientific orthodoxy, and much too difficult to have to go back and change their understanding of the mind from being an "epiphenomenon of the brain" to "a non-local article which has non-physical connection to others like it" and so on.

[Anonymous No.10746967]

>>10746958
>Remote viewing and certain forms of telepathy are essentially undeniable at this point, scientifically

Uh......huh.

Citation needed.

[Anonymous No.10746988]

>>10741509
>>10745257

[Anonymous No.10748709]

>>10746958
>and much too difficult to have to go back and change their understanding of the mind from being an "epiphenomenon of the brain" to "a non-local article which has non-physical connection to others like it" and so on.
I think it's a little soon to say exactly what the cause is of any of those phenomena.

[Anonymous No.10748716]

>>10746967
this is the qi cunt, he’s another new berzerkfag

[Anonymous No.10748725]

>>10748716
>there's no valid argument from skeptics against it
>only argument is that he must be some repeat poster

[Anonymous No.10748729]

>>10748725
no, the argument against it is that it’s not reproducible and your sources are all woo or garbage or the look elsewhere effect

[Anonymous No.10748786]

>>10748729
>woo
Yes, true skepticism is about coming up with thought-terminating jargon.

[Anonymous No.10748811]

>>10748786
it’s not supposed to be thought-terminating, it refers to people going “woooooo” when they see acrobatics or contortionists or guys making cards appear out of “nowhere”. basically i’m comparing your sources to a Shin Lim act

[Anonymous No.10748822]

>>10748811
>it’s not supposed to be thought-terminating, it's just a non-argument my echo chamber has trained me to pretend is sufficient

[Anonymous No.10748839]

>>10748822
sorry dude, if you see Shin Lim and you conclude he is a master of qi, instead of just doing sly tricks, i got bad news for you. look up his instructional videos on yt

[Anonymous No.10749354]

hey op,
i studied philosophy and did a bachelors degree. we often discussed this topic at my university (technical university of berlin) and we had a prof, which was very into logic. i was asking myself those questions every day and studied really hard to come to a conclusion for myself. the thing is: the more you search for a "solution", the more it seems to be deluted by the brain. i caught myself in the act of thinking "i want that to be true; which points do i need to accept to come to this conclusion. that is not a good way, but it happens fairly often to everyone (not so clear, of course) while writing my thesis i came up with this for me: it is wise to let go the urgent need of a definitive answer. it is necessary to never let go the need for new arguments. which means: try to enter a thinking-modus where the process of thinking thru points of an argument is not only the "vehicle on the path to thruth", rather try to perceive it as a weapon (you have to maintain by yourself!) that helps you not slipping of the path of your best effort in rational thinking. right now i'm on my way to get my bachelors degree in comp sci and after that, i'll think, i'll have a much different view on some points. maybe you could try something along those lines.

[Anonymous No.10749375]

>>10749354
wow, philosophy really is a meme, isn’t it? they let you think that magic is real?

here’s a /sci/pill: your mind and your thoughts are just part of the universe doing its thing. and it does lots of weird things. but your brain isn’t special, aside from it being a spectacularly evolved apparatus for processing information programmed with well-honed instincts that give it greater intelligence than any supercomputer or distributed computing device in existence

[Anonymous No.10749391]

>>10749375
i've read this (shorted) argument very often and there is a multitude of other descriptions that fits better. which isn't to say, it is (completely) wrong. but whoever claims in front of me to have the definitive answer to something (except: mathematical proofs based on a set axioms) is someone, i'd never listen to. so, please, stop wasting your time.

[Anonymous No.10749419]

in addition: whether philosophy is a meme or not depends on who you are and how you came to philosophy. as i layed out, i studied it, because i was interested in the methods used. before i attended the uni, i never read a book on philosopy. so my door to phil was purely "dictated" by the formal and logic-based approach of my prof and my uni-department at technial uni berlin. i see the meme of philo in the everyday-street-philo and people that start out with phil by reading camus or someone along those lines before having a proper introduction into the methods. that is a problem, but that isn't an argument against philosophy, rather against people not having enough time and disciplin to go "the long way".

[Anonymous No.10749429]

>>10749391
i mean, it’s what all the evidence points to. wishing for magic / “supernatural” stuff is completely empirically false, and empirical reasoning methods win in terms of reliability, objectively/statistically

if a philosopher ever gets good enough that he can come to my lab and telekinetically cause my oscilloscope to draw anime waifus, then maybe. but aside from that, my bayesian prior in favor of empirical science pretty much makes the burden of proof for anything else very very difficult to overcome. i mean, you’re typing on some sort of computer—that piece of technology in itself represents millions and millions of elements that work, reliably, based on scientific (quantum mechanical) principles, billions of times per second . it just werks. naysayers can point to a Shin Lim video and go “haha!” but that doesn’t cut it

[Anonymous No.10749449]

>>10739171
the quantized nature of reality is a distributed conscious illusion of the real world caused by the fact that the molecular machinery we are made up of and any machine we make is made of truncated waveforms, ie. a finite number of "particles." The universe as physics describes it is an approximation made from an inherently limited data set.

[Anonymous No.10749452]

>>10749429
boi, before repeating and repeating the same stuff over and over again, it would be wise for you to recognize that i never negated your basic way of thinking. i too do believe that a brain is nothing special and has evolved over time to make it very well functioning "perception-machine". the only thing where we differ is, that i think that you leave it there you make the ontological world smaller as it needs to be. the only thing i argue for is: "let's try to search for good arguments to present a description of "us" that is empirical-bound but can satisfy more of the questions we have - or prove that the question itself is nonsense. but you scientific quietism is not necessary to hold up your argument. you are restricting youself. but why? are you afraid of the work of thinking?

[Anonymous No.10749453]

>>10741706
My personal opinion is that what we call "time" is itself inextricably connected to memory - not identical to memory, since there's the aspect of rate and so on, but ultimately I feel that what we refer to as "time", we only know of by the existence of memory. We call it time for conceptual sake, but could just as easily call it memory. The past is a memory we have lived, and the future one not yet in our recollection. And so if one were to ever claim that "memory is in the brain", it would mean that time itself is encased in matter - which is an impossibility, since we can observe plainly that matter exists under time, and not the reverse. Thus, the materialistic stance on the subject would therefore posit the brain to be the very first item to exist, if it were the ground of existence, which means that reality itself, space and time, could not be spoken of before the brain existed. But if consciousness is the fundamental ground, no such problems arise.

As for the question of how a past can exist if nobody was there to witness its events, I'd argue that reality itself may have some form of memory in such cases. But really I have no clue how to answer that one. My position still stands - time and memory are a connected edifice. Without one, one cannot speak of the other - and when speaking of one, one is speaking of the other.

[Anonymous No.10749485]

>>10749452
did your classes cover Wittgenstein? did they actually take his words at face value, or did they do the typical mental gymnastics to ignore his clear message:
>6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science--i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy -- and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions. Although it would not be satisfying to the other person--he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy--this method would be the only strictly correct one.
the fact is that the deeper questions about non-scientific things are meaningless, that’s already settled philosophically, if you didn’t do the typical cognitive dissonance training that post-Wittgenstein philosophers invented to justify their paychecks

[Anonymous No.10749488]

>>10749375
At one point in said evolution would the brain develop consciousness, by what mechanism, and for what reason? If the analogy from computers is to be used, are the machines around us indeed conscious, and if not how would they become so, and what would be the evolutionary benefit to them becoming so, when they could perform every necessary behavior without such an article? And if they are not conscious, and have no internal experiences, then it does not seem fitting to use them as analogies for ourselves in the first place, given our fundamental distinction.

[Anonymous No.10749508]

>>10749485
yes, we covered wittgenstein. at our department, the "mental gymnastics to ignore his clear message" where punished by the prof with doing like picking up a phone and answering with "hey, god, how you doin?". in other words: yes, we did it without the mental gymnastics. but you didn't get my point. scientific quietism does not mean to search for "deeper questions about "non-scientific" things" (as you put it), rather not quitting to search for answers to scientific questions that are still unanswered. but i think the fact that you describe the _whole_ post-wittgenstein-philosophy as a scam is enough to disqualif yourself from the discussion. my prof once said: "universal-quantifiers brought up in discussions (as you did it with "whole post-wittgenstein-sentence) are wrong almost every time. and that is funny, because this is a claim with an universal-quantifier". i don't know whether this board made you a person writing such nonsense, or if you really think you are able to deny thousands of thinkers their accomplishments. either way: you are a sad person and i'm sorry for you. i really do hope, you'll become a more humble person over time, because when acting like this, no one ever will take you for serious.

[Anonymous No.10749511]

>>10749429
Also, there is no value in using terms like "magic" here, as nobody is arguing for the existence of such, and mentioning it only displays a disrespect of positions outside one's own personal beliefs, arguing that anything else must necessarily be in the domain of the fantastical. As we know through ourselves, material things have an inner life - they have awareness and they have experiences. This itself is "magical" enough, in my view, and there isn't even a theory from the brightest scientific minds as to how it's possible. It means that there is no reason the matter around us could not also have the same properties, or atleast the capacity for such, and though a materialist might consider such "magic", it happens to be quite ordinary and undeniable as it applies to your own self. Thus, materialistic proponents would often be found to ridicule propositions that are simultaneously undeniable even within their own worldview, and given that fact, you should refrain from labelling other ideologies such terms of condescension.

[Anonymous No.10749515]

>>10749488
the machines around us aren't conscious in the sense that humans are because they don't have the same capacity for repeated introspection and self-modification. Some machines have features which are consciousness-LIKE, which is why they are valid analogies for explaining what makes something conscious or not and how something not conscious could become or create something that is.

[Anonymous No.10749517]

>>10749488
my feeling is that “consciousness” in the colloquial sense has a lot to do with being a functioning living organism working at life. and it is a continuum; insects have some very primitive form of awareness and autonomy, cats certainly are conscious, and humans are not that far from cats. the reason computers are even less conscious than bugs is not because they don’t have the correct size neural nets (well, they are still small compared to human brains that way) but more so because the “training” that conscious neural nets undergo is intimately connected to life and experience and instincts, that computers don’t have, despite their adequate computing power.

consciousness is more like software, just hardware doesn’t cut it. our minds have literally tens of thousands of years of neural net training built in thanks to evolution

[Anonymous No.10749523]

>>10739171
Friendly reminder that everything known of has only been known of within the medium of consciousness - and if consciousness is not understood as a substance, then "materialism" is itself a misnomer, as it's elements have only been within something which may never have been material itself.

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."
-Neils Bohr

[Anonymous No.10749528]

>>10749508
well ok, it sounds like you have some mental gymnastics to deny the words wittgenstein said all prepared. i’ll let you take that one, because for me, he seemed pretty clear.
>>10749511
okay, youre not a “magic” guy, but others in the thread clearly are, so that’s why i said that. your view about “the mind causing external influences” must be quite modest indeed, since i think what most others were referring to was e.g. influencing the outcomes of quantum processes. i actually have no idea of what you have in mind besides purely philosophical/speculative/mathematical stuff

[Anonymous No.10749553]

i'm sorry i have to correct you again. the sentence wittgenstein wrote might be good advice, might be bad advice. it might even be truth. but what i argue for is that you did even understood it. he wrote "[...] propositions of natural science [...]". your conclusion (which is wrong) is: "there is a set of things that can be said, because they are propositions of nat sci AND (implicitely) we know all of them". because otherwise, there is room to search for questions that today aren't questions of natural science but might become so in 10 or 30 or 100 years. and to deny to search for those questions is scientific quietismn that is not necessary to be on wittgensteins path - without mental gymnastics. i hope, you can see now where you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.10749556]

>>10749515
>>10749515
>the machines around us aren't conscious
We don't actually know this.

>capacity for repeated introspection and self-modification
These are not relevant to consciousness in the strictest sense, whereby awareness is simply an attribute of something and no further functionality within it is necessary alongside it.

>>10749517
Why might plantlife not be conscious, though? We are the ones attributing or detracting consciousness to the items around ourselves - we know our individual selves to be conscious, and seeing others of our species, infer the same must be true for them. Observing a larger animal kingdom, all sharing the same fundamental set of behaviors, we similarly impute them with such. But the fact that we are biological species, and have consciousness, does not make it more likely for consciousness to be a biological phenomena than otherwise - it simply happens to be the platform we are speaking from, and potentially biased by. And if your hypothesis is that evolution brought consciousness to our species, and there exists a modality of such among the creatures of nature, what would the purpose be? Every behavior could remain identical as it is, without need for an individual awareness accompanying it.

[Anonymous No.10749567]

I have an hypothesis on this one: if neuronal action potentials even have a slight random factor. Then consciousness might be the process of determing the outcome of this random factor. Lets say that it is like when fliping a coin if you have an exact 50/50 chance of each outcome there must be a "hand of god" deciding wich side it falls on. This hand in our brain chemistry might be consciousness.

[Anonymous No.10749585]

>>10749556
>We don't actually know this.
Don't speak for everyone when you say "I don't know what this word means"

[Anonymous No.10749601]

>>10749553
yeah, you’re right. but the path to new scientifically meaningful statements is called “science”. that’s what we do—ask the scientific questions, question the scientific authorities, and conduct experiments to establish the facts.

but philosophy is perennially divorced from facts. likewise, beware magic woo shills are too. think twice before shitting on science, because what it amounts to is fodder for asshats who think deepak fuckra isn’t right about how meditating can cure cancer

[Anonymous No.10749604]

>>10749585
the sentence "we don't actually know this" is another way to actually say "there is no objective evidence to prove this". and that is the truth. but it isn't a deep insight either. but with "we" making an objective claim is true, because we simply do not know (in the sense of "are able to prove it is the truth") it.

[Anonymous No.10749612]

>>10749553 #
yeah, you’re right. but the path to new scientifically meaningful statements is called “science”. that’s what we do—ask the scientific questions, question the scientific authorities, and conduct experiments to establish the facts.

but philosophy is perennially divorced from facts. likewise, magic woo shills are too. think twice before shitting on science, because what it amounts to is fodder for asshats who believe deepak fucka about how meditating can cure cancer

[Anonymous No.10749626]

>>10749585
I don't understand what you mean here.

[Anonymous No.10749637]

>>10749601
dude, the path to "scientifically meaningful statements" is something you do not decide. it is a sprachspiel played by the scientific community with regards to rational thinking. and it is defined every day again. the fact that questions that are able to be falsified by an experiment are good scientific questions, does not imply that any other questions can't be a good scientific question. yes, there are people in philosophy trying to shill magic. i hate them and so do you. but you are placing strawmen where it is not necessary, because there is also a whole bunch (and i'd argue: the beggest) of philosophers not trying to shill magic. the only thing they do is to not let stemlords like you, which never underwent a seminar in scientific methodology, decide, what is worth to be studied and what not.

[Anonymous No.10749679]

>>10749637
here is where i disagree. deciding what is scientifically meaningful is not just a “sprachspiel” or “language game”. it is a very well established system for deciding on what endeavors may yield real, and possibly even new, results. experiments CAN find things we never expected, the charm quark for example. it is not just arguing philosophical paths.

anyhow if you think science is just like philosophy, in that we’re just a bunch of dudes going to conferences and arguing about random shit, you’d be surprised. we are constantly looking at experimental results and updating our understanding. because we deal with an actually real thing called reality. not your random mental landscape of bullshit

[Anonymous No.10749683]

>>10749604
"consciousness" is an English word with a definition and you apparently don't know it to have the conversation dragged into semantics

[Anonymous No.10749689]

>>10739171
>But is there any evidence to such interpretations?
Yes, according to Avshalom Elitzur.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX-_G_9kww
http://cogprints.org/6613/1/Dualism0409.pdf

[Anonymous No.10749695]

>>10739185
Fuck off Chalmers

[Anonymous No.10749700]

>>10739581
The fact that it was pre-determined doesn't mean that consciousness/qualia did not have a causal role.

[Anonymous No.10749703]

>>10749679
the "very well established system" you are talking of is broken nearly since day one, because the public don't spend enough money to back experiments by redoing them. but that is not an argument against your point, i know. what is an argument against you point is your misrepresentation of me not knowing what the holy stemlords are actually doing. as i wrote earlier: I#m currently in the 5th semester of my 2nd bachalor in comp sci. we do experiments and provings to back our findings. like real sci, bro. do you now think i'm able to talk about sciences? or not? i don't care. i know that i'm able to.

and i know three things for sure:
- that "looking at experimental results and updating the understanding" is exactly what every reasonable philosopher is doing, too,
- that they are able understand what the other said and answer to it, and not (as you do) trying to shill their shit by talking nonsense about the others,
- are working with people from nat sci that are old enough to not call others work "landscape of bullshit".

bitch, be humble. or let it go, but then you aren't a scienceguy. i'm sorry.

[Anonymous No.10749721]

>>10749683
haha, yeah. a word, which defintion is debated since day one of science, has a clear "definition" that someone "knows". bro, you are broken. like, really. :D

[Anonymous No.10749726]

>>10749703
i don’t even see an argument here, aside from the assertion that philosophers care about experimental results and actually do update their understanding based on it.

as far as i’m aware there are many philosophers who shill for “objective ethics” or “subjective reality”. for sure the latter is false and the former is unrelated to real science or philosophy in the wittgenstein sense

[Anonymous No.10749743]

>>10749726
yeah, but do you know, what i know? sentences beginning with "there are" do make a general claim (universal claim, remember it?), are wrong. just plain wrong. i never brought up objective ethics. that was only you. and no one else. like you do the whole time: using strawmen to not be forced to let go of your philosophy hate when (right now) there is someone in front of you not shilling "magic" or "ethics". you are just a little kid, riding the stem-train and thinking "now, finally, i'm one of the cool guys!" by bashing humanities. like the fat kid in school that was finally cool when it fucked up the little boys.

i made my point clear, i think: philo is not what you wish it was to be able to have an enemy. i hope you understood it. bye!

[Anonymous No.10749748]

>>10739171
Evolution, in-part

[Anonymous No.10749764]

>>10749743
ok, bye! i’ll keep lurking here with the satisfaction that a philosofag had no comeback and totally got BTFO

[Anonymous No.10749777]

>>10749764
enjoy it. i, for myself think, this is a very sad behavior. but on the other hand: to make a person satisfied and happy is good. so, please, go on with being satisfied, because i "had no comeback" and "totally got btfo". :)

[Anonymous No.10749787]

>>10749777
oh, you’re back? do you have an argument? i thought you declared “victory” and were leaving

let me guess
>hurr durr semantics

[Anonymous No.10749794]

>>10749375
Your argument actually assumes materialism. The thing is you can't be certain a materialist perspective is the answer simply because it sounds more compatible with science. In reality science and our present understanding of physics is compatible with different perspectives. I subscribe more to an idealist view of existence and science doesn't get invalidated just by doing that. However, science is not the be all end all for knowledge, that is basically an empirical assumption you are making when you think that. I am not an empiricist or a materialist (that doesn't mean I dislike science though).

[Anonymous No.10749802]

>>10749794
well, let me refer you back to what wittgenstein actually said
>>10749485

[Anonymous No.10749804]

>>10749802
Who cares? Nothing he says is objective. He is just giving the same old tired, "you should only believe things you have enough evidence to believe" argument. There is no actual benefit to that. In fact in day to day life you constantly violate that we all do. For instance in relationships you have no guarantee the person you are with won't betray you. You can't perform a scientific experiment to determine that they will never hurt you but yet you choose to trust them. Here in the real world we believe in things without perfect evidence because it is not only unnecessary for most things but also sometimes completely infeasible.

[Anonymous No.10749809]

>>10749804
I could even argue that sometimes the method for obtaining enough evidence is immoral too.

[Anonymous No.10749810]

>>10749802
i totally want to emphasize this backreference. and then, please, read further to the point where he admitted that he didn't even understood wittgensteins phrase in the first place.

>>10749612

:D

[Anonymous No.10749824]

>>10749804
well, human relationships are complex. but that is perfectly consistent with accepting natural science as your philosophy. women are very complex beings. their behavior isn’t easily derivable from the behavior of electrons and protons and neutrons. they’re “emergent phenomena”, as are we. in other words, that is totally fine and consistent with the wittgenstein perspective

[Anonymous No.10749834]

>>10749824
It's not consistent with the "You need perfect evidence to believe something" argument. Because you don't have perfect evidence of any of the shit you just said. And especially you don't have perfect evidence that a woman won't cheat but yet you will still trust her if she is a good person. Even if you have some clues you don't have perfect evidence and everyone who says "Don't believe anything without proof" would be hypocritical if they trust her enough to marry her.

[Anonymous No.10749841]

>>10749834
>perfect evidence
never said anything close to that

[Anonymous No.10749845]

>>10749841
Okay well then there isn't anything wrong with believing in God.

[Anonymous No.10749854]

>>10749845
whatever bro, you go god i’ll go anime waifus ok?

[Anonymous No.10749861]

>>10749854
My God is a anime waifu

[Anonymous No.10749923]

>>10739171
I'm planning on practising Astral Projection in the near future, to try and confirm for myself that there is a dimension of ourselves which is not biological and can subsist with our biological vessel. Going to look into the various methods written of out there and just practise them a lot and hopefully be successful in doing so.

[Anonymous No.10749946]

>>10749923
lol

[Anonymous No.10749962]

>>10749946
*astral projects behind you*
heh, nothing projectional kid

[Anonymous No.10750025]

>>10739652
The delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment would like to have a word with you after class

[Anonymous No.10750040]

>>10750025
Except that's even more evidence against determinism. If you believe the results of the DCQE are deterministic, you are forced to accept the propagation of information backwards through time.

[Anonymous No.10750088]

>>10750025
>>10750040
don’t argue about determinism. if you take quantum 101 it becomes clear that the universe is stochastic, but there is an underlying deterministic mechanism that decides the probabilities. nothing “consciousnesses” related enters the equations

[Anonymous No.10750092]

>>10750088
Consciousness behaves in a stochastic way with underlying deterministic mechanisms when you limit the choices it has.

[Anonymous No.10750108]

>>10750092
ok, but it does not enter whatsoever into the real probabilities. so it is completely fictional

[Anonymous No.10750119]

>>10750108
But it could there just isn't any evidence that it does.

[Anonymous No.10750124]

>>10750119
so could santa

[Anonymous No.10750151]

>>10750124
Are you trying to say santa isn't real?

[Anonymous No.10750162]

>>10750151
sorry anon...

[Anonymous No.10750820]

>>10741594
>>10742304

ChrisT is basically just a weird Hegelian.

>Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
>Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

>But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

[Anonymous No.10750837]

>>10739171
Surely thinking fires up your neurons which in some way effects the physical world. And then there's just moving around because your brain tells you too.
And even if these actions are pre-determined, it's still an interaction with the physical world.
I am probably wrong and I'll accept that unless you reply with a brainlet image then I'll pretend I know what I'm talking about until the thread dies.

[Anonymous No.10751016]

to put it in simple, the existence of thought needs neurons to physically arrange in a specific structure to distribute the electric pulse throught the brain. While the brain is inside an enclosed cavity, the skull, it's not an isolated system, it needs work to function, work is transfered in form of heat between systems and this heat is physically measurable, so, if heat can be the result of conciousness, then you have this one measurable instance where the subjetive "inner" world has an effect on the physical realm.