/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11681114]

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

NOOOOOOOO, WE GOT TOO COCKY PHYSICALIST BROS. WHY DIDNT ANYONE TELL ME THIS THING RUINS OUR ENTIRE WORLDVIEW!!!

[El Arcón No.11681217]

11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Do you see how it's a valuable logical predicate to separate people based on whether or not they think sex is evil? Do you see?

[Anonymous No.11681235]

>>11681114
>consciousness
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11681288]

It's just a side effect of unsupervised learning

[Anonymous No.11681298]

>>11681114
This is only a problem if you take up the retarded assumption that the consciousness is a real thing, not just a cope concept made up by scared monkeys.

[Anonymous No.11681311]

>>11681114
we don't need to explain qualia to explain what consciousness is

[Anonymous No.11681338]

I'd rather go back how do I move like an brachiating ape flying thru the trees smashin skulls rippin hearts thru cages

[Anonymous No.11681380]

>>11681235
Are you denying the existence of consciousness? Lol

[Anonymous No.11681391]

I dont see why qualia cannot be explained as a consequence of the brain activity.

[El Arcón No.11681439]

If it doesn't say in the Bible that God hates it when you kidnap someone and then chain them in your basement to rape and torture them to death for your own amusement, then how does everyone know it's wrong? The answer is that it does say it is wrong, very many times. This is the lust of the flesh. That word "fornicators" got translated to say God hates people who have sex with people they aren't married to. It should have been translated as "fornicators"

All through the Bible God's favorite people and other people were fucking women who weren't their wives, and that never got described as something God didn't like. You can say that all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord, but I am telling you that sex is not a sin at all. You fake priests make my opinion look stupid when you say the thing that I really hate is sex, and not kidmapping/dungeons/pathological sadism.

So... how does everyone know that God doesn't like pathological sadism when the Bible never says it? You can invoke the golden rule to say that you should treat other people the way you want to be treated, and then cite that as the law of the Lord. However, if you say that God wants you to treat other people the way you would like to be treated, that means God want you to be a generous and caring lover. If you do it will one of your wives thats fine, but if you do it with someone who isn't one of your wives, the only potential sin is giving away away the dick your wives crave to some other woman, and probably being a bad husband by lying about cheating on your wife or wives.

You know how carrying a gun isn't really a USA crime but carrying a gun during the commission of a felony is? That's like sex. It's not a crime, and it's not a sin, but sex is a key part of every wide variety of sexual immorality, which is sin.

[El Arcón No.11681441]

When does prostitution ever get a bad rap in the Bible? Never when a man pays a woman for sex. Only when entire cities turn to prostitution, meaning that there are no generous and caring lovers there, and that all of good sex has been perverted.

[El Arcón No.11681477]

But still no this... Jacob was fucking his wives, and thier handmaidens, and it never got a negative connotation. When Judah stopped on the road to fuck the temple prostitute, the sin was described as Tumar raping her father with disguise monster tactics. Solomon and David both had many wives, and one or both of them had many concubines as well to which they were not married. When David sent the other guy to die so he fuck the other guy's wife, God said, "Why did you kill him, David? I would have given you as many women as you wanted if you would have asked."

Sex is not a sin. The priests are sinners when they misuse the name of God to say that God hates it when you have sex with someone you're not married to. I hate it when they say that about me. They make my judgement look retarded to people who can't see through their lies. Sexual immorality and sex different things and it is not inherently immoral to have sex someone you're not married to.

Where is the natural crime? Every other thing God supposedly hates besides sex is a natural crime which any reasonable person can see is immoral without ever hearing one religious teaching of any sort. Except sex. For some reason, even though it is not a natural crime, the priest class wants you to think that sex is a magical crime, statutory in nature, which God also hates but seems good unlike all the other natural crimes like murder which make perfect sense.

Here is the solution to that quandary: lust of the flesh and the word that got translated as fornication both refer to a natural crime: kidnapping someone to chain them in your basement to torture and rape them to death. Whn you look at it like that, all sins are natural crimes and there is no longer this other magical crime that God has a boner about even though there's no obvious violation of the golden rule in feeling good while making someone else feel good as well.

[El Arcón No.11681485]

What kind of God is going to make a religion where he says, "I fucking hate sex, REEEEE!," over and over and over, but then never really say anything about, "I fucking hate it when you kidnap someone and chain them in your dungeon and then torture and rape them so you can amuse yourself with thier agony?"

[Anonymous No.11681765]

>>11681439
>>11681441
>>11681441
>>11681477
>>11681485
>namefag
>wall-of-text schizo
errytime

[Anonymous No.11682193]

>>11681391
How would you even begin to?

[Anonymous No.11682223]

>>11681235
>was not in my textbook
>institution never told me what to think about this topic
>does not compute

[Anonymous No.11682227]

>>11681298
literal fucking retard, holy shit how can people actually be this retarded

[Anonymous No.11682232]

>>11681765

schizoposting is way more interesting than having to listen to midwits brag about their average IQs for the 80 billionth time.

[Anonymous No.11682238]

>>11682232
What's Gary up to these days? When will he come back?

[Anonymous No.11682306]

>>11681114
Just read some actual physicalist perspectives rather than just taking chalmers viewpoint

[Anonymous No.11682313]

>>11682306
None of the physicalist perspectives are convincing.

[Anonymous No.11682367]

>thoughts are relayed by neurons (cells)
>cells are comprised of molecules
>molecules are comprised of atoms
>atoms are comprised of particles
>particles are comprised of quarks
Please tell me where in this process a "consciousness" comes into play that isn't affected by physical laws.

[Anonymous No.11682373]

>>11682367
>atoms are comprised of particles
Yeah about that...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

[Anonymous No.11682380]

why do nerds always make things more difficult than it is.
consciousness just means sensation/perception.

[Anonymous No.11682383]

>>11682367
>Please tell me where in this process a "consciousness" comes into play that isn't affected by physical laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation

[Anonymous No.11682388]

>>11682313
name one physicalist you've read

[Anonymous No.11682391]

>>11682388
Dennett

[Anonymous No.11682400]

>>11682227
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.11682403]

>>11682383
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11682406]

>>11682403
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
QM is Science, Moron.

[Anonymous No.11682419]

>>11682406
QM is science but schizo “””interpretations””” are >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11682422]

>>11682391
>a literal consciousness denier
lmao
believe what you want but at least don't have a retarded one sided understanding

[Anonymous No.11682429]

>>11682422
I will take eliminitivism before reductive materialism. If you want to be a physicalist then denying the phenomena altogether is gonna be way more viable than trying to reduce something that obviously cannot be reduced to physical interactions.

[Anonymous No.11682433]

>>11682419
>Despite nearly a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation best "represents" reality.[1][2
But you, YOU anon on the chinese board ditches the question that physics and philosophers have been debating for nearly a century.
Because you know best that everyone else right cause you special right? Faggot.

[Anonymous No.11682439]

>>11682433
>>Despite nearly a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of physics
this is because philosocucks are schizo retards that don’t understand physics.

[Anonymous No.11682441]

>>11682429
or you could actually read a book and learn that consistent materialists do not reduce consciousness to brain activity

[Anonymous No.11682446]

>>11682439
> no consensus has been reached among physicists
Good to know your reading comprehension is low like your iq

[Anonymous No.11682460]

>>11682441
Reducing it to functional states is just as hopeless, and emergence is not getting you anywhere. You're more than welcome to point out the specific view or book you think adequately provides a good account of phenomenal consciousness.

[Anonymous No.11682463]

>>11682223
>>11681380
Have you underagedb8s ever thought that some anons don’t study STEM to answer questions about "consciousness", and instead pursue it with the intent to actually accomplish something?
sage, go to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11682475]

>>11682367
>be quark
>want to bind with with other quarks because it is "energetically favorable"
>have volition
>be manifestation of will to power, whatever that is

[Anonymous No.11682485]

>>11682460
i just literally said that consistent materialists are NOT functionalists anon. you could instead believe that consciousness is made of CONSCIOUSNESS, and that consciousness is physical, entering into a memed world of physicalist panpsychist(endorsed by many materialists!)

[Anonymous No.11682494]

>>11682373
you have no idea what you’re even posting about brainlet

[Anonymous No.11682503]

>>11682446
>no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers
does not imply
>no consensus has been reached among physicists
you can't read and can't think

[Anonymous No.11682512]

>>11682485
You said they were not reducing it to brain states. But okay, in what ways is consciousness physical at that point? It feels like we're just stretching the definition of physical to include consciousness without really saying much about it. If it doesn't have the same sort of structural and behavioral properties as the other physical phenomena, then I think it makes more sense to think of it as non-physical, because at that point, what would non-physicality even entail; stretch physicalism to include too much and you've made the term meaningless.

If it does have the same structural and behavioral properties as the rest of the physical phenomena, then you're back to square 1, because none of those properties seem to be able to give you consciousness.

[Anonymous No.11682521]

>>11682494
He >>11682367 is trying to imply a mechanistic physics worldview(all is a deterministic machine), QM refutes that.

[Anonymous No.11682525]

>>11682521
where in QM does a consciousness come into play?

[Anonymous No.11682560]

>>11682512
Consciousness = perceptors and actuators + qualia + deep neural network + some other brain algorithm + biological complexity

Great. Now let's explain why "blue" is a thing

[Anonymous No.11682567]

>>11682512
>It feels like we're just stretching the definition of physical to include consciousness without really saying much about it.
do you have a competing definition of physical you'd like to offer? because if by physical all you mean is "not mental" then the term is already halfway towards being meaningless. why shouldn't a physicalist believe that consciousness is physical(while still being consciousness), if they believe that everything is physical?

>If it does have the same structural and behavioral properties as the rest of the physical phenomena, then you're back to square 1, because none of those properties seem to be able to give you consciousness.
what does this even mean? consciousness does not emerge out of anything, nor do you derive or out of anything. consciousness is directly experienced, it's the most certainly known thing there is. it's just also physical, which just happens to be made out of experience
this is not idealism because it's completely realist, everything is wholly mind independent (except for the parts that are minds), and is made of experience ;^)

[Anonymous No.11682586]

>>11682503
Damn you are so dumb, those Philosophers are the same Physicists who have come up with everything that's stopping a consensus in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11682588]

>>11682525
Here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism is correct.

[Anonymous No.11682605]

>>11682227
Prove it exists, faggot.

[Anonymous No.11682620]

>>11682567
You keep saying it's physical, but you haven't defined what it even means for something to be physical. As I said before, if you want physical to simply mean everything that exists in the world, then the term is completely meaningless.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hempel%27s_dilemma

[Anonymous No.11682678]

>>11682588
wouldn't that apply to any observer (conscious or not)? so a frog viewing it would have the same effect

[Anonymous No.11682681]

>>11682620
i'm still waiting for a reason why consciousness can't be physical. it seems like you've deliberately blocked the only option that makes sense, and are now complaining that materialism is stupid. if materialism denies consciousness, then you don't like it for the good reason that it is one sided and denies consciousness. but if it accepts consciousness (and is actually a consistent monism) then you don't like it for no reason whatsoever. little wonder that you don't like materialism then!

>physical
>if x is physical then x is concrete
>if x is physical then x is the subject matter of physics

>naturalism/materialim
>if x is physical then x is situated in space and time(our universe is spatiotemporal)
>if x is physical then x is governed by the laws of physics

>physicalism
>if x is found in our universe then x is physical

>panpsychism
>experience is in this universe, so experience is physical
it all adds up ;^)

[Anonymous No.11682685]

>>11682605
His post made you angry. That's proof.

[Anonymous No.11682709]

>>11682678
Yes that's why I mentioned Panpsychism which relies in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

[Anonymous No.11682740]

>>11682588
Lmao nigga you ever fucking read about double slit experiment? And you say consciousness is somehow related to QM motherfucker? What's next? Orch OR?

[Anonymous No.11682755]

>>11682681
If you want to say that something is physical when it's governed by the laws of physics or when it can be explained by physics, then you need to tackle Hempels dilemma that I linked earlier.

[Anonymous No.11682783]

>>11682755
Adding to that, the problem I have with ascribing physicality to consciousness is that it seems at its core fundamentally different to the sort of properties that physical laws describe. They describe behavior, whereas the phenomenal experience we have seems to be something entirely different. There seems to be a sort of intrinsic nature to the world that's not encapsulated by physical language at all. In a way I would consider consciousness to be natural, but not physical for the reasons above.

[Anonymous No.11682807]

>>11682755
i don't see how the "dilemma" (it's not actually a dichotomy) applies to panpsychism. physics is already describes a whole lot about physical objects, and yet it says nothing about their ultimate substance(and i don't expect it to, either. it does a good job at what it does.). i think what you really want to say is the my definition of physical is meaningless, but you resist my repeated invitations to explain why.

>They describe behavior, whereas the phenomenal experience we have seems to be something entirely different. There seems to be a sort of intrinsic nature to the world that's not encapsulated by physical language at all.
all true, but this doesn't prevent physics qua physics from telling us a lot about the structural/relational qualities of experience.

[Anonymous No.11682809]

>>11682807
also i somehow botched this post but just pretend i experienced a stroke while writing it.

[Anonymous No.11682827]

>>11682709
>provides reference for supporting own argument
>wikipedia

[Anonymous No.11682847]

>>11682709
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11682850]

>>11682586
>those Philosophers are the same Physicists
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11682857]

>>11682560
>. Now let's explain why "blue" is a thing

Yeah. Wavelength.... hmmmm. Not satisfied with that answer.

[Anonymous No.11682953]

>>11682850
Guess people like Niels Nohr and Werner Heisenberg Nobel in physics are not physicists now then lmao

[Anonymous No.11682958]

>>11682827
Read the footnotes if you don't like the layer then.

[Anonymous No.11682962]

>>11682953
they’re physicists not philsocucks. please stop trying to discuss physics until you have grasped basic literacy (and maybe boolean logic as well if you’re feeling ambitious)

[Anonymous No.11682963]

>>11682847
>>>/x/ for anything you don't like and challenges your worldview.

[Anonymous No.11682971]

>>11682953
Well many scientist have metafysical believes often based on their works, doesn't mean it's factual

[Anonymous No.11682978]

>>11682962
>You can't be both a physicists and philosopher.
Yeah fuck off.

[Anonymous No.11682985]

>>11682978
>You can't be both a physicists and philosopher.
correct. p.s.
>bohm
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11682995]

>>11682985
>You can only be one thing ever cause muh feelings
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.11682998]

>>11682995
>feelings
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11683003]

>>11682998
Not an argument btw. All you have done so far is fallacy.

[Anonymous No.11683009]

>>11682971
What is the factual nature of reality?

[Anonymous No.11683017]

>>11682807
If all we mean consciousness being physical is that we can use science to map how experience correlates with other physical phenomena, then I guess I agree that it's physical in that sense. But that's not really what the philosophical debate is getting at when we're asking about the nature of consciousness.

When I say I'm not a physicalist, that is in regards to the nature of the ultimate substance. Whether we can use physical tools to learn something about consciousness, I would say that the apparent differences between consciousness and other physical phenomena brings credence to the idea that we're dealing with fundamentally different substances (or different fundamental properties of the same substance).

[Anonymous No.11683027]

>>11682475
this

[Anonymous No.11683031]

>>11682962
>they’re physicists not philsocucks

[Anonymous No.11683032]

>>11683031
correct.

[Anonymous No.11683034]

>>11683031
>>11683003
damn I was late

[Anonymous No.11683038]

>>11683032
Retard.

[Anonymous No.11683045]

>>11683038
wrong

[Anonymous No.11683046]

>>11682740
Orch OR is right

[Anonymous No.11683050]

>>11683045
Someone ban this college dropout already

[Anonymous No.11683053]

>>11683050
>waaaaaaaaaah mods he’s bullying me
p.s. wrong

[Anonymous No.11683056]

>>11683053
Reminder that philosophy majors have the highest GRE scores out of all majors
http://dailynous.com/2019/10/11/philosophy-majors-gre-updated-data/
p.s. Correct

[Anonymous No.11683058]

>>11683056
>same quant score as biology
lmao

[Anonymous No.11683064]

>>11683058
More than enough to be smarter than physishits given their abysmal scores in everything else lmao

[Anonymous No.11683076]

>>11683064
>More than enough to be smarter than physishits

[Anonymous No.11683089]

>>11683076
IQ is a meme in comparison to the GRE you coping retard LMFAO

[Anonymous No.11683095]

>>11683089
>IQ is a meme
philosocope

[Anonymous No.11683098]

>>11683095
>"oh it seems you only got a 155 on the GRE, sorry that's not high enough to get into out program"
>"b-b-but muh IQ is 133 on an online IQ test I took!!"
PHYSISHITS ARE ACTUALLY FUCKING RETARDED LMFAO

[Anonymous No.11683102]

>>11683098
>online
as usual philosocucks literally cannot even read

[Anonymous No.11683110]

>>11683102
As usual physishit cannot stop coping

[Anonymous No.11683112]

>>11682685
Okay.

[Anonymous No.11683119]

>>11683110
seethe.

[Anonymous No.11683223]

>define consciousness
>you can't

[Anonymous No.11683244]

>>11683223
>>11681114

[Anonymous No.11683281]

>>11683244
That definition makes every form of life conscious. You could even argue that many proteins are conscious.
Then on the other side, you could claim that under this definition nothing is conscious if you're measuring order and chaos as entropy. Total entropy always goes up even if local entropy goes down.

[Anonymous No.11683285]

bump

[Anonymous No.11683341]

>>11682238
He's still around
>>11682252
>>11673965