Hard Problem of Consciousness

[Anonymous No.11684766]

How do you explain to philosophy faggots that there is no “hard problem” of consciousness, nothing about consciousness that implies it is impossible to explain scientifically? That it’s all soft problems, even if they are presently difficult and unknown?

I’m tired of having arguments with people who want to see Magic or some ineffable philosophy in everything. Literally had someone tell me that even if we could explain all the physical phenomena in matter that cause it and why it emerged in our evolution we still wouldn’t know “why” it existed. And then even said that understanding how gravity works, it’s effects and properties and how they emerge, doesn’t mean you can explain it.
“You can't explain gravity by appealing to gravity. What gives gravity its prescriptive ability? Who said that anything has to obey some invisible law of 'gravity'? Where did it originate?”

How do you talk to people who think material reality is second to endless wordplay? Should I just ignore “philosophers” or can you reason with them.

[Anonymous No.11684909]

>>11684766
How is subjective human experience a 'wordplay' you mental midget? Science is so far failing to explain how the objective physical mechanisms within the brain transform into subjective human understanding. How the interaction of light and the eyeball becomes understood as 'color', how the release of dopamine turns into a vague sense of 'bliss'. Sorry that despite all your efforts Philosophy Chads keep dabbing on your positivist ass.

[Anonymous No.11684914]

>>11684909
How is it a hard problem (unsolvable) and not a soft problem (solvable)

[Anonymous No.11684919]

>>11684766
sage in all fields

[Anonymous No.11684928]

>>11684914
It has been solved but 99% of the people are too stupid to understand it even though in all honesty none of the science should be hard to understand even for middle school level minds. It is quite paradoxical how retarded people truly are
http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

I mean it is honestly so obvious once you understand it you will feel like a moron for not understanding one of the most simplistic concepts imaginable. Something can only be the sum of its parts.

[Anonymous No.11684946]

>>11684909
>don't understand how X works
>therefore X is magic

[Anonymous No.11684952]

>>11684946
Nobody ever said consciousness is magic. Were you dropped as a baby and that made you imagine voices?

[Anonymous No.11684956]

>>11684952
>Nobody ever said consciousness is magic.
Except for all the people who do. You claim subjective human experience is different from objective physical mechanisms without explaining why.

[Anonymous No.11684976]

>>11684956
I dont claim it you monkey, its an obvious fact. We dont see in photons, we dont think in synapse impulses, we dont feel in chemical hormone binding. The burden of demonstration is you and your scientific beliefs to demonstrate the mechanism through which these particle interactions beget the picture of the world we simply understand as a human experience.

[Anonymous No.11684986]

>>11684946
It literally is magic but you are so fucking stupid you don't even know what the definition of it is because you have a sloppy stupid mind that only knows what pop culture spoon feeds it which is why you are a pseud no one takes seriously

[Anonymous No.11684994]

>>11684946
are you summing up the COPEnhagen interpretation?

[Anonymous No.11684999]

>>11684766
dont give a fuck about philosophers dude

[Anonymous No.11685004]

>>11684956
>subjective human experience is different from objective physical mechanisms
all you ever experience are sodium and potassium gradients in your nerves, these impulses are influenced by the forces acting on your nerves. Somehow these gradients are experienced by us as sight, hearing, taste and touch. How? Why? That's what we don't understand, why do we consciously experience this?

[Anonymous No.11685006]

>>11684999
I want to but then they tell me there’s a hard problem of gravity, which ends up in a logical loop where you can argue there’s a hard problem of walking since we can’t explain why we walk instead of teleport.
>>11684952
the hard problem posits quite directly that consciousness is process removed from the interaction of matter and energy.

why do schizos come on /sci/ anyway?

[Anonymous No.11685017]

>>11684956
If experience was the same as objective reality then we wouldn't need science you dumb dumb

[Anonymous No.11685024]

>>11684928
get your ass back to x with that bullshit

[Anonymous No.11685025]

>>11685004
that’s a soft problem. How? through the interactions in our bodies between matter and energy, which we are beginning to understand more precisely. Why? it seems fairly obvious that consciousness i
emerges from interacting with and manipulating the world to our benefit (which requires insight and introspection to draw conclusions and test ideas) ie tool use, alongside the need to communicate that knowledge to others, to our offspring, and to cooperate with others doing the same, which requires a theory of the mind to degrees and the ability to understand and communicate complicated ideas.

Also, btw, some humans don’t even have things many define as essential to humans supposedly speshul unique consciousness, such as theory of the mind, ability to visualize objects, internal speech, and experiencing emotions as qualia. not to mention we can see how lack of socialization in children raised without human interaction, brain damage from physical trauma, and genetic defects causing mental handicaps of various kinds, all affect consciousness and cognition. Proving that it’s tied to material processes and not divinely imbued. Not to mention the behaviors of the many intelligent species on earth which imply consciousness or at the very least check some of the boxes for it

[Anonymous No.11685027]

>>11685024
get your ass back to /lgbt/ tranny you will never be smart enough to do science

[Anonymous No.11685034]

>>11685025
None of that even begins to answer the question of the processes involved in the brain that can convert these chemical impulses into what we experience as consciousness. I think it's entirely material as well, and don't so much think it's a 'hard' problem, just an extremely difficult one.

[Anonymous No.11685037]

>>11685027
mad because you can’t reach CHIM aren’t you? Accept the Godhead anon. Allow your ego to exist even as your reason tells you you must not. Understand the dream and destroy the Sharmat

[Anonymous No.11685041]

>>11685037
>meanwhile literally me
dilate tranny

[Anonymous No.11685050]

>>11685034
We don’t need to answer the how of consciousness now, which I couldn’t hope to do because we aren’t there yet and I’m certainly no neuroscientist, but simply demonstrate that it is a physical phenomena which can in the future be solved with science. I’m not trying to answer the problem, but only prove it can be answered.
In my mind it’s like saying the black body problem was a hard problem, or the orbit of mercury. Just because we don’t have an answer now doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
A hard problem could be something like “what goes on inside a specific black hole” since we can’t seem to figure out a way to get information out of one or “what’s outside the observe-able universe”. both of which might actually be soft problems too.

[Anonymous No.11685056]

>>11685041
n’wah

[Anonymous No.11685076]

>>11685050
We never "needed" to advance scientifically lol

From the OP
> Literally had someone tell me that even if we could explain all the physical phenomena in matter that cause it and why it emerged in our evolution we still wouldn’t know “why” it existed. And then even said that understanding how gravity works, it’s effects and properties and how they emerge, doesn’t mean you can explain it.
“You can't explain gravity by appealing to gravity. What gives gravity its prescriptive ability? Who said that anything has to obey some invisible law of 'gravity'? Where did it originate?”
If people didn't think like this then we would never advance, Einstein didn't advance our understanding of gravity by not questioning Newton.

[Anonymous No.11685081]

>>11684976
>I dont claim it you monkey, its an obvious fact.
LOL so you do claim it.

>We dont see in photons, we dont think in synapse impulses, we dont feel in chemical hormone binding.
You also don't see the bits flipping in your computer, doesn't mean that isn't what's going on when you use it. You're assuming that you see everything when obviously you don't.

>The burden of demonstration is you and your scientific beliefs to demonstrate the mechanism through which these particle interactions beget the picture of the world we simply understand as a human experience.
If you claim something is impossible then the burden of proof is on you. That's a much stronger statement than saying something is unproven.

[Anonymous No.11685084]

>>11684952
See >>11684986

[Anonymous No.11685085]

>>11685004
>all you ever experience are sodium and potassium gradients in your nerves, these impulses are influenced by the forces acting on your nerves.
Well I guess neuroscience is pointless then since you understand everything.

>How?
To be determined.

>Why?
Nonsense question.

>That's what we don't understand, why do we consciously experience this?
Yeah I never said we do understand it. I'm asking how it's known that it can't be understood.

[Anonymous No.11685088]

>>11685017
I didn't say experience is the same as objective reality, I asked why you think subjective human experience is different from objective physical mechanisms. I thought "philosophers" could read.

[Anonymous No.11685090]

>>11685076
no, anon, you misunderstand me. Sorry for being unclear. I mean we, for the sake of arguing that there isn’t a hard problem of consciousness, don’t need to answer the how of consciousness /right now/, to prove that it’s not a hard problem, simply demonstrate that there is no evidence that we cannot answer it, and that there is nothing special about consciousness that is unrelated to the material universe - that is, consciousness arises from the interactions between non-metaphysical forces and matter.
Obviously we should answer it, we should figure out how consciousness arises. all these things should be answered, but the fact that we haven’t answered them is not proof that science cannot answer them, which is the entire argument.
Einstein questioned newton, he didn’t say that since newton wasn’t completely right we could never scientifically understand gravity, which was the literal argument the person I was quoting was making

[Anonymous No.11685094]

>>11685085
I never claimed that because we don't full understand something that it's pointless you fucknugget

No shit

Only if you've lost the sense of wonder that lead you to like science in the first place, in which case you probably lack the imagination to think outside of the box

I already said it can be understood

[Anonymous No.11685097]

>>11685090
In that case I agree completely then

[Anonymous No.11685111]

>>11685094
Then why did you reply to my post?

[Anonymous No.11685115]

>>11685085
you’re being a sperg but I must agree: why is a nonsense question in english. It implies “for what purpose” when really when we ask “why” in such a context we should only be asking “what caused this to come about?”

hence, “why is there life?” is not “for what purpose is there life?” but “what circumstances allowed for life to come about? what causes life to form?”

[Anonymous No.11685118]

>>11685111
You claimed that our experience is the same as objective reality, when it isn't. Our senses are unreliable and what we experience are the processes in our brain, not directly what our nerves detect.

[Anonymous No.11685126]

>>11685084
>look where I got clowned for claiming something that wasn't true to begin with, that even if it were true, I was still wrong
>I thought this was somehow a smart thing to point out while implying someone else is stupid
You are a stone cold retard my dude, your level of retardation is quite impressive even for this place where high levels of retardation are very common

[Anonymous No.11685137]

>>11684766
You literally are angry that you got btfo and look like a real coping faggot right now.

[Anonymous No.11685140]

>>11685137
prove there’s a hard problem. I will wait

[Anonymous No.11685144]

>>11684999
Ignoring the problems isn't going to magically make them go away and isn't going to help you gain the understanding of what's happening

[Anonymous No.11685152]

>>11685006
>the hard problem posits quite directly that consciousness is process removed from the interaction of matter and energy.
That does not make it magic as if it had ontological existence it can not be magic by definition.
You a priori say "only things that are matter and energy are real" and then conclude that things that wouldn't be explainable by matter and energy must be not real. But that's just your flaw with what you took to believe a priori. You are just wrong in your initial assumption, it is not the case that all things with ontological existence are made of matter or energy

[Anonymous No.11685155]

>>11685152
>watch as people argue against this while taking the wave faction to be real at face value

[Anonymous No.11685156]

>>11685118
>You claimed that our experience is the same as objective reality, when it isn't.
Wrong. See >>11685088

[Anonymous No.11685157]

>>11685155
>faction
function

[Anonymous No.11685159]

>>11685041
You wouldn't be this angry posting this shit if you were actually like that

[Anonymous No.11685164]

>>11685156
You could have worded it much better if you just meant that consciousness is the result of material interaction

[Anonymous No.11685165]

>>11685152
wrong! cool post dude not understanding the debate. at least google the hard problem before you jump on

> The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why and how sentient organisms have qualia or phenomenal experiences—how and why it is that some internal states are subjective, felt states, such as heat or pain, rather than merely nonsubjective, unfelt states, as in a thermostat or a toaster. The philosopher David Chalmers, who introduced the term "hard problem" of consciousness, contrasts this with the "easy problems" of explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, and so forth. Easy problems are (relatively) easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. That is, regardless of how complex or poorly understood the phenomena of the easy problems may be, they can eventually be understood by relying entirely on standard scientific methodologies. Chalmers claims that the problem of experience is distinct from this set and will "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained".

[Anonymous No.11685177]

>>11685088
>I asked why you think subjective human experience is different from objective physical mechanisms.
Because if it werent then what you're saying is that dopamine literally just "feels good" as a chemical, when you have a pile of dopamine sitting on the table that dopamine is "feeling good" sitting there because there is no difference between the physical substance and the subjective substance.
If you do not believe that that is true (because it's retarded) then you're beginning to understand what the hard problem is asking

[Anonymous No.11685179]

>>11685165
Nothing about that in any way disproves what I said and I have no idea what you're posting that.

[Anonymous No.11685183]

>>11685155
I know, these people are fucking retarded anon.
The wave function is a great example of something with objective ontological existence that is not matter or energy or physical at all.

[Anonymous No.11685186]

>>11685183
I would argue that the wave function isn't actually real though and Bohr's interpretation is wrong. I was just waiting for the blind followers who don't grasp the implications

[Anonymous No.11685188]

>>11684766
OP, believing in a magic property that govern consciousness is a survival mechanism, almost every human will react with anger if you try to tell them they are not conscious. The believe that you an a unique and special person is what drives you to keep pushing and get more and better things for yourself, enhancing survival chances. Humans think consciousness directs their life and decisions, but consciousness is merely a set of rose tinted goggles that receive instructions from the lizard brain.

[Anonymous No.11685189]

>>11685188
Low IQ
If consciousness is emergent then it has objective ontological existence (as an emergent property). Your position literally contradicts itself and is very low IQ

[Anonymous No.11685203]

>>11685189
you’re an idiot. We all seem to literally agree there’s no hard problem. but you have to larp as the smartest guy in the room
>>11685179
because what you said is not relevant to the debate over whether there is a hard problem or not, you got fixated on me saying “matter and energy” as an incorrect (I’ll admit I wasn’t thinking) stand in for “non metaphysical phenomena” or “thing which exists objectively.” which is what’s relevant to the actual debate about whether consciousness can be explained by scientific methodologies or if subjective experience is metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.11685214]

>>11685203
>you’re an idiot. We all seem to literally agree there’s no hard problem. but you have to larp as the smartest guy in the room
No, you are not even understanding what is being said.
>because what you said is not relevant to the debate over whether there is a hard problem or not, you got fixated on me saying “matter and energy” as an incorrect (I’ll admit I wasn’t thinking) stand in for “non metaphysical phenomena” or “thing which exists objectively.” which is what’s relevant to the actual debate about whether consciousness can be explained by scientific methodologies or if subjective experience is metaphysical.
The whole point is consciousness is not a metaphysical phenomenon that does not exist as interactions between the known physical substances. It would still be objectively real. It would not be metaphysical. It would be a different substance than the "physical" substances we know of now.

[Anonymous No.11685222]

>>11685214
I should rephrase this to make it more clear:
"Consciousness is not a metaphysica thing, and it does not exist as interactions between currently known substances"

[Anonymous No.11685228]

>>11684976
>We dont see in photons, we dont think in synapse impulses, we dont feel in chemical hormone binding.
We do.
Your problem is you have imagined images of what thees things are in order to think about them, and then gotten confused trying to translate it back to actual reality.

You are not missing any steps. What you see are photons, the 'reality in your mind' is directly those photons entering your brain. That is how the matter of your mind 'experiences' the matter (in a 'physically real' sense) of those photons.

You take the sensations you have as being unique when a thought or emotion is no less a basic cause and effect as any other physical interaction we can observe. The only difference is as we are ourselves we experience the actual interaction, whereas if we look at other objects interacting we do not see those interactions in the same way. Just as you can be punched and feel pain, you do not feel pain seeing someone else be punched, nor do you feel pain driving a nail. I am not saying nails feel pain, but rather if a nail had the same physical construction as you do, it would indeed feel pain.

[Anonymous No.11685241]

>>11685126
>>look where I got clowned for claiming something that wasn't true to begin with, that even if it were true, I was still wrong
This is gibberish. You claimed no one said conscientious is magic when I see claiming that every day.

[Anonymous No.11685244]

>>11685228
If what you see is what is actually real then why do people hallucinate? What is dreaming, or imagination?

[Anonymous No.11685245]

>>11685164
My wording was mirroring the post I replied to. It's not my fault you can't read.

[Anonymous No.11685246]

>>11685222
>"Consciousness is not a metaphysical thing, and it does not exist as interactions between currently known substances"
If this is true there’s still no hard problem, is there. It is not metaphysical and the substances are not known but not unknowable by science. I fail to see our disagreement on the central point - you don’t seem to think consciousness cannot be understood “even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained"
However I disagree with your supposition that ”it does not exist as interactions between currently known substances.” theres not evidence of that, there’s evidence that it exists as unknown interactions between currently known substances, unless by substances you could mean a composite object like a neuron. We haven’t gotten to a point in this field, unless I’m much mistaken, where that holds true. it could involve unknown substances or structures, but it doesn’t have to, I don’t think.

[Anonymous No.11685249]

>>11685244
signal noise

[Anonymous No.11685253]

>>11685244
messages from God. he says you need to get high

[Anonymous No.11685254]

>>11685244
dreaming is produced by the brain from memory, imagination is future planning. if you have visual reasoning dreaming and imagination are not all that unreasonable things. hallucination disrupts your normal brain function by some means where the most disruption is death.

[Anonymous No.11685256]

>>11685228
>>11685246
You are claiming that there are no differences between the physical interactions of the pieces of matter and the subjective experiences of the pieces of matter, and you are claiming that "the pattern of matter that makes up an experience is the same thing as the experience itself".
When I feel pain or look at a picture of an apple, and when you feel pain and look at the same picture of an apple, the pattern of electrons and movement of the particles and pieces of matter that makes up our bodies is COMPLETELY different from each other, entirely different, when you look at them purely from the most reductionist standpoint of "electrons and gluons and such vibrating in certain motions". My brain's firing when it sees the color red is COMPLETELY different from when you see the color red. But we both see the same red. We both see the same picture of the apple, feel the same pain.
So there must exists some non-injective function from "the set of all physical interactions" into "the set of all experiences" in which case we are showing there is a difference between the physical interaction and the subjective experience (because otherwise two different physical vibrations of matter couldn't lead to the same experience) and they are ontologically distinct. The only way this couldn't be true is if you and I and any other third person actually did have the same "pattern of vibration" in the fundamental pieces of matter in our bodies when we had an experience, but we know that this is not true.
1/n

[Anonymous No.11685266]

>>11685249
Imagination definitely isn't. If you picture a pink elephant then your brain has constructed an image based on prior information. It's known that you also do this in situations when you think you're actually seeing the real world, that's hallucination.

Also if we really we're just seeing the photons as they are then why does it appear to be 3D instead of 2D like our retina? And why isn't everything upside down? Also why when you look at an unclear image, but then notice a recognisable shape can you not "unsee" it? What happened when you recognised it? Is it possible that your subconscious was analysing the information and presenting you the most useful version of it, rather than supplying the raw data?

[post 2 No.11685267]

>>11685256
continued....
Furthermore, IF there does not exist a difference between the physical substence and the subjective experience, then that MUST imply that every physical substance that leads to an experience must have that "experience" within/as the substance. "dopamine makes good feelings" means that dopamine itself IS good feelings, like what I said here >>11685177 the pile of dopamine sitting on the table must "feel good" in the same way that dopamine "feels good" when you have it in you, otherwise there would be an emergent/non fundamental property of "feeling good" that dopamine has that is not reducible to the physical substance of dopamine, which contradicts your position.

[Anonymous No.11685280]

>>11685266
>why does it appear to be 3D instead of 2D like our retina? And why isn't everything upside down?
these questions are really not as inexplicable a you think, literally just google it...

>your subconscious was analysing the information and presenting you the most useful version of it, rather than supplying the raw data?
yes that's literally it

[Anonymous No.11685284]

>>11685280
So how can you say that it's a true reflection of reality?

[Anonymous No.11685286]

Here's an experiment OP. I strap you to a james bond torture tool and I also strap on a computer that simulates your body that is to run the simulation of the following event. In both cases, I put a rock in a piece of cloth and ram your testicles with it. The computer 'you' shrieks and makes noises, visibly in pain, so do you. So what is the difference? Will you say your pain is more real than what the machine feels?

[Anonymous No.11685292]

>>11685286
If both your body and the simulation feel pain, this proves that the feelings of pain and the subjective experiences are NOT contingent upon physical pieces of matter by the two posts I wrote above.

[Anonymous No.11685294]

>>11685159
would be hilarious if he was actually Shiva, on 4chan shitposting

[Anonymous No.11685295]

>>11685177
>Because if it werent then what you're saying is that dopamine literally just "feels good" as a chemical
No. That's like saying fuel goes fast if engines are based on physical processes. You're retarded.

[Anonymous No.11685300]

>>11685295
No, it's not, at all.
Read and answer the two posts above where I make the point more clearly.

[Anonymous No.11685303]

>>11685256
>the color red is COMPLETELY different
a computer does not execute the same program in exactly the same way, the result is the same every time. your genes are very similar to mine, we had a common ancestor. your red is practically the same as mine.

[Anonymous No.11685307]

>>11685256
>So there must exists some non-injective function from "the set of all physical interactions"
it's called genes, and just because a computer executes differently every time and there are various kidns of computers doesn't mean we don't understand how computers work.

[Anonymous No.11685309]

>>11685300
It is since you confuse "physical mechanism" for "substance." Dopamine doesn't do anything on its own. Philosotards literally can't read.

[Anonymous No.11685310]

>>11685303
We actually have no idea if that's true or not. The brain is extremely malleable and we don't know what knowledge you're born with. It could be that your brain just assigns a colour to a wavelength and that's how you see it. There's a guy who's blind but uses a microphone to see colours,.

[Anonymous No.11685312]

>>11685303
>a computer does not execute the same program in exactly the same way, the result is the same every time
Exactly my point
>your red is practically the same as mine.
Exactly my point.
We have the same experiences but ENTIRELY different movements and vibrations of electrons and gluons and other fundamental particles inside us. This in non-injective. There is no bijection between "The set of physical patterns of matter" and "the set of subjective experiences" which means they can not be isomorphic.
>>11685307
This has nothing to do with what I said.
>>11685309
I study math, not philosophy, and you are the one who clearly has no reading comprehension because the way you're replying makes no sense with respect to what I've said.

[Anonymous No.11685314]

>>11685256
>we are showing there is a difference between the physical interaction and the subjective experience
non sequitor
>two different physical vibrations of matter couldn't lead to the same experience
yes the could, and of course it's never exactly the same. think about the computer analogy again.

[Anonymous No.11685315]

>>11685314
The computer analogy proves MY point, not yours.

[Anonymous No.11685317]

>>11685310
>we don't know what knowledge you're born with
yes we know, maybe you don't. it's called instincts, see Baldwin effect

[Anonymous No.11685321]

>>11685317
Sure you know every detail of the knowledge babies are born with and which things they learn in the womb, you should probably publish that.

[Anonymous No.11685324]

>>11685315
nigger your whole point was that there was since 2 different things can produce the same result then there is some "magic doodoo" that;s non physical, and i disproved you by the analogy of computers.

[Anonymous No.11685332]

>>11685321
see >>11685317

[Anonymous No.11685342]

>>11685312
Me:
>I asked why you think subjective human experience is different from objective physical mechanisms

You:
>Because if it werent then what you're saying is that dopamine literally just "feels good" as a chemical, when you have a pile of dopamine sitting on the table that dopamine is "feeling good" sitting there because there is no difference between the physical substance and the subjective substance.

Both posts are talking about substance and dopamine when I never said anything about substance.

[Anonymous No.11685344]

>>11685324
The set of all subjective experiences has no inverse mapping back to the set of all physical patterns of matter which means that they can not be the same thing. They MUST be ontologically distinct
This is not "magic" or "voodoo". There are great amounts of different patterns of matter that map to the same experience because the experience itself is separate from any matter, just like the matter itself is separate from any experience. They are both ontologically real and separate things.
You did not even come close to "disproving me with the analogy of computers", literally the opposite. The computer analogy shows that different arrangements of matter can map to the same behavior meaning they are not isomorphic, and they have ontological distinction.

[Anonymous No.11685346]

>>11685332
>Baldwin effect
You realise that has fuck all to do with what I'm saying right? What does that have to say about how your brain interprets a wavelength of light? Not to mention it's a fringe theory.

[Anonymous No.11685349]

>>11684928
>esotericawakening.com
yikes

[Anonymous No.11685353]

>>11685346
>how your brain interprets a wavelength of light
genetic evolution, it's not a skill that babies have it's literally how they get born

[Anonymous No.11685364]

>>11685353
I gave an example of somebody born without the ability to see who by modifying his senses with a microphone that hums at different frequencies for different colours, can now see colour.
The brain adapts to whatever information is provided to it, how you perceive different wavelengths of light isn't necessarily down to genetic, the ability to perceive light is.
I'm also saying that we don't know, I don't know why you're so sure when it's an unanswered question in the scientific community.

[Anonymous No.11685372]

>>11685344
>The set of all subjective experiences has no inverse mapping back to the set of all physical patterns of matter which means that they can not be the same thing
your brain is literally made of physical matter and when that matter stops doing what it does you're dead. this is the "mapping".

>i cannot see how an abstraction layer emerges from a physical brain therefore consciousness is non physical

[Anonymous No.11685376]

>>11685372
>your brain is literally made of physical matter and when that matter stops doing what it does you're dead. this is the "mapping".
This in no way changes or refutes or even responds to anything that I've said. It doesn't even make sense with respect to what I'm saying. I never even said anything to disagree with this anywhere. What the fuck are you talking about? Are you struggling to understand what I'm saying?
>>i cannot see how an abstraction layer emerges from a physical brain therefore consciousness is non physical
This has nothing to do with what I've said or my argument.

[Anonymous No.11685379]

>>11685364
>The brain adapts to whatever information is provided to it
not entirely true, if you convert sound into the part of the visual processing part of the brain it's gonna use a visual processing framework to interpret the signals, jsut because his eyes are defective doesn't mean his brain is.
>how you perceive different wavelengths of light isn't necessarily down to genetic
it literally is, some species see different wavelengths.

[Anonymous No.11685402]

>>11685379
>not entirely true, if you convert sound into the part of the visual processing part of the brain it's gonna use a visual processing framework to interpret the signals, jsut because his eyes are defective doesn't mean his brain is.
That isn't how it works, he does actually hear the sound and his brain converts the sounds into images, which has the side effect of him seeing all sounds as colours
>it literally is, some species see different wavelengths.
That wasn't my point, which wavelengths you can see is genetic, but how you perceive those wavelengths isn't necessarily.

[Anonymous No.11685405]

>>11685376
>Are you struggling to understand what I'm saying?
you're saying that consciousness is distinct from physicality?

>durr this has nothing to do with what I've said or my argument
>The set of all subjective experiences has no inverse mapping back to the set of all physical patterns
except that genetics determine everything you will experience and how you will experience it
>different arrangements of matter can map to the same behavior meaning they are not isomorphic
they are "isomorphic" bacause the experience itself is never exactly the same but similar. and i don't see how that is improtant.

the facts are pretty simple, your genes determine the scope of your experience. your physicality determines your experience. your consciousness is an abstract layer above your deterministic physicality. there is no argument for why cosciousness is distinct from physicality.

[Anonymous No.11685411]

>>11685402
>he does actually hear the sound and his brain converts the sounds into images
source?
>how you perceive those wavelengths isn't necessarily
it is, no human can hear percieve the sound of a dog whistle. it is 100% genetic

[Anonymous No.11685416]

>>11685405
I'm saying that the "set of all physical arrangements of matter" is not isomorphic with "The set of all experiences" which means they can not be ontologically the same thing.
>except that genetics determine everything you will experience and how you will experience it
This does not do anything to disprove my argument
>they are "isomorphic" bacause the experience itself is never exactly the same but similar. and i don't see how that is improtant.
They are not isomorphic because we've already shown there is a non-injective mapping between physical arrangements of matter and experiences. Your own computer analogy already showed this. Two different machines will have completely different underlying placements and arrangements of electrons, different memory addresses where things are stored in different distances with respect to other addresses, etc., and yet the same program will run with the same complexity and everything.
You and I will both take in the same wavelength of red and then our bodies and brains will perform compltely different computations and the electrons and molecules that vibrate inside us will be completely different and yet we both see red.
This is non-injective.
>the facts are pretty simple, your genes determine the scope of your experience. your physicality determines your experience. your consciousness is an abstract layer above your deterministic physicality. there is no argument for why cosciousness is distinct from physicality.
This has nothing to do with what I'm saying and does not rebuke what I'm saying at all. Stop repeating yourself. BTW there is no determinism, but that has nothing to do with this conversation.

[Anonymous No.11685417]

>>11685411
He's called Neil Harbisson
>it is, no human can hear percieve the sound of a dog whistle. it is 100% genetic
are you purposefully missing my point or are you just incapable of understanding what I'm saying? No human can DETECT a dog whistle. Two people can detect the same thing, but perceive something different.

[Anonymous No.11685428]

>>11685417
>Two people can detect the same thing, but perceive something different.
prove it

[Anonymous No.11685429]

>>11685416
but the experience itself is not exactly the same so it's not "isomorphic", your whole argument relies on this assumption that it is. with computers it is easy because we are not talking about experience but only a computation

[Anonymous No.11685430]

>>11685428

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685431]

>>11685416
To extrapolate on this more, what I'm saying is that what makes you, "you", is NOT the physical pattern of matter that exists in your body computing things, but rather the subspace of the "space of all experiences" that this computation maps to. As we've already shown, there is a non-injective mapping from "the set of all physical arrangements of matter" into the "set of all experiences". This means that ANY arrangement of matter that maps to the same subspace in the space of all experiences, is the same in terms of experiences.
If we were to program you into a computer with the exact same mapping to the set of all experiences, it would be literally you despite the fact that it's a completely different set of physical interactions/arrangement of matter. You are the subspace in the set of all experiences, NOT the subspace in the "set of all physical arrangements of matter". Just like a computer program is the program behavior and NOT the "set of all physical interactions of electrons in the mother board" (a mergesort algorithm is equal to itself, regardless of its physical manifestation)

[Anonymous No.11685435]

>>11685429
*is "isomrphic"

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685440]

>>11685429
It is the same in the same way the computer program is the same.
When I feel pain and when you feel pain and when a chimpanzee feels pain is the same sensation regardless of the vastly different arrangements of matter and stuff that's happening in our bodies.

[Anonymous No.11685443]

ITT stemcucks ragie in their brain cagie

[Anonymous No.11685451]

>>11685440
>When I feel pain and when you feel pain and when a chimpanzee feels pain is the same sensation
you cannot possibly prove this

[Anonymous No.11685452]

>>11685284
>true reflection
you are the one adding this extra step in. Its not a reflection of reality, it is directly reality.

[Anonymous No.11685456]

>>11685417
>Two people can detect the same thing, but perceive something different
because they are different. and their perception is based on the difference in their physicality, therefore cosciousness is emergent of deterministic physicality

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685462]

>>11685451
So you believe that the red I see is different from the red you see? OR more specifically, when you and I see the same red, the computation in our bodies is EXACTLY the same?
Because if so, you're retarded

[Anonymous No.11685463]

>>11685452
If it's direct reality then why do we need scientific instruments to tell us more about the world than our sense? If it's actually then photons we see then >>11685266

[Anonymous No.11685467]

>>11685462
>So you believe that the red I see is different from the red you see?
prove that they’re identical.

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685480]

>>11685467
They are identical in the same way that the same mergesort function running on completely different computers performs the same way.

[Anonymous No.11685487]

>>11685456
That's what I've been trying to get across, but I'm trying to get this tard to realise for himself by asking questions that should lead him to that answer.

[Anonymous No.11685490]

>>11685456
>>11685487
Except for the last bit, that's a big leap for a therefore

[Anonymous No.11685496]

>>11685480
prove it

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685498]

>>11685456
Physics is not deterministic so I don't understand why you keep saying "deterministic physicality". Determinism isn't even relevant one way or the other to this conversation. Whether or not determinism is true changes nothing about the problem.
>>11685487
>>11685490
I understand what you're saying, you're just wrong. Its not a matter of me not understanding.

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685501]

>>11685496
It's already proven in the fields of mathematics and computer science. If you wish to disagree with that then you're no longer worth talking to as you deny mathematics, in which case you have no basis for your position anyway.

[Anonymous No.11685504]

>>11685498
I haven't even replied to you once my dude. What makes you think physics isn't deterministic? Do you not believe in cause and effect?

[Anonymous No.11685509]

>>11685501
>math and computer science have proven results about color perception
lol ok retard

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685511]

>>11685504
Causality and determinism are not the same thing.
Quantum Mechanics has disproven determinism entirely and it is not accepted among physicists outside of some quacks who believe in pilot wave theory.

[Anonymous No.11685513]

>>11685511
>Quantum Mechanics has disproven determinism entirely
most popsci take, most physicists don't believe this

[Anonymous No.11685514]

>>11685513
yes they do. pilot wave is a schizo meme

[Anonymous No.11685518]

>>11685514
most don't believe pilot wave either, that's a false dichotomy. Most don't believe that the wave function is a real thing, but a statistical explanation of processes we don't understand.

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685519]

>>11685509
No, they've proven that two algorithms performing on different physical structures are still the same algorithm. This is not debatable, you dumbfuck, it's literally the foundation of the field of computer science.
What you're claiming is that when red light enters into your eyes vs my eyes, that because the computation is different in our bodies, our experience of red is also different. That's trivially disproven by the fact that we already know that different computations in physical substrates lead to the same algorithm and output. We already know there is a non injective function from the space of all physical computers into the space of all algorithms.

[Anonymous No.11685524]

>>11685518
>Most don't believe that the wave function is a real thing, but a statistical explanation of processes we don't understand.
utterly wrong, read a single intro quantum textbook

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685525]

>>11685518
The vast majority of physicists believe that fundamental randomness does exist and it is an inherent property of particles and not a limitation of our understand or equipment (also, this is what it actually is, physicists are right about this).

[Anonymous No.11685527]

>>11685487
>>11685490
i am that "tard", and about 50 replies back i told you that cosciousness is an abstraction layer above physicality but you said that it's distinct from it and 2 different physicalities can result in the same experience and that supposedly meant that there is a distinction from the two. no there is no meaningful distinction. kys

[Anonymous No.11685530]

>>11685519
we're talking about brains not algorithms

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685540]

>>11685527
It HAS TO BE distinct from it if there is a non injective mapping.
The fact that there's a mapping means that there must be a physical arrangement of matter to make to some experience, but the fact that the mapping is not injective means that the space of experiences is not ontologically the same as the physical arrangements of matter that map to it.
What makes pain, pain, is NOT the physical arrangement of matter that maps to it, but rather the subspace in the space of all experiences that any physical arrangement of matter that can map to pain experiences.
Just like what makes a mergesort a mergesort is NOT the physically movement of matter but rather the actual operations of the mergesort (which is why mergesort can be run on vastly different pieces of matter but still be the same mergesort)
>>11685530
So you're saying that the brain doesn't run physical computations? Then you can't say that experiences and consciousness are physical things.

[Anonymous No.11685555]

>>11685524
>>11685525
That was the view of Bohr and is taught in text book but it's just one valid interpretation. You treat physicists like priests.

Let's see how the experts discuss it, I wonder if any of them argue in favour of the Copenhagen interpretation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdqC2bVLesQ

[Anonymous No.11685559]

>>11685555
>You treat physicists like priests.
>posts popsci documentary
lmao

[Anonymous No.11685561]

>>11685555

[Anonymous No.11685562]

>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YPU CAN'T JUST IMPLY THAT SCIENCE ISN'T ALMIGHTY YOU'LL SEE WHEN I SIMULATE YOU ON A COMPUTER
haha god-given soul go brrrrrrr :D

[Anonymous No.11685566]

>>11685555
>it's just one valid interpretation
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11685571]

>>11685559
It's a debate between 4 experts, not a documentary lol
>>11685566
lol tell the majority of scientists to go there then

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685574]

>>11685555
The copenhagen interpretation is not what we're talking about here. It is not the only random interpretation. The copenhagen is the "shut up and calculate" interpretation.

I recommend you work through this video and this video series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ3bPUKo5zc

[Anonymous No.11685577]

>>11685571
>the majority of scientists
wrong.

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685587]

Whether or not reality is deterministic also doesn't mean anything with respect to consciousness being ontologically separate from physical arrangements of matter, btw.

[Anonymous No.11685595]

>>11685577
the data says otherwise
>>11685574
the majority of other interpretations are deterministic, even many worlds claims to be.
Shut up and calculate is not the copenhagen interpretation, it's saying that we don't know so just keep going

[Anonymous No.11685616]

>>11685527
I think our conversations got crossed at some point by the way

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685619]

>>11685595
That data clearly shows the vast majority of physicists are not determinists.
And again, determinism has nothing to do with consciousness one way or the other.

[Anonymous No.11685621]

>>11684766
>Hard Problem of Consciousness
define "consciousness"

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685624]

>>11685621
Something does not need a formal definition to have ontological existence. Try again.

[Anonymous No.11685627]

>>11684956
>You claim subjective human experience is different from objective physical mechanisms without explaining why.
Because I'm not neuroscientifically omniscient. My thoughts and experiences are direct observations. If qualia and the neurologiacl mechanisms that cause it are ontologically the same thing, I should be able to directly observe the neurological mechanisms that occur in my brain. Yet I cannot directly observe those mechanisms. If qualia has characteristics like direct observability that neurological processes do not, you must conclude that they are ontologically different.

[Anonymous No.11685629]

>>11685595
>not linking the paper
proof that you're a schizo retard
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069.pdf
things to note:
>conference on "quantum foundations" i.e. >>>/x/
>33 participants
>still only 9% of the schizos thought randomness wasn't fundamental
in conclusion >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11685630]

>>11685619
Well I think I got my point across that it isn't a settled issue that you should take for granted anyway

[Anonymous No.11685635]

>>11685629
stop projecting, schizo. You seem to be very insecure

[Anonymous No.11685646]

>>11685635
cope

[Anonymous No.11685653]

>there is no hard problem of consciousness
kek

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685659]

>>11685630
Yes I agree with you, it's not exactly known but it very strongly is likely that there is randomness. However this makes no difference to the debate. My original point of contention was you claiming that because "consciousness emerges from deterministic physicality" that is is the same as physical operations that it emerges from. This is not the case.
IF some extremely powerful entity were to take the physical computation that my brain and molecular structure performs when I experience the color red, and cause YOUR molecular structure to vibrate in the exact same way, do you think that you would see the color red in your mind, or would you start spasming out and shit because the two computations do not map to the same experience between our computations?

Both our machines right now are reading in the same HTML, CSS, and Javascript code from this webpage. From there, COMPLETELY different underlying computations and movements of electrons and heat and shit are being performed in out machines, but then the same webpage emerges on our screens. This is non-injective.

Literally all evidence indicates that the mapping is non injective meaning that the two spaces can not be isomorphic and can not be ontologically the same thing.

[Anonymous No.11685662]

>>11685659
That wasn't actually me, but I think this whole computation analogy is a bit silly without us knowing more about how the brain actually functions

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685665]

>>11685627
Mysterianism is a form of materialism just with the caveat that "we'll never find out the answer though!". I dont fully understand the motivation for the position, excuse my ignorance.

[Anonymous No.11685674]

>>11684766
I think you’re missing the point, although I agree with you about philosophy generally being meaningless wank over linguistically propped-up pseudo-problems.
But the hard problem is still valid imo. External subjectivity by definition isn’t directly observable, since your conscious experience is confined to itself. Maybe you could hook up a machine to someone and scan their brain and approximately replicate their sense perception, their mind’s eye, classify the emotion, etc. But you can never actually “see” their subjective experience. E.g., if we identified a brainwave or neural activity pattern or whatever, that was tightly correlated with outward displays and subjective reports of anger. You could scan someone’s brain and see if they’re going to think and act in ways consistent with our idea of anger, but you could never know if their internal experience actually matched the qualia that you associate with being angry yourself

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685686]

>>11685662
We don't have to know how the brain specifically functions to look at the general case of "movements of fundamental particles vibrating in spacetime". That's the reduction which is what actually matters. If we disprove it reductively there is nothing that more knowledge about the function of the brain can do to change the result.
You and I and every human and animal are arrangements of the fundamental particles. We are all entirely different arrangements. If you were to look at my arrangement and your arrangement (say as like a giant matrix or something) you would never find any similarities. We're just unique arrangements of matter and vibrations. Yet we have the same experiences. This is not possible if there is a bijection between the spaces. Your red and my red would either have to be experientially different, OR the space of experience that is "red" is ontologically distinct from the spaces of all physical arrangements of matter, and we can have non-injective mapping from the space of all arrangements of matter into the space of all experiences.
So we're left with the situation where you need physical arrangements of matter to have experiences, but experiences themselves do not map back to physical arrangements of matter. The same red is experienced in the same way by vastly different arrangements of matter.

[Anonymous No.11685701]

>>11685627
>If qualia and the neurologiacl mechanisms that cause it are ontologically the same thing, I should be able to directly observe the neurological mechanisms that occur in my brain.
Why? Do you observe what goes on in your cells? No, but they still happen and produce everything in your body. You're not making sense.

[Anonymous No.11685704]

>>11685629
>you dare believe that something which seems random could be due to factors we don't know about? On MY science board!?
These crazies, imagine thinking that effects have causes and waves don't magically transform into particles when we measure them hahahahaha

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685712]

>>11685704
Causality and determinism are not the same thing.
>waves don't magically transform into particles when we measure them hahahahaha
This has nothing to do with quantum mechanics and shows that you do not actually understand or have studied quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.11685716]

>>11685463
>If it's direct reality then why do we need scientific instruments to tell us more about the world
Because our eyes aren't ten fucking meters across and photons are a fixed size, we build telescopes.

[Anonymous No.11685724]

>>11685712
If you don't believe that then you don't believe the copenhagen interpretation

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685727]

>>11685724
No one ever said anything about the Copenhagen interpretation.
Have you ever worked through a quantum mechanics textbook? Tell me right now, why do we model quantum mechanics with Hilbert Spaces?

[Anonymous No.11685729]

>>11685724
wrong

[Anonymous No.11685739]

>>11685686
>Yet we have the same experiences

Ah, evidence for your claim sir?

[Anonymous No.11685743]

>>11685727
He was literally saying if you don't believe the standard interpretation, which is Copenhagen then you're a schizo
Hilbert space is an abstraction used to make prediction about quantum states, I'm not disputing that it works. I'm simply pointing out that it is a mathematical abstraction, not reality. It's like saying that because I don't know how disease spreads, that it must be purely down to probability and not bacteria.

[Anonymous No.11685750]

>>11685729
You clearly don't understand what Bohr was saying then

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11685752]

>>11685739
I've already shown it's trivially proven by the fact that different computations of any algorithm are still the same algorithm. This is the foundation for the entire field of computer science.

[Anonymous No.11685759]

>>11685750
wrong

[Anonymous No.11685764]

>>11685759

[Anonymous No.11685868]

This whole discussion proves that we have no fucking clue.

>t. mysterianism chad

[Anonymous No.11685869]

>>11684999
based

[Anonymous No.11685894]

>>11684928
Everything in this "holofractal universe" webpage is poorly written bullshit, holy fucking hell how can you claim that you unironically believe this shit and then also claim other people are the retarded ones.

[Anonymous No.11685942]

>>11685752
But when we're talking about experience we're talking about algorithms of a much larger complexity, how would you know that my algorithm of 'seeing blue' is truly the same as your algorithm of 'seeing blue', if we could prove that the internal work being done to make this perception were the same in both of us, then our experiences of blue would indeed be the same, but how can you prove that what we have are not slightly different algorithms with a similar solution table?

[Anonymous No.11685961]

>ontologically realist physicalist panpsychism

[Anonymous No.11685978]

>>11685727
Give him some slack, you could get an impression from most undergrad level QM books that waves magically transform into a particle. Though I agree with you

[Anonymous No.11686012]

>>11685978
some people unironically believe that
what I don't understand is how you can simultaneously not believe in wave-particle duality but still think there's fundamental randomness. Surely a complete description, which most people agree QFT isn't, would consider the particle to be real and effected in a deterministic way, by something currently undiscovered.

[Anonymous No.11686032]

>>11685727
>>11685978
And definitely none of the books go into the reasoning behind Hilbert spaces. Ive seen it only in QFT, and I would argue that its more of a mathematical phenomena anyways

[Anonymous No.11686033]

>>11686012
>Surely a complete description, which most people agree QFT isn't, would consider the particle to be real and effected in a deterministic way
wrong

[Anonymous No.11686044]

>>11686033
Please enlighten me as to why, when every other scientific theory in existence is deterministic and explains the movement of particles

[Anonymous No.11686045]

>>11686012
Well, Bells inequalities kinda showed that a local HVT is not possible, so we have to lose something, either locality or determinism.

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11686051]

The wavefunction is ontologically real/exists but is not physical. Very simple imo

[Anonymous No.11686056]

>>11686044
>Please enlighten me as to why,
see>>11686045
either locality or determinism is true, and we know locality is, so determinism can't be
>every other scientific theory in existence
is an approximation

[Anonymous No.11686065]

>>11686051
>list of ways of being ontologically real:
>physical
>mental
>abstract
>transcendentental
>wave function
wow thanks that helps

[Anonymous No.11686075]

>>11686051
sign of someone who does the formulas but not the reasoning, i. e. someone without an interpretation. That's a fair view though, do not disagree, IIRC Feynmann said there's no point in creating interpretations. Though I belive they might be useful in making predictions

[Anonymous No.11686081]

>>11686075
>sign of someone who does the formulas but not the reasoning
wrong

[Anonymous No.11686111]

>>11686045
As I understand it Bohmian mechanics solves this, not saying that it's definitely correct though just that you can't completely rule out hidden variables.

No theory in QM accounts for special relativity so it seems crazy that it's seen as proof of a probabilistic universe. I don't think physics grads have a good enough grounding in philosophy to understand why people can see problems with unbound mathematical abstraction.

[Anonymous No.11686119]

>>11686111
bohmian mechanics doesn't solve anything because it's >>>/x/-tier schizo shit
>No theory in QM accounts for special relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
>I don't think physics grads have a good enough grounding in philosophy
no, the problem is that philosocucks don't understand the math

[Anonymous No.11686121]

>>11686045
>>11686056
any theory that falsifies or refutes determinism is ipso facto refuted, because determinism is irrefutable and unfalsifiable. determinism is true or false entirely a priori because it's FUCKING METAPHYSICS

[Anonymous No.11686124]

>>11686121
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11686128]

>>11686111
Even though I find it an interesting concept, pilot wave has its own issues, e. g. Special relativity. QFT effectively solves this though

[Anonymous No.11686134]

>>11686119
Quantum field theory doesn't account for special relatively, go suck Krauss' greasy cock some more
It's also an interpretation that fits perfectly with the experimental results and makes the same predictions, it just isn't very popular.

[Anonymous No.11686137]

>>11686124
read a book

[Anonymous No.11686143]

>>11686134
>>11686119
I'm literally a retard, I meant general relativity

[Anonymous No.11686142]

>>11686134
>Quantum field theory doesn't account for special relatively
like all philosocucks you have no idea what you're talking about and belong on >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11686176]

>>11686111
He said local HVT. Bohmian mechanics is explicitly non-local.
"Superdeterminism" (more accurately called "conspirational determinism" imo, since determinism typically already means that 100% everything is causally pre-determined) and retrocausality are both loopholes that allow a HVT to be true while preserving determinism and locality, however most find these options worse. Many-worlds is not a hidden variable theory but sort of preserves both determinism and locality, on a grand scale.

[Anonymous No.11686185]

>>11686137
>read one of my schizo books
pass

[Anonymous No.11686192]

>>11686176
None of these interpretations are actually true anyway, because the theory is clearly just a predictive algorithm, not a description of reality. Schrodinger himself pointed this out with his cat example. It's a placeholder theory and I'm taking Einstein's view by saying that

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11686195]

>>11686121
Why do you care about determinism so much? It's not going to change your life one way or the other if it's true or not.

[Anonymous No.11686199]

>>11686192
>the theory is clearly just a predictive algorithm, not a description of reality
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11686202]

>>11686195
It's the fundamental concept that underpins science

[Anonymous No.11686208]

>>11686202
wrong

[Anonymous No.11686210]

>>11686199
say that to Einstein and Schrodinger, I guess

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11686213]

>>11686202
>It's the fundamental concept that underpins science
How? Also, who cares?

[Anonymous No.11686214]

>>11686210
i would if they were alive. science isn't philosocuckery, schrodinger and einstein being famous doesn't mean their opinions are right

[Anonymous No.11686221]

>>11686214
lol that's exactly what science is, especially when it comes down interpretations, any of which could turn out be true

[Anonymous No.11686223]

>>11686221
>especially when it comes down interpretations, any of which could turn out be true
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11686227]

>>11686223
yikes

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11686228]

>>11686221
How is determinism the fundamental concept that underpins science? Science is not contingent on determinism. Science is contingent on human sensory information and human rationalization.

[Anonymous No.11686230]

>>11686227
cope

[Anonymous No.11686235]

>>11686228
read a book, if it wasn't deterministic it may as well be religion

[Anonymous No.11686236]

>>11686195
i don't care about determinism one bit. i care about properly delineating the difference between physics and philosophy, which is particularly muddled when speculative physics and metaphysical speculation

>>11686202
correct.

>PHYSICAL DETERMINISM
>Modern theories of determinism were inspired mainly by the development of physical science, particularly in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Scientists then dis-covered that the motions of the heavenly bodies were not only regular but also “obeyed” certain laws that could be expressed with mathematical exactness. Gradually, the whole approach to the study of nature, which had been philosophical, speculative, and heavily influenced by Aristotle, gave way to observation, experiment, and the search for laws.
>The idea slowly took hold that all things in nature, men included, behave according to inviolable and unchanging laws of nature. In the philosophical tradition there was a great deal that made this idea plausible,reasonable, and almost inevitable. Theories of determinism were about as old as philosophy. The rise of physical science only prompted philosophers to revise somewhat the content of deterministic theories to which they were already thoroughly accustomed. They more or less ceased thinking of human actions and other events as deter-mined by moral considerations or by an eternal and immutable God and began thinking of them as deter-mined by eternal and immutable laws of nature.

[Anonymous No.11686246]

>>11686236
>>Modern theories of determinism were inspired mainly by the development of physical science, particularly in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
philosocucks are mentally trapped 400 years behind the rest of civilization

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11686252]

>>11686235
This isn't true. Determinism isn't a requirement for something to "not be religion". This makes no sense. Why are you saying this?
I've read a lot of books.
>>11686236
I know the history of determinism and the Enlightment era ideal of the universe being a "grand machine" that can be studied deterministically etc.
It's wrong. The universe does not evolve deterministically. You are the one holding onto a religion by a priori insisting on determinism rather than accepting a posteriori empirical results.

[Anonymous No.11686259]

>>11686252
determinism is not falsifiable. it is literally not a scientific theory, and it is compatible with every possible set of observable facts. when will you register this basic point? not even quantum memery changes the fact that physics is pursuing the laws of nature

[Anonymous No.11686265]

>>11686259
>it is literally not a scientific theory, and it is compatible with every possible set of observable facts
this is wrong and sticking your fingers in your ears and crying about it won't make it right

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11686269]

>>11686259
Because it's not what evidence indicates is actually happening. I don't understand why you think the laws of nature have to evolve deterministically. That's not a requirement. Why are you claiming it is?

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11686274]

>>11686269
*states of nature not laws of nature

[Anonymous No.11686281]

>>11686265
I hope you realise that's how we view you

[Anonymous No.11686287]

>>11686269
once again, i don't give a single shit about determinism. my point can be summarized as these two claims
1.whether or not one believes that "states of nature have to evolve deterministically" flows directly out of their concept of cause and effect. this is because:
2.concepts of cause and effect are "robust" in such a way that they cannot conflict with facts, and are able to contain every possible set of observations. this is because:
3. concepts of cause and effects are ways of viewing the world i.e metaphysical theories

[Anonymous No.11686288]

>>11686281
>no u
cope

[Anonymous No.11686295]

>>11686288
So tell me then is Schrodinger's cat really dead and alive? Do you believe that fully?

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11686315]

>>11686287
Causality (cause and effect) and determinism are not the same thing. I believe in causality, I do not believe in determinism.

[Anonymous No.11686318]

>>11686315
They are the same thing, the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics rejects causality

[Anonymous No.11686320]

>>11686315
whether or not you are a determinist flows directly out of the way you conceptualize causality, is my point. because determinism is only ever true(if and when it is true) as a matter of metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.11686328]

>>11686318
>the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics rejects causality
>>>/x/

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11686331]

>>11686318
They are not the same thing. Determinism is a stricter type of causality.
The standard interpretation of QM does not reject causality.
>>11686320
>whether or not you are a determinist flows directly out of the way you conceptualize causality
What do you mean? Causality and determinism are well defined.

[Anonymous No.11686345]

>>11686331
physical determinism = causality, which is obviously what we're talking about
the standard interpretation specifically rejects causality, that's the whole problem with it
>>11686328
noticed you didn't answer the thought experiment

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11686355]

>>11686345
>physical determinism
Wrong
>the standard interpretation specifically rejects causality, that's the whole problem with it
No it doesn't.
saying "measuring the particle in superposition causes it to collapse to either spin up or spin down" is causal, but non-deterministic, and completely physical.

[Anonymous No.11686356]

>>11686345
>the standard interpretation specifically rejects causality
>>>/x/
>the thought experiment
you have to measure the cat to say anything about it being dead or alive.

[Anonymous No.11686357]

>>11686331
>What do you mean?
i mean that all of the arguments for and against determinism are a priori logical arguments. if then determinism is true, it is true analytically, as a matter of definition. it hinges on what you mean by terms like cause, reason, probability, luck, etc.
>Causality and determinism are well defined.
not by you they sure as fuck aren't

[Anonymous No.11686360]

>>11686355
what caused the particle to appear there? It just isn't causal

[Anonymous No.11686368]

>>11686356
Well done, that's my point. That it's just a probability, it says nothing about the underlying nature of the universe.

[Anonymous No.11686371]

>>11686368
>the underlying nature of the universe
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11686374]

>>11686371
you have different motivations to me, that's clear now. I want to know the objective truth about the universe and you don't

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11686377]

>>11686371
Positivism taken to this extreme is midwittery.

[LogicAnon !!fzrNE60JqG1 No.11686387]

>>11686360
It exists as an excitation in its field

[Anonymous No.11686388]

>>11686374
>ou have different motivations to me, that's clear now
correct; i want to understand the universe, you want to tell fairy tales about it
>>11686377
positivism taken to the extreme == QM

[Anonymous No.11686401]

>>11686388
>positivism taken to the extreme == QM
also my point the whole time

the problem is that people misinterpret it as a story about the real world and get crazy ideas. I'm entirely fine with your view, but trying to act like it's the only way is fucking retarded and is just holding up progress towards finding a real explanation of the mechanics at work

[BB No.11686405]

>>11686355
I guess a better example would be the the fact that some processes have many different possible interactions, e. g. Bhabha scattering, its completely casual yet indeterministic

[Anonymous No.11686412]

>>11686401
>a real explanation of the mechanics at work
that's what QM is. what you want is a nice story to tell yourself.

[Anonymous No.11686425]

>>11686412
No, it's an algorithm to make predictions that isn't a guaranteed outcome. You'd be arguing that Darwin just wanted a nice story because he was trying to get a deeper understanding.

[Anonymous No.11686427]

>>11686401
>an explanation is narrative story about how the world works

>>11686412
>an explanation is a model that lets you make predictions

ah yes nothing to do with your theory of causation at all ;^)

[Anonymous No.11686436]

>>11686425
QM is the deeper understanding in this analogy.

[Anonymous No.11686441]

>>11686436
It's not the final understanding, just the current one. It's logically inconsistent and doesn't fit with our current understanding of gravity. Something has to give

[Anonymous No.11686447]

>>11686441
>It's logically inconsistent
>>>/x/
>and doesn't fit with our current understanding of gravity.
because our "understanding of gravity" is incomplete.