/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12052152]

Hello, my name is Renato Antônio Maradei Lombardi Fernandes from Brazil, University of São Paulo.

I had a very great idea, but I have no way of spreading it, since I'm not a respected academic, and all the people who are respected academics simply ignored my work. The following is the solution for the "hard problem of consciousness". It will sound crazy, it should, but you guys are my dear friends, so I hope you'll support me. I write this with great love for those who listen and don't make fun of my ideas.

[Anonymous No.12052178]

>>12052152
Vai nos contar ou vai deixar esperando?

[Anonymous No.12052179]

The first idea needed is that of natural selection, most people regard natural selection simply as the mechanism by wich animals speciate and diversify, but actually it is a very general mechanism. It is a general algorithm that can be aplied to animals, ideas, strategies, ... The only thing you need is 1) a metric, in this way you can tell wich organisms are close or far in an evolutionary scale. 2) probabilities telling the "location" of the offspring of each organism. 3) an environment where some of the organisms die and others live.

The basic idea is the following, you have an organism A, it reproduces B, C, D. All of these are points in a "map", the more genetic dissimilar the points, the greater their distance. Each point either dies or survives according to their placement in the "map". As time evolves, the points will reach evolutionary equilibrium in the environment.

[Anonymous No.12052180]

>>12052178

calma

[Anonymous No.12052192]

Now think about the following scenario: You are in a museum, looking at a painting. You walk away to get some water, but then you come back and look at the painting again.

Think about what happened to the painting as an image in your head: there was a painting in your head, it disappeared from your head when you went to get some water, but it re-appeared when you looked at it again.

The second time you look at the painting it will be a little different, you'll be looking at it from another angle, or maybe the light in the museum changed a little.

The second image you have in your head of the painting is a different version of the first one, it is a son of the first one, or a slightely mutated version of the painting as you had seen it the first time.

[Anonymous No.12052195]

>the spanish are white
>this thread
choose one

[Anonymous No.12052201]

It needs to be said that it is not like the paint-in-itself mutated, just that the painting-as-it-appears-to-you mutated. The true painting may still be the same, but when you perceive it again you never perceive it exactly the same as you did in the very first time, every time you cognize an object you mutate it a little.

[Anonymous No.12052212]

There are some phenomena that keep coming back at your mind. As an example take "smoking a cigarrete". You smoke some cigarretes, they in turn make it more likely that you will smoke more cigarretes in the future. Now, look at it from the phenomenological point of view. Each new cigarrete you smoke is a different experience, but each experience is just a "mutation" from the first one. The cigarrete-as-phenomena will keep re-appearing in your life-world, the cigarrete-as-phenomena will be reproductively successful in your life-world, while other phenomena(like the taste of soap for example) will not be successful.

[Anonymous No.12052219]

But what is to be evolutionarily succesful as a phenomena? It is simple, phenomena can only exist in mind(the taste of chocolate, love, the appearence of clouds, etc...), so the resource that the phenomena fight for is time and mind.

[Anonymous No.12052229]

This does not mean that the things in the "real world" are evolving trough natural selection, only the things as-phenomena-in-mind. Each time you smoke the new cigarrete, the phenomena(the shape of the cigarrete, it's color, it's taste, the color of the smoke, etc...) is coming back at your mind-space, it is like the first cigarrete had a bunch of sons. Each new cigarrete will be a little different from the first, since it is probably impossible to repeat exactly the same experience in two different times, this is the general mechanism by wich phenomena mutate.

[Anonymous No.12052259]

So you understood that phenomenological objects can mutate and reproduce. Now think about the world around you, almost every phenomena you see is a repetition from a previous one. Think how many times you slept in the same bed, each time you did, all the phenomena associated with the bed reproduced. The texture of the pillow, the warmth generated by the sheets, the mental image you have of the bed, etc...

Each time you did this, the bed-as-a-phenomena in your mind reproduced.

[Anonymous No.12052277]

the things as phenomena are not only reproducing by simply re-appearing in your head, they also reproduce by other means like language for example.

If I say to you "black pencil", the pencil will come to your mind as an image, so the image of the pencil I'm holding was transmited to your mind, in a very "mutated" way. Also, the fact I talked about "black pencil" will probably make you pay more attention to black pencils later during the day, further reproduncing the original black pencil in the phenomenological world.

[Anonymous No.12052293]

Trough the combination of language and re-appearance, the objects in the phenomenal world are always reproducing and mutating, much faster than humans or some animals. Think about how many times you looked at the clock in the screen of your smartphone, each time you did the smartphone-as-appearance reproduced itself in your mind space.

My major claim is not only that those mechanisms are enough for us to say "mental phenomena reproduce", my claim is that ALL mental phenomena: every sound, imagel, taste, touch, feeling evolved that way. So the entire world we live in evolved in this way. This major claim will be defended here.

[Anonymous No.12052323]

Get straight to your solution of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.12052342]

First, as an argumentative ploy let's create a supreme being called the GigaBrain, the GigaBrain has access to the mind of all people, it sees the world not in a third-person perspective, but as a multitude of firt-person perspectives simultaneously. The GigaBrain also can classify all qualia in equivalence classes, so if Sally's blue is John's red then the GigaBrain will identify this discrepancies and group the qualia in its correct equivalence classes.

The world, for the GigaBrain, would look like the monitor of a security guard, in wich each screen is the phenomenal experience of a different person. The GigaBrain would see phenomena popping up in different "screens", he could see the entire phenomenological evolution of the world.

The GigaBrain also would be able to classify all qualia equivalence classes in different modalities, so the classes: blue, red, green would go into the color modality, A, C, C# would go into the sound modality and so on.

The GigaBrain would decompose all possible phenomenological objects into qualias and its modalities. This should be a possible task, since our brains are finite, thus the full decomposition into qualias and modalities do not has a risk of infinite regression.

[Anonymous No.12052347]

>>12052323

it is coming

[Anonymous No.12052366]

The Gigabrain would then project it's mind as a vector field, the vector space would have one dimention for each modality of qualia-class, the qualia-classes would be the first positive integer multiplied base vectors of the space. Every experience in the multi-mind phenomenological world should be able to be represented as a point in this space. Each coordinate corresponding to the qualia modalities. Each point would have a probability distribution connecting it to the other points in the space at a time t, this would dictate the causality connection of phenomenas in the GigaBrain's mind. If we lived in a totally deterministic universe then each vector in this vector field would be uniquely determined, they would not be governed by probability distributions. In this case the mind-space of the GigaBrain would look like a chaotic dynamical system.

[Anonymous No.12052385]

OP I hate to burst your bubble but... based on these posts >>12052293 >>12052212 I can tell you your theory is already flawed because your assumption is flawed. You assume that these experiences, or the progression of the experiences, are in fact qualia, but they are not. They can all be quantifiably measured and related to specific brain processes. The experience OF the products of these processes is a quale, but the phenomenon of this type of "experience change" itself can not inform us as about the nature of consciousness. Or, more precisely, it can tell us what is not an exclusive component of consciousness, but not what *is*.

Look up invariant object recognition, evolutionary constraints on V1 architecture and I can also give you this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18254695/

Also consider reading up on this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118892794

[Anonymous No.12052387]

The metric associated with the mind-space of the gigabrain is the product metric of the discrete metrics for each modality dimention:

d[(eat,red,ball),(kick,red,ball)] = 1

This metric is "essentially the same" as the allele-wise similarity metric used in the modelling of fitness landscapes. A partition of the mind-space would determine the different species of phenomena, a species is alive if vectors in it are "alive" in the mind of the GigaBrain. As time evolves, some species die, others survive, the entire system evolves just like a fitness landscape. The phenomena that are still alive are the ones being thought by the GigaBrain. The evolution of the mind-space is the evolution of the world.

[Anonymous No.12052397]

no, I'm not assuming that, the qualia are the atoms of the experience. If I see the red ball, the redness and ballness are what I'm calling qualia. I'm assuming any mental phenomena can be decomposed into qualia, what is a fair assumption.

[Anonymous No.12052402]

>>12052385

The idea is exactly this: you can't explain WHAT qualia is, they are the atoms of phenomena and the phenomena evolved in the phenomenological world trough natural selection, this is the big point.

[Anonymous No.12052412]

Every phenomena we see evolved from coomon phenomena trough the proccess of natural selection of "being perceived in mind", "not being perceived in mind".

[Anonymous No.12052430]

The phenomena who can be multi-mind perceived would outcompete the ones that could not, thus the phenomena are probably capable of surviving in many different minds. All phenomena we see probably have common ancestors, maybe the qualia are the original phenomena and trough natural selection the entire world of phenomena came to be.

the entire phenomenal world evolved just like a cellular automata, the resouces they fight for are time and mind. Their behaviour is exactly that of points in a standard fitness landscape.

[Anonymous No.12052431]

>>12052397
You claim that mental phenomena reproduce and that the difference in which things like smoking a cigarette are experienced are evidence of this reproduction. Many of these experience changes are governed by extremely simple mechanisms like changes in cell-activation threshold based on activation frequency.

The very foundation of human vision is the composition of complex objects from elementary simple shapes, like pixels on a screen combine different states of RGB, different patterns of cells compose images based on orientations. As the signals go "up the ladder", the cells become more complex and more particular about whether certain inputs or combinations of inputs cause an activation to begin with.

The more these-higher order cells are activated, the lower their activation threshold becomes, making certain objects that they represent become more and more "familiar" the more and more they are perceived (or rather, the more and more they cause an activation of the particular cells associated, which you then perceive).

The quale is the experience of these products, but the quale is NOT how the experience of certain perceptions is different over time. This is just purely vision, nevermind something like smoking which involves a whole array of perception systems, cognitive systems, neurotransmitter interactions and changes to neurotransmitter sensitivity and post-synaptic transmission

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.12052444]

>>12052385

As this guy pointed out, my theory of how all phenomena in the real world came to be troght natural selection does NOT explain what the phenomena and its composing qualias actually are. But differently from this guy you probably read the things I wrote carefully and understand where I'm going:

THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE WE SEE EVOLVED TROUGH THE PROCESS I DESCRIEBED

The moon, sun, stars, they all, as phenomena were selected by MIND to be the way they are. The entire perceivable UNIVERSE was created by mind.

[Anonymous No.12052454]

>>12052431

Man, my theory was completely constructed from a priori principles. It is not scientific, it is entirely mathematical. When you say "the cigarrete as phenomena" can be explained by simple mechanisms, I agree, but what I'm saying is different from that. I'm putting forward an IDEALIST theory of the universe. So I'm inverting the order: those simple mechanisms of cell activation are the product of the mind, not the other way around.

Try to actually understand what I'm claiming from my idealist perspective, and you'll see why your claims don't change anything.

[Anonymous No.12052469]

I know that it may sound crazy for someone who is coming from a science background like you, but you need to understand the difference from the idealist perspective from the scientific perspective. The mechanism of natural selection I'm putting forward is entirely a priori property of ZFC definable fitness landscapes. What I call qualia are simply "the atoms of any phenomenological experience", if it goes against your way of thinking about qualia, ok, I'll call the things I'm referring to Jeff then.

[Anonymous No.12052481]

>>12052469

If the things I call qualia are not the real qualia then I don't even know what you guys are really talking about anymore. What I call qualia are the subjective atoms of all phenomenological experience. If you assume they are finite and that an entity like the GigaBrain could reliably group then into equivalence classes, then you could use the different qualia modalities to generate a fitness landscape, thus the phenomenological universe would look just like a fitness landscape.

The qualia in my picture are "the genes of the phenomena". So, the difference from a blue ball to a red ball in my subjective experience is a "mutation" in this specific qualia.

[Anonymous No.12052488]

everything we perceive in the world evolved trough this mind mechanism. They appeared in mind, if they were reproductively successful they kept re-appearing in mind. Thus mind was simply the environment in wich all of the phenomena evolved to the multitude we have today.

[Anonymous No.12052499]

the laws of physics are just mathematical laws in disguise. They are simply the strategies employed by phenomena to survive in the fitness landscape of mind, they became the way they do because of evolutionary equilibrium. Phenomena that are alike probably had common ancestors or are product of mind-led convergent evolution. Thus the "laws of nature" are just the product of MIND.

[Anonymous No.12052509]

mind created the entire world trough the mechanism of perceiving-not perceiving-perceiving again. Thus the selctive pressure exerted on phenomena made them strugle with each other for mind and time, the phenomena reached some sort of evolutionary equilibrium both within themselves and with us, since if we die they die too(probably). That does not mean that the phenomena evolved to show us the world as it is, just that they are evolutionarily cooperative with us. We will never see the world as it is, since mind created the world we live in, we're trapped in the world of mind.

[Anonymous No.12052511]

>>12052152
Hi Renato, I'm Jake from the USA. I like tacos.

[Anonymous No.12052512]

>>12052387
>>12052444
interesting proposal, specially because right now I'm meditating on the ideas presented by E. michael jones about the "Logos of history"(n his book "Logos rising"), this comes down to the concept of Logos as presented in john 1.1 and from this derivates that history is driven by an underlying conciousness ( an underlying logos-logic) , an intrinsic underlying conciousnes to the universe just as an atom is intrinsically underlying in the matter we interact with... so basically the universe is "the mind of God" , this concept can be scary... this means that evolution was already "planed" for us to appear and for the world to be as it is today, and history is linear even if it experiences some cyclical patterns and history is actually moved not only just by our own will but additionally by this underlying Logos-logic... all this seem to point to a mixed state of free-will and determisnism , maybe they are not fully separated we might inhabit in between the two (lets hope so)...

[Anonymous No.12052527]

>>12052431

the reproduction is indeed happening, and it is obvious. The claim you should attack is the second one, the claim that ALL the universe was created that way.

By the way, this is why everything in the universe can be grouped so nitely as a whole, since everything that is a phenomena probably evolved from a small number of phenomenological first beings that evolved by MIND. Thus, galaxies are alike galaxies, plants alike plants, molecules alike molecules and so on... this is because all those phenomena have common phenomenological ancestors. Also all the "laws of nature the behaviour similarities between alike phenomena that are either close in the tree of life(of phenomena) or are product of convergent evolution.

Every time mind perceives, the phenomena mutate, when mind re-perceives then the phenomena had a son. Trough this process the entire universe came to be.

[Anonymous No.12052540]

>>12052511

me too

>>12052512

Yes, the big point is that mind indeed created the uiverse. It is not a schizo dream I had, the universe makes more sense this way:

The laws of physics get explained, the fractal nature of things like galaxies and plants gets explained. The only crazy claim is that mind indeed creates the universe we see, the mechanism is simple natural selection. My theory does not explain where mind comes from tho.

[Anonymous No.12052565]

I know only a few of you paid real attention to my claims, but if you want a tl.dr:

1)by perceiving something, un-perceiving and re-perceiving you are actually letting a phenomena reproduce itself in your mind.
2)right now the same proccess is happening in the mind of everyone around you with all kinds of phenomena.
3)phenomena can cross mind to mind trough language, also they can be multi-mind perceived, because if the weren't they would be outcompeted by the phenomena that could.
4)these phenomena are all reducible to "atoms"(colors, shapes, sounds), the most basic atoms of the phenomenological world I call qualia. There should be a finite number of different ones, just like in the SM in physics.
5)changes in the qualia level are the mutations in the phenomenological world, if you perceive a picture in a sunny day and then in a dark day it is a little different, it mutated and this mutation should be explainable in the most basic level of the phenomenological world(the qualia)
6)if you divide those qualias into modalities and then plot the vector field those things would generate in a multi-mind system, you could define a qualia-by-qualia metric that makes the vector field isomorphic to a fitness landscape that is used to model evolutionary systems
7)this proccess of evolution is the one by wich the entire world we see came to be

mind created the world by selecting phenomena, they had to struggle with each other and also with us. This is why phenomena that are alike behave alike(physical laws). That's why the phenomena in the universe can all be grouped into simple "categories", because they all have common ancestors.

[Anonymous No.12052566]

>>12052152
Unironically TL;DR

[Anonymous No.12052569]

This may sound totally crazy to you, it is, but Kant was right, we can't see the things-in-thenselves. The universe before us was created by mind. Science and all other empirical endeavours are based on natural laws, these laws are just there because of the finitude of mind, they do not apply to the real world, we will never see the real world, our minds, the minds of our ancestors and that of all sensing beings created the world.

This is why the "hard problem of consciousness" was so difficult. We need to go back to transcendental idealism. Our mind created the world of laws, of phenomena, of life. The world-in-itself is not known to us.

[Anonymous No.12052571]

>>12052565

this is the only part you need to read

>>12052566

[Anonymous No.12052584]

>>12052565

I actually like this, thank you OP

[Anonymous No.12052588]

>>12052152
OP, I've had similar thoughts. Look up "open individualism" this is the solution to the hard problem of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.12052590]

>>12052588

not what I'm talking about, but I liked the idea tho.

[Anonymous No.12052614]

>>12052565
>phenomena can cross mind to mind trough language, also they can be multi-mind perceived, because if the weren't they would be outcompeted by the phenomena that could.

Sorry but you cannot transfer a phenomenon to a person just by using mere words. You are mixing the experience of something with the concept of something. Your statement implies that, theoretically, someone can gain complete knowledge of the word just by listening to an entire thesaurus, and that's nonsense.

[Anonymous No.12052634]

>>12052614

If you hear someone saying the word "cat", and you say "cat" to someone, you transmited the sound "cat". It now lived its life cycle trough your mind and the mind of the one you communicated "cat" to. Of course, the sound gets heavily mutated by your voice and so on, but every phenomena mutates all the time very fast. Also, see the pencil example, if I see a pencil and say to you, hey give me a pencil that looks like such and such, you'll find a pencil, when you find it you'll see it. The pencil as a phenomena when you see it will be a son of the pencil I saw. The mechanisms are not trivial, but again, phenomena can cross mind to mind since if they didn't they would be outcompeted by phenomena that could.

Think about this cat image, it came from my mind from the mind of someone who posted it before, now it is coming to your mind.

[Anonymous No.12052637]

>>12052614

thanks for engaging, those ideas sound crazy, but I think they are right, they explain a lot about our universe.

[Anonymous No.12052651]

>>12052152
I understand your point, but I don't totally subscribe to it.
In particular, I'm very skeptical of your claim that all qualia lives in its own world and that this world is subject to the rules of evolution.
You stated your idea relies on mathematics more than anything, your ideas would gain weight if you formalized your thoughts. Until you do so, this is only philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12052652]

The fitness landscape in wich the phenomena fight with each other for supremacy is the collective mind of all beings, the phenomena evolve by being perceived by mind, they heavily mutate all the time. Some of them have very long life cycles: Think about the sun, we encounter the sun every day, but we also stay like 12 hours without it, it's reproductive cycle takes 12 hours for our individual minds, but in the collective environment of many minds it is always alive. If you want to really understand what the fitness landscape for phenomena looks like you need to think about the GigaBrain:

The Gigabrain sees the world from the first person perspective of all sensing entities simultaneously, the world in wich the phenomena evolve is the mind of the GigaBrain. That's how the universe achieved such complexity, because this mechanism of evolution is ultra-fast, most phenomena are more like bacteria than human. Others are very K-select like the Haley commet.

[Anonymous No.12052678]

>>12052651

Agreed, the mathematics of fitness landscapes is simple. I actually did that on my notebook already, the mathematics is the following:

1) the qualia come in a finite number, in principle you could list all the colors that the human mind can perceive, all the sounds and so on...

this should be accepted easily, since most people agree that mind is a finite thing and we humans aren't omniscient in any way.

2) you divide those qualias in modalities and for each modality you assign a dimention in a vector space, actually this is a simplification, but the final goal is to create a coordinate system for all possible experience, this should be doable since mind is finite thus all the things representable in mind are finite.

3) you define a simple metric based on the product metric of discrete metrics(it is simply a coordinate by coordinate metric). You also assign a time function so the system can evolve and some probabilities to make the free-will people be happy(the probabilities are here just to make the system more general, so I don't need to take a side in the free will vs determinism debate).

4)You now have a fitness landscape

My claim is that this fitness landscape, with only those characteristics can explain all the complexity we see in the universe and even the anomalies. In biological systems, there are a lot of convergent strategies of organisms, in the same way there should be a lot of convergent strategies for phenomena, those are what we call laws of physics, they are simply mathematical laws in disguise.

[Anonymous No.12052692]

If phenomena all evolved from common ancestors(this does not mean the image of your mom evolved from the image of your toaster, just that they have a common image ancestor), then it would make sense the fact that all things in the universe are so "alike", everything is made of the same kind of molecules and atoms and have the same shapes and so on... even the weird crap like galaxies and plants and the neurons having similar geometry, it is just the convergent strategies used by phenomena to survive in the mind-space.

[Anonymous No.12052698]

>>12052152

I like this idea, keep going OP

[Anonymous No.12052722]

>>12052698

The strenght of what I'm saying is that this argument only relies on a priori assumptions, I can't use science to explain the "hard problem", since science is all based on phenomena mediated by mind. I can't use the give to explain the giver, this is why I'm relying on pure mathematics, sadly this makes the core of the argument complicated when in principle it shouldn't. The basic idea is simply that by perceiving some stuff and not other stuff we're creating a heavy selective pressure for the phenomena.

>>12052651

Also, there is not "other world", the phenomena live in THIS world, we don't have access to a world that is not mind-mediated, this process is describing how OUR world evolved, not some other magical world. The qualia are simply the atoms of subjective experience,i e ALL experience.

[Anonymous No.12052731]

>>12052722

cool, I believe you, so what? Who cares

[Anonymous No.12052739]

>>12052731

If you agree with everything I said without struggling with the idea you're probably crazy. Even tho I had those ideas they still sound instinctively weird to me, I can only imagine how much of a schizo word salad this sounds to someone who heard this for the first time.

[Anonymous No.12052750]

>>12052678
The only part of that reasoning that is undeniable is that the whole world around us could be reduced to our qualia for all we know.
The part about qualia behaving like evolutionary beings in this qualia world does not seem to follow from your previous statements.

[Anonymous No.12052767]

>>12052750

The qualia are not the things evolving, they are the fundamental blocks of all experiences. What is evolving is the phenomena being perceived. The phenomena as mind-dependent objects can live only in mind, so they are selected to be perceived and re-perceived by mind. It is the emergent patterns of phenomena wich evolve.

Think about a chair in your house, it is composed of qualia(has form, color, constrast, taste, etc...). When you walk by this chair and look at it, the chair-as-phenomena lives in your mind, when you aren't looking at it the chair-as-phenomena is dead. But it does not mean the chair disappeared, only that it is not there as a mind object. Think about how many times you perceived the same chair, each time it was a little different in the qualia level(the color changes as the light changes, it may feel different dependent on how your muscles are tensed in this day, the contrast changes as the sun sets and so on...) the chair is appearing to you a bunch of times heavily mutated from the first time you saw it, this is the general mechanism. This is not only happening with the chair, it is happening with everything you perceive and everything every one perceives all the time, the proccess is happening all the time in all minds and it was happening also in previous minds.

[Anonymous No.12052774]

>>12052750

You may say, that this is dumb because the chair is not reproducing in the biological sense. But the reproduction term I'm using is simply the one of "information reproduction", like when you download something, it is very general.

[Anonymous No.12053107]

>>12052152
Well OP, first of all, thank you for the original content.
What you claim is metaphysical. You cannot prove it. So it can't be true. It can't be false, either. You can't experience GigaBrain.
It also is not the solution for the hard problem. It doesn't explain your own consciousness, and it doesn't explain others' consciousnesses (you just assume them). I don't think there really is a hard problem to be solved.
Try neutral monism.

[Anonymous No.12053193]

>>12052444
Nope, try again.

[Anonymous No.12054156]

>>12053107
t. p-zombie

[Anonymous No.12054166]

>>12054156
You didn't understand what I said but wanted to insult someone, did you? Here's your cookie

[Anonymous No.12054182]

>>12052767
I agree with this statement and much of the previously written stuff but i am not sure about "our minds creating the universe" part. Perception is one thing but the things actually existing is another, different thing. But i am not saying there are things we do not percieve or that we fully understand those things which we do if i understand you correctly.

[Anonymous No.12054205]

>>12054166
>wooooo... neutral monism
>wooooo... metaphysical
>no one but me gets these big words
All 130iq points firing at full power to make that poast eh?
>I don't think there really is a hard problem to be solved.
p-zombia, like I said

[Anonymous No.12054697]

>>12054205
You didn't understand, like I said

[Anonymous No.12054844]

>>12052152
So I'm a neuroscientist and your post was less schizo then I expected it to be, which was a welcome surprise.

Your idea of experiences producing offspring is describing in somewhat clunky terms an idea that has been around for a while: Bayesian perceptual inference. Our brain does not receive a perfect sensory representation of the world, but 'fills in the blanks' based on past experiences. In your example, first looking at the painting creates a posterior distribution of what that painting looks like, which becomes the prior the next time you look at it, thereby influencing how you perceive it the second time. This process of inference is well defined mathematically and makes distinct predictions about the neural dynamics that we should see when said inference process occurs. *

The part where you lost me though is competition and selection. Why would our priors compete with one another? In other words, what process determines whether the way I view a painting versus the way I view a photograph has more influence on how I experience the subsequent cigarette?

I don't have a lot of time to explain more but I might check in later. If you leave a reply I'll certainly read it.

*https://www.nature.com/articles/nn1790

[Anonymous No.12056342]

>>12054182
I'm not op but I get what he is saying and he's not saying that "our minds creates the universe" but the contrary, the universe is a "mind" by itself, we have conciousness not because the arrengement of our neurons just happen to evolve to made us this way but because the universe itself already contains conciousness as intrinsic part of it
BTW all this does goes in line with classical theism

>2:00 science is trying to talk about consciousness and struggles... consciousness is a self-referential phenomena, a capacity that we have to stand above ourselves and look at ourselves is a self referential loop which then moves out into the world and then becomes a coherent structure of representation, it is a patern, a fractal... but it starts in this self referential loop at the beginning of reason or at the beginning of logic ("in the beginning was Logos") but the "beginning of a structured world" is the thing that science avoids...eventually science will have to deal with this

https://youtu.be/Q1-vG-bLDwE?t=84


>41:15 after Descartes everybody separates the things of the mind from the things of the universe and the mind becomes this alien force in the universe it becomes the ghost inside the machine and nobody can explain how they're related, that's because you've lost contact with Logos because Logos is the link between the mind and the universe and the mind can apprehend order in the universe because it was created by the same God who created the universe so all these dilemmas disappear, the Logos becomes the bridge between seemingly unbridgeable realities

>1:03:00 God gave you reason (logos=logic, word, language...) and reason allows you to make judgments about this universe that are accurate and worth following because there's a logos in the universe that corresponds to the logos in your mind like a key to a lock your mind is the key that can unlock the universe because both share in Logos


https://youtu.be/c8vD5gYXYhc

[Anonymous No.12056682]

All of these ideas have merit but if you start out by saying "this is the solution to the hard problem of consciousness", you're a crank and no one will take you seriously; deservedly. No one has the solution to these problems and no one will for a very long time.

Also, lots of other people have proposed basically these same ideas. You're not that special. Collaborate with others, don't try to be a lone wacko genius.

[Anonymous No.12056690]

>>12052444
There's a reason you aren't a "respected academic"

[Anonymous No.12056825]

>>12056690
Sounds more like a schitzo poster. The guy probably needs to talk to someone and be more productive with his energy

[Anonymous No.12057023]

>>12054844
whenever I read:
>I am ...
I mentally replace it with
>I'm a fag....

This extra substitution strains my brain tho. Luckily your poast started with a synonym for fag. I still didnt read it tho.

[Anonymous No.12057102]

>>12057023
It was intended as a helpful post to get a dialog started on your idea. But instead you decided to act like a child.

[Anonymous No.12057177]

>>12057023
It's funny you said:
>all the people who are respected academics simply ignored my work
when in reality you're the one ignoring input from academics and call them fags.

[Anonymous No.12057746]

>>12057102
>>12057177
remember that this is an anonymous board, that response was not made by OP

[Anonymous No.12058025]

>>12057746
How would you know? Pretty clear no one else would be bumping this shit thread.

[Anonymous No.12058452]

>>12058025
lmao

[Anonymous No.12058517]

>>12052565
Sounds like a Grant Morrison plot. You could be a good comic book writer, OP.