/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14788738]

Subjective experience isn't real and I'm done pretending it is.
Fuck dualists and fuck the Chinese room.

[Anonymous No.14788744]

>>14788738
>Subjective experience isn't real and I'm done pretending it is.
Good. Now that you're no longer pretending to be human, give me one reason why it would be bad to physically remove an object like you.

[Anonymous No.14788745]

>>14788738
AGI will never be real

[Anonymous No.14788754]

>>14788744
Come at me, bro. You don't have subjective experience either by the way because it isn't real so fucking deal with it

[Anonymous No.14788772]

>>14788754
So you concede there's no reason to treat you any differently from other inanimate objects? Good.

[Anonymous No.14788776]

>>14788738
>Subjective experience isn't real
why not?

[Anonymous No.14788779]

>>14788776
Because I don't have it therefore and I don't see any pee-reveiwed scientific evidence that you do.

[Anonymous No.14788784]

>>14788779
>Because I don't have it
Yes you do
>I don't see any pee-reveiwed scientific evidence that you do.
All scientific evidence supports the existence of subjective experiences

[Anonymous No.14788796]

>>14788779
There is only evidence of experience. The is no evidence of non-experience.

[Anonymous No.14788804]

>>14788776
>why not?
Only "evidence" it exists is people insisting they believe they're having it.
That should be enough to tip off people with higher than room temperature IQs that the real part is their behavior of insisting they're "experiencing things." The "experiencing things" part is just a bullshit placeholder reference the brain uses to get you to dance around and say or do useful things related to environmental or physiological stimuli. It's like the contents of the suitcase in Pulp Fiction. There's nothing in the suitcase but it's important to have the empty suitcase treated as though it contains some mystery thing to get the characters to do what the story calls for.

[Anonymous No.14788805]

>>14788738
>ive finally accepted my nog ass can't counter the arguments i seek desperately to justify my immoral behaviour so i pivoted, see how you like my new frankenphilosophy that will change in a month or two

[Anonymous No.14788812]

>>14788804
>Only "evidence" it exists is people insisting they believe they're having it.
The only "evidence" for the existence of anything is people insistenting that they believe they're experiencing it. A scientific experiment being reproduced is just people believing that the reproduction of their experiences are mapping to some outside objective world.
I guess I don't really understand what the point of it is that you're trying to make anyway. What does the existence or non existence of subjective experiences matter for you? i.e. why do you care if subjective experiences do or don't exist, what does it have to do with anything

[Anonymous No.14788815]

>>14788804
Somebody needs a warm meal, a hug and a nap.

[Anonymous No.14788818]

>>14788796
>There is only evidence of experience.
There is no objective evidence of experience and there cannot be any. If you don't understand this, you are almost certainly a qualial nonhuman in denial.

[Anonymous No.14788821]

>>14788818
qualia-less*

[Anonymous No.14788829]

>>14788812
>The only "evidence" for the existence of anything is people insistenting that they believe they're experiencing it.
No. There's something called corroboration.
Big difference between one person's claims vs. what you can determine as reality by checking between many different witnesses corroborating each other while also agreeing with mechanical diagnostic tools and abstract mathematical predictions.
The cross-checking is what separates a nonsense inconsistent dream narrative where anything can happen from objective reality where everything has lasting consequences whether or not any one guy is personally eyeballing it.
Subjective experience fails the cross-checking rule since no one else and no mechanical device or abstract model corroborates it. Therefore it gets discarded and you focus on the real thing instead which is behavior.

[Anonymous No.14788836]

>>14788829
>No. There's something called corroboration.
corroboration is just two people talking about their subjective experiences. It is entirely based on this.
Nothing you're saying is in contradiction to subjective experiences.
If you're actually taking a behaviorist approach you've been outdated for several decades now

[Anonymous No.14788846]

>>14788738
It's all just correlations between different states of matter basically.

[Anonymous No.14788861]

>>14788836
>corroboration is just two people talking about their subjective experiences.
The idea is between multiple witnesses, mechanical diagnostics, and abstract predictions you can get closer and closer to the real underlying objective reality.
The methods of getting at it aren't very important. What's important is getting the spots with high levels of agreeing accounts.
We're working with flawed and dishonest mechanisms for reading in the world around us which is why you can't trust one account in isolation.

[Anonymous No.14788868]

>>14788821
I never said there was objective evidence of experience, in fact, there is only subjective evidence of experience.

To dabble in the world of objective observers is to put your toe into theology.

[Anonymous No.14788869]

>>14788846
Even the exact same states of matter or molecular systems do not evolve the same way (because molecules are not deterministic) so how can you say that the subjective experiences are the same or evolve the same way?
>>14788861
Nothing you are saying is against the existence of subjective experiences. I don't know what else to tell you. None of this is evidence that subjective sensations or experiences do not exist.

[Anonymous No.14788873]

>>14788868
>there is only subjective evidence of experience.
There is also subjective experience of god, ghosts, aliens, ominous black vans that are always parked outside by house etc.

[Anonymous No.14788887]

>>14788873
Based schizo-punisher.

[Anonymous No.14788894]

>>14788873
We understand the world through experience. All of our observations, data and even logic are fundamentally rooted & curated in the human experience.

Science exists to build a consensus of our collective subjective experiences, to help create a rational agreed upon nature reality.

[Anonymous No.14788897]

>>14788873
>>14788887
Define "subjective experience" vs "objective experience" and explain why one exists and the other doesnt or what it would mean for one to exist or whatever.

[Anonymous No.14788901]

>>14788869
>molecules are not deterministic
They actually are. Look up quantum entanglement, which is basically just quantum correlations

[Anonymous No.14788903]

>>14788887
>>14788894
>>14788897
There is also subjective experience of god, ghosts, aliens, ominous black vans that are always parked outside by house etc. Do you agree with this statement? Please try not to deflect this time.

[Anonymous No.14788907]

>>14788887
>>14788894
>>14788897
There is subjective *evidence* of god, ghosts, aliens, ominous black vans that are always parked outside by house etc. Do you agree with this statement?

[Anonymous No.14788909]

>>14788901
>They actually are
Nope

[Anonymous No.14788913]

>>14788907
Give me a definition of subjective vs objective experiences and do all the other things already asked of you.

[Anonymous No.14788917]

ITT: people arguing about the hard problem of consciousness as though there were known facts involved.
I shiggy to the diggy.

[Anonymous No.14788919]

>>14788909
Just look up quantum entanglement anon, it's for your own good

[Anonymous No.14788920]

>>14788894
>We understand the world through experience. All of our observations, data and even logic are fundamentally rooted & curated in the human experience.
An MRI is much better equipped to give you information about what it's imaging than it is equipped to give you information about itself.
People can be useful tools for collecting multiple witness accounts to check against but their personal accounts in isolation aren't reliable or useful at all for getting at information about objective reality, and their insights into how their own body's processes work when they report "experiencing things" isn't trustworthy. Clearly they take in sensory stimuli and output responses, but whatever their brains have them geared towards in reporting the nature of "experiencing" isn't anything we have reason to take literally and overhaul physics to account for. Much simpler explanation is the universe doesn't revolve around biological brains and you just get fed metaphorical placeholder bullshit about "experience" to keep you behaving in the way that gets good enough results for day to day survival.

[Anonymous No.14788926]

>>14788919
no, half of the people just went after OPs niglike character that held the same assertion you whine about

[Anonymous No.14788935]

>>14788917
no, half of the people just went after OPs niglike character that held the same assertion you whine about, did you even read the thread b4 posting the thinly veiled "i and deluded cultists are better than you all"

[Anonymous No.14788957]

>>14788920
Even information uses our human filter to decide what is or is not information, so we cannot get 'objective' information without someone deciding on handling data. Otherwise everything would be merely white noise nothing worthy of attention, information is really a notation of surprises of expected results.

Why we filter actuality as a human reality as we do is a big question, because evolution does not select for rationality trying to see the 1s and 0s but reality-- but gives us a 'GUI' of experiences to interface with it.

I don't think we will find 'objective' experiences any sooner than finding where the cosmological constants are located and putting dreams into a bottle.

[Anonymous No.14788959]

>>14788957
>Blah blah
You aren't concise. Opinion discarded. Cry for me loser

[Anonymous No.14788965]

>>14788959
tl;dr
You're a little bitch that has to filter everything through the human experience.

[Anonymous No.14788970]

>>14788935
>same assertion you whine about
Read my post again, and show me where I picked a side.

[Anonymous No.14788980]

>>14788970
read a book or two and then come back and read my post again, also stop having one sided convos nitpicking what the other party said to try and prove(passivly so you think you're always in the right) your intellectual superiority

[Anonymous No.14788985]

>>14788970
>>14788917
>raised by women the post(s)

[Anonymous No.14789026]

>>14788744
because he could remove you as well. This is basic morality bro, every time morality is mentioned it's completely retarded, fuck christcucks, fuck retards.

[Anonymous No.14789033]

>>14788913
>Give me a definition
Why? I'm asking you a simple question and I'm willing to go with your definition. Why are you such an intellectually insecure redditor?

[Anonymous No.14789041]

>>14789026
>because he could remove you as well.
Not really. He's a fearful little shit and he's part of a tiny, tiny minority that no one will miss.

>This is basic morality bro,
Even if I gave a shit about your slave morality, I don't think moral considerations apply to non-sentient objects.

[Anonymous No.14789044]

>>14788738
http://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html

[Anonymous No.14789054]

>>14789044
Why do you keep posting this, you autist? The crazy thing is that 90% of the time you do it, the context is about actual p-zombies and you post this as if the author believes in them when he clearly doesn't.

[Anonymous No.14789063]

>>14789054
You do realize you're replying to automated bot spam, right?

[Anonymous No.14789088]

>>14789063
Yes, I am doing that as I am writing this post. I need help. :^(

[Anonymous No.14789095]

>>14789088
Nice NPC face you have there

[Anonymous No.14789097]

>>14789095
Nice face you don't have there, botfriend. :^)

[Anonymous No.14789102]

>>14788738
Why does the Chinese Room demonstration make brainlets seeth so much. It just shows that you can still have your AGI but it’s not as simple as mimicking humans.

[Anonymous No.14789132]

>>14789102
>It just shows that you can still have your AGI but it’s not as simple as mimicking humans.
It has nothing to do with AGIs. It just refutes functionalism.

[Anonymous No.14789143]

>>14789102
It's not a demonstration of anything. Whether something is conscious or not is just a matter of definition, so you can call the room conscious if you want to. Of course the retarded philosophers don't realize this and keep clinging to their outdated idea that consciousness is fundamental and that it's some thing an object either has or doesn't have.

[Anonymous No.14789151]

>>14789143
>Whether something is conscious or not is just a matter of definition
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.14789157]

>>14789143
>Whether something is conscious or not is just a matter of definition
Not at all. Consciousness has properties that distinguish it from non-consciousness. For example, anything we call consciousness we would want to have the ability to understand what it is saying in response to what some other person is saying. The Chinese Room argument shows that mere computation is insufficient for that, since there are computations we can perform by hand where the processor can't understand what is being said to it and why it is making the responses it does

[Anonymous No.14789158]

>>14789151
That picture is how real scientists view philosophers Lol

[Anonymous No.14789161]

>>14789158
That picture is how both scientists and philosophers view you and your pseudoscientific cult.

[Anonymous No.14789166]

>>14789161
You're seething. Take your meds and accept that consciousness is not a real thing

[Anonymous No.14789167]

>>14789157
>Consciousness has properties
It doesn't.

[Anonymous No.14789171]

>>14789157
since there are computations we can perform by hand where the processor can't understand what is being said to it and why it is making the responses it does
WTF are you talking about, lmao?

[Anonymous No.14789172]

>>14789166
>Take your meds and accept that consciousness is not a real thing
Say this to people in real life and see who wants to associate with you afterwards. lol. You low-functioning autists need to be dragged away from your stale basements and given a reality check.

[Anonymous No.14789176]

>>14789172
Have sex incel.

[Anonymous No.14789177]

>>14789172
Dude too far. Why do you feel so threatened by him? Why can't you just be polite and be civil

[Anonymous No.14789185]

>>14789176
>>14789177
Why are you getting mad? Surely you will be received with rounds of applause because your opinions are so scientific and intellectual. Try it. :^)

[Anonymous No.14789202]

>>14789157
>The Chinese Room argument shows that mere computation is insufficient for that, since there are computations we can perform by hand where the processor can't understand what is being said to it
The Chinese Room """thought""" experiment relies on trying to get you to forget the entire room is supposed to be analogous to a brain.
The guy in the room doesn't understand Chinese but the system of that room which that guy is one component of does understand Chinese. Much like how the pars opercularis alone in any given Chinese person's brain is not going to understand Chinese even though it's part of a brain that does understand it.
It also tries to trick you by severely abusing the intuitions we have related to duration and size. For the room to work it would end up being the size of a galaxy and would take a quadrillion years to complete a brief exchange. When you screw up scale that badly intuition no longer gives you very good feedback on how such a system works or what its implications are.

[Anonymous No.14789204]

>>14789041
Nigga,
1st. How is that slave morality
2nd. By calling it slave morality you have just shown how much of a slave you are
3rd. You would go to jail for killing him you absolute fucking retard

[Anonymous No.14789208]

>>14789202
>the system of that room which that guy is one component of does understand Chinese
lol

[Anonymous No.14789215]

>>14789204
Drooling mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.14789220]

>>14789185
Just take your meds already. No sane person talks and behaves like you.

[Anonymous No.14789226]

>>14789158
Real scientists know they are practicing natural philosophy

[Anonymous No.14789227]

>>14789208
>Greentext quote plus hilarious npc meme reaction pic #28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6UydqWS01g

[Anonymous No.14789228]

>>14789220
Why are you foaming at the mouth? Leave your stale basement and tell people they have no consciousness. I'm sure you'll be received as an intellectual superstart just like you see yourself on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.14789232]

>>14789202
Spot on.

[Anonymous No.14789234]

>>14789227
Nothing more is needed. You're shitting and pissing all over yourself in public and I'm just pointing.

[Anonymous No.14789236]

>>14789228
You're even hallucinating now lmao

[Anonymous No.14789241]

>>14789202
>The Chinese Room """thought""" experiment relies on trying to get you to forget the entire room is supposed to be analogous to a brain.
>The guy in the room doesn't understand Chinese but the system of that room which that guy is one component of does understand Chinese. Much like how the pars opercularis alone in any given Chinese person's brain is not going to understand Chinese even though it's part of a brain that does understand it.
Instead of having a "room" you could have a person memorize all the cpu instructions and so the entire room is just in their brain, yet they still don't understand what the inputs are and what the outputs are. It's because the person who has memorized the Chinese room's instructions have memorized the steps they need to follow but they don't understand why those steps are the way they are.

[Anonymous No.14789257]

>>14789236
I guess drones like you are hated everywhere, huh? Stay in your basement, I'm sure you'll win the r/4chan debate one day.

[Anonymous No.14789259]

>>14789241
>you could have a person memorize all the cpu instructions and so the entire room is just in their brain, yet they still don't understand what the inputs are and what the outputs are.
That would be like an inverted Chinese room where now instead of trying to trick people into believing the man in the room is the system instead of the room itself you're trying to trick people into believing the man wrapped around the room is the system instead of the system embedded inside him.
All that really shows is you can have a system that understands Chinese and doesn't expose all its internal workings to a host carrying it around.

[Anonymous No.14789263]

>>14789241
>yet they still don't understand what the inputs are and what the outputs are
Ummm sweaty? The abstract imaginary entity of """the system""" will understand. Your retarded thought experiment doesn't disprove my fantasy ghost minds.

[Anonymous No.14789266]

>>14789257
Unhinged

[Anonymous No.14789270]

>>14789266
Vile subhuman.

[Anonymous No.14789284]

>>14789202
The Chinese Room thought experiment highlights the absurdity of attempting to conjur up ghost minds by conducting some ritual with inanimate objects. Mentally sound people only find it plausible in a very narrow context and when you change that context, they see the absurdity. You, of course, are not a mentally sound person and it's incomprehensible to your kind what the Chinese Room is even about because you suffer from profound mental deficiencies.

[Anonymous No.14789369]

>>14789284
Ummm no, sweaty. Brains and computers use electricity which is basically magic so it's different.

[Anonymous No.14789416]

>>14789284
>when you get btfo and have to write up a paragraph of passive-aggressive insults to feel less bad
Y I K E S

[Anonymous No.14789464]

>>14789416
>i can't dispute anything you wrote
Okay.

[Anonymous No.14789573]

>>14788738
I think therefore I am

[Anonymous No.14789579]

>>14788829
>witnesses corraborating eachother
But how do witnesses corraborate? They must trust their senses and insist that they heard/saw another witness having the same result. So we are back to square one

[bodhi No.14789587]

>>14788754
my balls are ititching rn are yours?

[bodhi No.14789596]

>>14788887
based humuculus poster

[Anonymous No.14789602]

>>14789215
We both are drooling mongoloids because none of this matters, the difference is I am right and he is not.

[bodhi No.14789607]

>>14789284
based (((jolson))) poster

[bodhi No.14789615]

>>14789416
why taco bell? I dont understand

[Anonymous No.14789617]

>>14789579
See MRI example. You can use tools to get information about the external world without needing to trust that they have accurate or reliable information to report about the nature of their own internal processes. And if one witness is unreliable not just about his own internal processes but about the external world too that will get filtered out when a thousand other subjects and nonhuman video feeds all agree with each other and disagree with him.

[Anonymous No.14789618]

>>14788919
Quantum entanglement doesnt allow for determinism unless you assume an extant wavefunction/multiverse, which is not true.
There is no deterministic evolution of molecules. Even "identical" physical systems are not actually identical.

[Anonymous No.14789633]

>>14789284
>absurdity of attempting to conjure up ghost minds by conducting some ritual with inanimate objects.

If you believe intelligent is emergent why can't it be reproducible? Our brains are made up of patterns of matter.

I don't understand why every so called rationalist turns into a creationist whenever the question of machine intelligence comes up. The same rules of nature apply to us as well, we are moist androids.

[Anonymous No.14789641]

[Anonymous No.14789646]

>>14789416
He completely beat you the fuck out lmao

[Anonymous No.14789656]

>>14789633
See the thread about intelligence having a molecular basis
It's reproducible only in the sense that constructive another physical system with the same molecules and dynamics willproduce the "intelligence". It does not require any postulate of non physical entities

[Anonymous No.14789663]

>>14789633
>I don't understand why every so called rationalist turns into a creationist whenever the question of machine intelligence comes up.
There's some instinctive bias everyone has in favor of themselves and their own species. For a lot of people that amounts to refusing to accept anything could ever reproduce how incredible their own brains seem to themselves.

[Anonymous No.14789666]

>>14789656
>See the thread about intelligence having a molecular basis
The one where you spent hundreds of posts repeating the same retarded conclusion and refusing to make an actual argument for it? Great, thanks.

[Anonymous No.14789708]

>>14789202
Searle is great at teaching Philosophy of Mind 101 students how to spot, analyze and refute sophistry. This must be where his popularity stems from, because he's a colossal midwit in every respect.

I like to say that the mistake is simply in the "let's assume we put an entire language in a book that can be used by someone who doesn't understand it". Great assumption shitbag. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Anonymous No.14789740]

>>14789633
>If you believe intelligent is emergent why can't it be reproducible?
The entire point of the Chinese Room is to demonstrate the absurdity of "emergent" minds and it does so very well with people that aren't as far-gone as your cult.

[Anonymous No.14789748]

>>14789663
Extremely intellectual take. Now do the magic interpretative dance and conjure me up a ghost mind.

[Anonymous No.14789767]

>>14789740
Then how did our minds emerge or did they come from heaven?

[Anonymous No.14789779]

>>14789666
The one where I derived the conclusion from physics and there is yet to be any counter argument to it.
The classical church Turing thesis was falsified in the 80s. There is literally no such thing as substrate independent computation or classical logic. The non existence of these requirements renders substrate independent general intelligence non existent as well

[Anonymous No.14789792]

>>14789779
>The classical church Turing thesis was falsified in the 80s.
Do tell me where you got this from, I'm genuinely interested.

[Anonymous No.14789796]

>people are so scared of doubting physicalism that they have to go and throw out the one thing with the most epistemic justification just to keep it afloat

[Anonymous No.14789811]

>>14789767
>how did our minds emerge
Who knows? Certainly not like that. The Chinese Room only scratches the surface of the absurdities. Someone posted Jaron Lanier's essay here >>14789044 which goes further and really drives your beliefs into the ground.

[Anonymous No.14789822]

>>14788861
How do you know other people are corroborating your observations? You have to rely on your sensory experiences to tell you that they are.

If you want to cast such extreme doubt on the validity of your subjective experiences, then you will end up destroying the ability to have knowledge of anything.

[Anonymous No.14789823]

>>14789044

[Anonymous No.14789840]

>>14789748
Panpsychism is a type of physicalism, but it's not materialism. Physicalism has an implied monism while materialism has implied dualism baked within it's metaphysics. Physicalism is perfectly fine if the world is a giant video game as long as it has rules and habits.

Materialist dualism, a philosophical DMZ created during Middle Age politics between science and theology rather than evidence, is what is getting most anons confused & holds so many back. That, and most here have never bothered to read a single book on science philosophy outside of the class room.

[Anonymous No.14789855]

>>14789792
Deutsche's paper which founded quantum computation
Basically the fact that classical computation can not simulate physical systems is a direct disproof of the classical church Turing thesis. Physical functions are not computable on deterministic Turing machines.
Beyond this, it is directly obvious that classical computation can not emulate physical systems because there is no algorithm you could write to get the computer you're writing on to start pissing whipped cream on your desk. You'd have to connect it to a different PHYSICAL machine that had that ability (i.e. that is constructed out of molecules and systems that can make wiped cream or have stored whipped cream and then shoots it out of a nozzle or something) and then wire up process to be able to get the computer to
If you're actually sitting here thinking "the simulated world inside the computer is real to the simulated things inside the simulation" then you're entirely misunderstanding how physical systems work. They are not mathematical abstractions and they are not equivalent to a system of partial differential equations that we use to try to predict the behavior etc.

[Anonymous No.14789859]

>>14789840
Materialism is a monism. Why do you say it's dualistic

[Anonymous No.14789862]

>>14789840
Okay, so are you doing the magic dance or not? Make a mind appear.

[Anonymous No.14789877]

>>14789855
>Basically the fact that classical computation can not simulate physical systems is a direct disproof of the classical church Turing thesis.
lol ok schizo, I knew it would be something like this

[Anonymous No.14789885]

>>14789877
There are several algorithms that can only be run on quantum computers you ignorant moron

[Anonymous No.14789895]

>>14789885
You're not going to impress anyone with a clue. I just wanted to know where your particular brand of schizobabble comes from. Thanks, clown.

[Anonymous No.14789902]

>>14789859
It was a fine agreement since the time of Galileo.
In materialism there's the 'real' and 'unreal'-- the illusion world of the idealism and the objective outside world of material. The object and subject are the same substance in any type of monism, there is no 'hard problem of consciousness' or bickering of 'objective' and 'subjective'-- they're meaningless arguments when they are one in the same.

In monism there's a whole lot that's implied in it's metaphysics from 'everything is physical' from information, time to consciousness itself. From just it's implied eternalism, you could create an entire new worldview that would displace most religions and philosophies on the planet. It's a march across the DMZ that was created centuries ago.

This is why so many seemingly normal science people are suddenly believing the world is a simulation, which is actually a type of creationism.

[Anonymous No.14789904]

>>14789895
I'm not trying to impress anyone jm telling ignorant retards like you how computation works.
Stop projecting your ignorance onto others dipshit. It remains the case that there can not exist a general intelligence on anything but a biological substrate. Cry about it its not going to make the machines intelligent

[Anonymous No.14789921]

>>14788738
Why would I trust an object like you?

[Anonymous No.14789932]

>>14789902
What youre saying makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.14789944]

>>14789932
Not spoon feeding you on who Galileo is.

[Anonymous No.14789948]

>>14789822
>How do you know other people are corroborating your observations? You have to rely on your sensory experiences to tell you that they are.
That's the reason for the MRI example. You can believe an MRI is probably going to be able to tell you something about what it's scanning without needing to believe it has good information on the nature of its own processes.
I can believe my body with its sensory organs and cognitive processes is probably going to be able to tell me about the external world without needing to believe it's any good at reporting literal or accurate takes on the nature of these processes. And I would still check against multiple sources.
You bring up that they all have to go through me no matter how many other sources I check, but there are clues to when your own sense of reality is being less accurate than usual. Alzheimer's patients tend to show signs of awareness that something is going wrong with their own minds for example, in part because there's some sense of difference betweeen the feeback you get from others vs. the feedback you get from yourself (people will say and do things you don't want them too).
And dream narratives where the information is essentially all self-contained and not reflecting the external world have clues to spotting them as well, like the way they aren't required to be logically consistent and can completely overhaul the story for little to no reason vs. objective / consensus / reality where the consequences of events persist whether you're personally keeping track of it or not.
So uncertainty yes, but 100% intractable and impossible to approach any sort of information about the world beyond your own self, no.

[Anonymous No.14789960]

>>14789944
You're an idiot

[Anonymous No.14789962]

>>14789855
You can claim it isn't real because it's a digital simulation, but have you seen how close even a AAA video game renders to reality at this point? There's no reason to think that a digital system couldn't eventually render human behavior with the same level of detail. You can claim it isn't real because it isn't physical, but you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the expert system and a human on the other side of end of the network.

[Anonymous No.14789970]

>>14789202
There are also two large factors the argument omits.

- Someone is translating chinese to english, the man in the room isn't receiving the cards through spontaneous generation. The thought experiment just moves the mind out of the translation process, but there at some point must occur a translation process, which required a conscious actor.

- What if I stopped and asked the man how the texture of the cards in his hand felt? He may not know what the input-output of the language he's translating, but he is a conscious agent that can say "they're a little rough, and I cut myself on that last one."

[Anonymous No.14789988]

>>14789960
>u dum

Nice non-argument, stay in school. Maybe they'll teach you the history of Galileo one day.

[Anonymous No.14789991]

>>14789962
If it's not physical it isn't real.
Anyone who thinks computation exists is a moron.
There are a litany of algorithms that nature (and quantum computers) perform in constant or poly time that would take a so called classical machine the entire age of the universe to try to compute and it still couldn't do it.
Nature is not capturable on classical machines and anyone who thinks it is is 100 years out of date and a moron.

[Anonymous No.14789996]

>>14789988
Galileo did not define physicalism as a philosophy and you are the only moron who's delineating materialism and physicalism based on you own knee-jerk dumbass hatred of "dualism"

[Anonymous No.14790014]

>>14789996
He wasn't a philosopher that created physicalism, kiddo.
Galileo's story was the point of contention that started the separation of church and natural philosophy(which later became science).

You are very unread and uneducated, you have zero right to call anyone stupid ever again.

[Anonymous No.14790018]

>>14789991
Except it is physical, in that the silicon chips making up the calculations eventually result in the very real illumination of cells on your screen, resulting in an image that very closely resembles the reality it is simulating.

To deny that is to deny reality. There's no reason that increasingly accurate simulations of more nuanced things, like the human mind, are not possible, and can create similar outputs on your screen. Even NPCs in video games have become more sympathetic and human like as the generations have advanced.

[Anonymous No.14790173]

>>14790018
>more nuanced things, like the human mind
What about the increasing understanding of quantum tunneling along calcium channels, probabilistic systems that possibly help produce consciousness? I'm not going full-blown orch-or, these are just things that are shaking out of neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.14790179]

>>14789840
panpsychism is idealism not materialism midwit

[bodhi No.14790187]

>>14789991
>infrared light isnt physical (able to be detected by avatars senses) so it isnt real
you are a retarded mate

[Anonymous No.14790189]

>>14790179
NTA, but its all about your flavor of panpsychism. If you think the material world is imbued with a conscious "stuff," that's still materialism.

[bodhi No.14790196]

>>14790189
Well I dont disagree in fact this is the exact argument I made here >>14790187

The entire reality is "physical" in one sense, it is just some of it is in higher dimensions we cant detect in this form. I am simply trying to stick to the operational definitions however for clarity

[Anonymous No.14790206]

>>14790189
NTA but to propose that everything is conscious, is to propose that consciousness is a fundamental substance rather than something that arises from material and physical laws so that's clearly not materialism in any meaningful sense.

[Anonymous No.14790225]

>>14788804
Weak bait. Do you actually think more than one guy will fall for it and reply with an indignant wall of text?

[Anonymous No.14790238]

>>14790225
I assure you that I don't experience any consciousness and neither do you.

[Anonymous No.14790253]

>>14790206
>to propose that consciousness is a fundamental substance rather than something that arises from material
Like I said, if that's how you want to look at it. As long as we're in head-up-our-ass zone of understanding, consciousness could be a measurable substantial thing that exists like the four familiar forces with some ghostly carrier particle and everything, keeping it in the realm of the material.

I dunno, I'm a reductive physicalist because that's what is going on here. We can distance ourselves from the facts by naming, by saying "but there exists a special quality in what its like to experience x," but its just naming. Giving special status to another meat function.

[Anonymous No.14790299]

>>14790253
>I'm a reductive physicalist
Oh. Okay... sorry, but I'm not really into chatbots. I prefer to talk to real people.

[Anonymous No.14790304]

>>14790018
A simulation that "very much looks like reality" is no more real than a series of photos on a film illustrating a movie.
There is no magical simulation realm that exists in some other dimension when you calculate the differential equations of particles you moron. It only exists as a mathematical description that you've made up

[Anonymous No.14790342]

>>14790173
That's not the point. You schizophrenic morons are actually out here believing that a person sitting down solving the differential equations of some system, say a physical system, actually magically produces another dimension that is a "simulation".
No you morons a universal Turing machine solving a math problem is not making a universe inside itself or some other delusional schizophrenic nonsense. It's just solving a math equation that humans have constructed. There is nothing deeper going on. The images that appear on a screen are no more real than a photorealistic drawing is a "window into another dimension" or some other idealist delusional crap
If you're not able to understand this it's because you're delusional

[Anonymous No.14790350]

Idealist and dualist schizos need to leave this board now. You've been BTFO in every thread, you're just embarrassing yourselves.

[Anonymous No.14790361]

>>14790342
I was arguing for why the mind is likely unable to be simulated what with the possible probabilistic dynamics of the system.

[Anonymous No.14790364]

>>14790342
prove it

[Anonymous No.14790383]

>>14790364
The proof is that simulations are not real. A mathematical or linguistic description of something is not equal to the thing in itself. If you can't understand this it's because you're an idealist, i.e. a delusional schizophrenic moron.

[Anonymous No.14790409]

>>14790383
says you, get looped

[Anonymous No.14790421]

>>14790304
You still have a simulation that is an approximation of human intelligence that you can task with whatever you want. If it's better than human intelligence, you can use it to guide your flesh bots to greater heights. Either way, you have something that impacts the real world.

[Anonymous No.14790465]

>>14790409
Says literally all physics.
I don't know what get looped means.
>>14790421
You don't have a "simulation" of anything, you have a system thats entirely physical and unique to itself.
You can not even in principle "upload your mind" into a computer if that's why you're taking rhis schizophrenic and wrong stance.

[Anonymous No.14790472]

>>14790465
>I don't know what get looped means.
i'd let you all rot in one if they would allow me to forget

[Anonymous No.14790505]

>>14790472
Simulations aren't real.

[Anonymous No.14790508]

>>14790465
Personally, I don't get the whole upload you're brain thing, even were it possible, as your perspective isn't going with it. As Jack said, "Digital immortality is the diet coke of immortalities." Guess it's kinda useful of a memento - like a interactive photograph.

Anyways, I'm simply saying you can have a simulation sufficient to make useful predictions about the real world, such as we regularly use in engineering. Are you going to deny that?

[Anonymous No.14790532]

>>14790505
hope to god...no, the all...no, to n-nothing you're right...fuck.

[Anonymous No.14790563]

>>14790508
>Anyways, I'm simply saying you can have a simulation sufficient to make useful predictions about the real world, such as we regularly use in engineering. Are you going to deny that?
I'm not going to deny that in the same way I'm not going to say drawings of a schematic or a blueprint aren't helpful. They're just not simulations i.e. there is no mini universe inside the painting, or inside the pages/blackboards of equations, or even inside the computer.
A simulation of a video game world is not an actual real universe inside the computer. It's basically akin to an artist drawing a lot of pictures really fast so that it looks like a movie. It's still just a drawing. The computer is drawing a lot of pictures, say 60 pictures per second. They're still just pictures and there is no real universe inside the computer or the motion of electrons that are being used to light up the screen etc. Just like there's no universe inside the ink on the canvas of the painting
Also computers being universal models of computation makes no difference to this point

[Anonymous No.14790583]

>>14790563
Simulations, unlike paintings, can make predictions. Just because something doesn't model the totality of reality, doesn't mean it's not a simulation, or even a useful simulation. No one is saying a simulation of something is the real thing, only that it can be a useful model of approximation.

[Anonymous No.14790588]

>>14790179
It's neither idealism or materialism, but depending on who you are reading or talking to it can lean towards one or the other.

For example Shintoism is panpsychism, they lean more towards the materialist side compared to many sects of Hinduism or Buddhism.

>>14790383
Cosmological constants & numbers aren't real but they're true.

'Real' doesn't mean as much as you think it does in regards to truth.

>>14790350
This is a Japanese Image board, only panpsychist physicalism is allowed.

Phrase the sun!

[Anonymous No.14790590]

>>14790583
* No one is saying a simulation of something is the real thing

Save maybe those that claim reality is a simulation...

[Anonymous No.14790601]

>>14790583
>only that it can be a useful model of approximation.
Some of us ain't even sahing that. Why tf are you even trying to extrapolate objective gains from everything? Boldly assuming there's beggining and an end and your location on this, while even all your wordly maths proves the opposite.

[Anonymous No.14790602]

>>14790590
>This is a Japanese Image board, only panpsychist physicalism is allowed.
this /sci/ has always been a panschyist board, newfag plebs gtfo

[Anonymous No.14790603]

>>14790583
So if the artist used a mathematical model to decide how he'd paint the next picture, now the pictures become embedded with simulation?
I don't see why making predictions is relevant. We can use mathematics or natural language to make predictions but speaking a sentence doesn't magically apparate a mini universe that simulates the situation in order to solve the simulation and be useful or whatever etc.
A simulation of a particle does not mean there is a mini simulated universe inside the pages of the mathematical equations or inside the computer cluster that are solving the equations.
If a machine becomes generally intelligent (which I doubt but let's assume) it would not be a simulation of intelligence it would be a physical and real and unique intelligence.

[Anonymous No.14790617]

>>14790590
Our senses technically simulate(or hallucinate) reality. So often when a scientist says we live in one, it is in regards to being confined to our own sensory experience. Human reality is indeed a simulation, just as much a bird's or a worm's reality.

Why we experience the world and tune into it as we do is a profound mystery. I often wonder if the AI generate pictures that appeared to us a strange were in fact was what actuality looked like, as in dog eyes.

[Anonymous No.14790630]

>>14790603
Simulations make useful predictions about the real world, which we in turn act upon to create the reality of say a drone or car. Again, just because a simulation isn't all encompassing, doesn't mean it isn't a simulation. Simulations exist (yes, much like evolving blueprints), and we use them.

>If a machine becomes generally intelligent (which I doubt but let's assume) it would not be a simulation of intelligence it would be a physical and real and unique intelligence.
I'd posit that it's still a simulation of intelligence as it's an artificial, digital recreation. I suspect we'll get to the degree where we have to make that a legal rights question, as some idiots at Google are already trying to do for their, very human-like, expert systems. But even if the device exhibits the problem solving abilities of a human mind, it's still a simulation, and in the case of our current expert systems, ones that create their output all but completely divorced from the methodology a human mind uses.

[bodhi No.14790651]

>>14790505
tell that the people that supported the covid lock downs or the proponents of global warming. I'll wait

[Anonymous No.14790660]

>>14790630
Why does something being useful entail that it exists?
Why does something not being useful entail it does not exist?
I guess we're never going to agree on this

[Anonymous No.14790671]

>>14790660
Well, a broken simulation isn't terribly useful but still exists if it creates any kind of output. I'm just saying the fact that we apply them to reality proves their existence. This persistence that "simulations don't exist" is demonstrably false.

[Anonymous No.14790700]

>>14790671
No it isn't false because it doesn't apply to reality. It only applies once we as physical systems do something with it.
A program to simulate the dynamics of a plane that an engineer uses to help build a plane is not constructing a mini universe inside the program where there is a plane that's evolving to simulated physics or whatever. It's just a for offloading his calculations to what amounts to a fast abacus. There is nothing inside the program that's real. What's actually inside the machine is a bunch of atoms organized into chips and buses and shit that shoot elections around like an abacus in order to shit out some approximations of nonlinear partial differential equations which are themselves entirely made up etc.

[Anonymous No.14790719]

>>14790671
>useful for filling a void
ever consider this tho. what a cruel cruel infinity

[Anonymous No.14790736]

>>14790601
answer this or this midwit manor getting nuked

[Anonymous No.14790756]

>>14789617
No I'm saying in order to even gain knowledge of those accounts which means you need to filter the information through your senses in your internal experience

[Anonymous No.14790799]

>>14790700
Just because the simulation of a plane, isn't the plane itself, does not mean the simulation does not exist. The hardware that runs the software creates the imagery that is the simulation, all of which exist. It's a simulation, not to be confused with the real thing, it's a real thing that exists separately from whatever it is designed to simulate.

[Anonymous No.14790819]

>>14790756
Yes, that's a necessary evil that creates some uncertainty.
Some. You want to throw the baby out with the bath water instead of doing what we can with uncertain access to information we get.
I'm saying we can make an effort to use it and it isn't the end of the world that it has to filter through a potentially unreliable and misleading process. You do the best you can to keep cross-checking and you'll tend to find some reason to discard some propositions and some reason to keep and build on others. We have uncertain but also nonzero amounts of evidence pointing towards a consensus reality that isn't dependent on any one particular person's sensory organs or brain. So you try to map that reality out and sift it apart from all the things that *are* solely coming from one person's brain.
That's all. If you can't appreciate that much then I can't really have a productive conversation with you.

[Anonymous No.14790844]

>>14790819
I'm not saying that there can be no certain evidence, I'm saying that the most certain thing is that there is a subjective experience, as I only learn the other information through my subjective experience

[Anonymous No.14790863]

>>14790819
>>14790844
>t-there must be a 1 it all rounds up to, fine. can we be friends now and discuss if we should jack each other off and if then how to as practically as we may or may not consider possible?

[Anonymous No.14790880]

>>14790844
No, MRIs only scan through processes they have zero information on.
What they have information on is what they scan, not themselves or how they scan.
It's the same with us. There's no reason to believe we have very useful, accurate, or literally representative insight into our own cognitive or sensory processes because they adapted for information about the world, not for information about our own inner workings. What we have for our own inner workings are just whatever placeholder bullshit is needed to keep us from psychologically breaking down and getting mauled by a tiger. Its adapted purpose has nothing to do with being a literal depiction of our own cognition or sensory function.

[Anonymous No.14791005]

>>14790880
An MRI has no thoughts of its own, it simply takes in a fixed input and returns a fixed output. The MRI itself does not know any information, it simply displays its processed data on a screen. So if we are like an MRI, we cannot "know" anything as we had no thoughts to begin with, we are just a deterministic machine

[Anonymous No.14791664]

>>14788738

You're absolutely correct. We experience a small, small portion of reality; a portion which, interpreted through our relatively simple minds, each of us calls "the world."

[Anonymous No.14791679]

>>14791664
Fuck off Kant
All hail the eternal science of dialectics

[Anonymous No.14792276]

>>14790799
There is no "real thing" going on. There is just a machine shuffling electrons around in a way that is entirely different from how electrons or other particles are shuffled around in the actual real world thing that it's supposedly "simulating". The hardware is a physical device that is built out of specific molecules in specific arrangments. The "software" does not exist at all, it's just a pattern of electrons that we humans have engineered to move in a certain way in order to get lights to flash on glass, just like we use paints to get colors and oils to stick onto a canvas to make an image. The depiction inside the image of a cat is not real and is not a simulation of a cat and is not inside some simulated universe. It's just a bunch of molecules, which are entirely different from an actual cat, arranged to produce light that takes the vague shape of a cat that we humans then THINKS "looks like" a cat. It's an entirely different physical thing.
The hardware (the atoms) and the software (the electrons flowing through channels) all exist, but the "simulation" does not exist anywhere but in our minds.

[Anonymous No.14792565]

>>14788738
You're trapped in subjective experience. It's the objective filter for objective reality: a reality you will never touch, because you can't escape being a subject of it.

[Anonymous No.14792579]

Why do /his/ and /lit/ brainlets keep leaking onto this board?
Go talk about your fantasy juju that has no relation to the real world where you belong

[Anonymous No.14792689]

>>14792579
People who believe that simulations exist are crypto-idealists.

[Anonymous No.14793387]

>>14788738

You're real, real close OP.

Subjective consciousness isn't real. There is only one consciousness. So why are we individuals? Because your consciousness only has access to your memories and no others, and vice versa for strangers. But the consciousness itself, it's all the same.

We are merely instantiations of the "perfect" conscious being, "God".

[Anonymous No.14793432]

>>14792276
>There is just a machine shuffling electrons around
Which is a real thing.

It's creating a simulation as an emergent phenomenon. The simulation is in itself a real thing, which is in turn used to affect the world.

>just like we use paints to get colors and oils to stick onto a canvas to make an image
Paintings also exist.

>which are entirely different from an actual cat
Still a simulation of a cat. Simulation != Object being simulated, but Simulation == Actual thing.

>but the "simulation" does not exist anywhere but in our minds.
Well, then you get into phenomenology, as the cat doesn't exist anywhere but in our minds either. Different individuals, however, can agree upon seeing the simulation as they can the cat, so for practical purposes, both are real, even though they are separate things.

Simulations exist insomuch as anything else does.