[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 93 KB, 718x669, desmond-avi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3056422 No.3056422 [Reply] [Original]

So, how does /sci/ feel on consciousness time travel? I know travelling to certain eras with a machine is virtually impossible let alone ludicrous. But how does Sci feel on Consciousness Time Travel, basically travelling to your own past, present and future only. That way it'd also cause less paradoxes.

>> No.3056437

Are you hallucinating?

Again?

>> No.3056431

Aren't you from /ck/?

>> No.3056438

How very Augustinian of you...

>> No.3056444

It's possible as long as you use your
IM
AG
IN
A
TION

>> No.3056447

Never been to /ck/

And no, i'm not hallucinating.

>> No.3056463

I like the idea... but you can't take with you anything that we know to be brain-dependent, which is 99% of our memory. If there is something non-physical about our consciousness that could time-travel, it would have to be very hard to notice you were doing it... which is how it was depicted in Lost, which is what made it interesting.

>> No.3056470

>>3056447
>And no, i'm not hallucinating.

Wanna bet?

>> No.3056474

It also has even less scientific evidence than the time travel in Star Trek: The Voyage Home.

>> No.3056485

>>3056422
>time travel
>virtually impossible

Yeah, no.

>> No.3056499

>past

Just memories

>present

You just left that a second ago

>future

only at a rate of one second per second, sorry

>> No.3056511

Just do some drugs, u'll be able to hallucinate about time travel.

On a more serious note, you could theoretically travel into the future by reaching speeds approaching light speed, you'd just never be able to get back.

>> No.3056536

bump

>> No.3056573

>>3056511
That's time dilation.

>> No.3056584

I don't have the source material but on one occasion when he received a particularly massive shock, Tesla said to have seen his past, present, and future all in a flash. Based on the minimal details available this would fit consciousness time travel. Anyone have additional info on this?

>> No.3056591

Consciousness time travel assumes that souls are tangible. Souls do not exist. While ctt is an excellent plot device (tvtropes.org- peggy sue), it cannot happen. Case closed.

>> No.3056602

>>3056584
>Tesla, a documented crazy person, said something once
>Obviously, this is evidence of my theory!

Goddamnit, /sci/, why are you such a New Agey bitch.?

>> No.3056605

About Tesla, what's a good biography on him?

>> No.3056634

>>3056591
Evidence required. This is /sci/. Opinions stated as facts are repugnant here.

>> No.3056655

>>3056602
Because we are legion. We are new agey bitches, creatards, liberals, libertarians, assholes, idiots, white knights, pedophiles, zoophiles, moralists, asexuals and everything else besides.

And when you have a topic that <people of group X> are interested in, you get more comments from <people of group X> than from <people of group Y>, who could disagree with the topic.

>> No.3056683

>>3056605
I read Tesla: Man out of time (Cheney) recently, and this is where I found mention of the past, present, future flash. I doubt it has anything to do with time travel, I'm just bringing it up for the sake of curiosity. Decently written biography, a holistic account of his life. One day I would like to go to Serbia to get access to his original documents and journals.

>> No.3056735

>>3056683
>Tesla
>Serbia

Negro please, you best be joking.

>> No.3056773

>>3056634
A Rebuttal
It is not physically viable at this time to find a yes/no answer on the existence of souls.
Souls and philosophy are subjective.
The OP asked what we thought.
Therefore, opinions are used in this as there are no meaningful facts.
Therefore, this thread will contain opinions, and your attempts to refute those opinions are pointless.

>> No.3056778

>virtually impossible let alone ludicrous

I don't think you know "let alone" means.

>> No.3056787

>>3056773
>Souls are subjective

No. No, they are not. Their existence or nonexistence is a matter of objective truth.

Why can't Science have a better hold on /sci/?

>> No.3056809

>>That way it'd also cause less paradoxes.

1. Send your consciousness back in time.
2. Your consciousness at that time no longer exists, replaced by your current consciousness.
3. You either:
a. No longer exist.
b. Are stuck in a loop which involves you sending your consciousness back to the same time, for eternity.

You're right OP, WAAAAY less paradoxes.

>> No.3056817
File: 32 KB, 384x283, belgrade.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3056817

>>3056735
Negro, you must purchase a map.

>> No.3056822

>>3056773
>Souls do not exist. .... it cannot happen. .... Case closed.
That is not how one states an opinion. That is someone with the delusion that their opinion is a fact.

>> No.3056834

>>3056787
Science doesn't deal in objective truth, but merely in predictive models. Nevertheless, how do you propose to explore the issue of souls scientifically?

>> No.3056850

>>3056809
I don't see the paradox. My soul jumps back to my 5-years-ago brain, while my 5-years-ago soul jumps forward to my present brain. After 10 minutes they jump back and continue on. There's no paradox or infinite loop.

>> No.3056854

>>3056809
3b. You would exist in all states simultaneously. The awakening of 4th dimensional consciousness.

>> No.3056882

>>3056850

So the consciousnesses are swapped, rather than the old one is replaced? Interesting I guess, but still impossible. The brain is merely a bunch of grey "mush", merely used to send and receive chemical signals. While the soul may exist (HUGE may there, as in probably doesn't), what you're talking about would be some sort of soul machine, which would branch out into some sort of new agey religious science.

tl;dr: Go to /x/.

>> No.3056901

>>3056822
I come across as a dick. But that is my opinion. You are free to ignore it.
>>3056787
>>3056834
There is no way to measure it scientifically I know of. Until a method to obtain proof is found, then subjective works as well as objective. I choose subjective, it allows for opinions.

>> No.3056913

>>3056850

What about soul A (the old one) learning things from the future, that wouldn't change anything? Say soul A decides to memorize the lotto numbers from some time in the past, it then walks to the gas station to buy a ticket, and is in turn hit by a truck and smooshed all over the sidewalk. Soul B then never gets a chance to exist, and because it never existed and swapped places with A, A never got the idea to get the lotto ticket and was never killed. Basically, B provides a new prospective to A (no matter what A sees in the future, merely knowing that it would have the opportunity to go back later would change outcomes), and A makes different decisions, which changes B in some way.

>> No.3056933

Adding to the paradox discussion, what about branching universes?

>> No.3056948

>>3056933
Why did you say "adding to the discussion" when all you did was spit out a word you heard in the context of time travel once?

>> No.3056949

>>3056913
For one thing, we know scientifically that memory is at least MOSTLY brain dependent. So it would be very difficult to transfer knowledge apart from the brain, but lets say we could manage it.

If you swapped souls with your earlier self, then your earlier self swapped souls with you as well. The soul that was in your earlier brain was always the one there, so you can't do anything different the second time, because there was no second time. If you existed later to swap souls then whatever you're choosing to do is going to lead to that.

>> No.3056956

>>3056933
It's absurd. You can't make photocopies of the universe.

>> No.3056961

>>3056948
Im lazy. So sue me. It prevents paradoxes though, which are boring and clichéd.

>> No.3056982

>>3056956
Think of it as simply a many-worlds universe where quantum mechanics spontaneously rewired someone's brain. No time travel, just random brain damage that alters his personality and memories in a good way.

>> No.3057030
File: 20 KB, 200x198, Croatia-Lika.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3057030

>>3056817

No my Nubian brother, I'm afraid it is you who is in need of a lesson in geography.

>> No.3057073

The only argument with a scientific basis I've seen against souls (which isn't incredibly strong) goes as follows:

If a soul exists, and is the foundations of our conciousness, then brain damage wouldn't fundamentally alter our personalities. Since it can and does, then what we really are must be a purely physical thing.

>> No.3057095

>>3057073
>you need evidence of lack, for the existence of something you can't prove.

>> No.3057098

>>3057073
But that's a non-sequitur. Alterations in our living conditions and even our diet can alter our personalities. The fucking weather affects our personalities. Do you think our consciousness exists in the troposphere?

>> No.3057102

>>3057073
An argument against something from a scientific basis includes the argument "there is no evidence which speaks to its existence." There is no evidence speaking in favor of souls.

>> No.3057107

>>3057073

Well, there's the 'radio' argument, but that seems pretty specious to me. At any rate, before you can argue over the possibility of 'time travel;ling souls', wouldn't it make sense to actually clarify what is meant by 'a soul'? It seems to be one of those maddeningly slippery notions that can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean.

>> No.3057111

>>3057098

Those are all chemical changes, observable empirically. They may be triggered by external stimulii, but the actual change is internal.

>> No.3057117
File: 19 KB, 370x270, serbia.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3057117

>>3057030
The museum there:
>above 160 000 original documents,
above 2000 books and journals,
above 1200 historical technical exhibits,
above 1500 photographs and photo plates of original, technical objects, instruments and apparatus,
above 1000 plans and drawings.

What are you referring to in Croatia?

>> No.3057119

>>3057098

Yes, but none of those thing preclude the soul. The soul would still be experiencing all those other stimuli, and it would be the soul who's personality was actually changed.

But since we can predict certain changes will happen based on certain damage to certain areas of the brain, and this can be experimentally proven, this is strong evidence that it is the brain that determines our personality.

>> No.3057126

>>3057117
>What are you referring to in Croatia?

His place of birth? Isn't that normally how nationality is decided?

>> No.3057137

>>3057119
Wait.

Prove the soul, first. If you can't, then we are not having a discussion.

>> No.3057139

>>3057126
Nowhere did I refer to his place of birth.

>> No.3057144

>>3057137

... My whole argument was AGAINST the soul. I was responding to objections about that argument. That was the point.

You don't ask someone to prove something when they are creating an argument specifically to disprove that same thing.

>> No.3057157

>>3057119
Indeed, the brain largely determines our personality. I don't think anyone would argue against that. But there is more to consciousness than personality.

>> No.3057161

>>3056422
DMT

/thread

>> No.3057173

>>3057157

Yes, but as the soul would be the ultimate form of 'you' as it is normally described, then proving that something else is the ultimate form of you would disprove the soul.

I think we need a clear definition of soul. I should have started with that.

>> No.3057179

>>3057111
There are changes inside and outside the brain. There's no empirical reason to draw a line at the brain. The entire endocrine system is involved in driving emotion and motivation. But then there's no reason to draw the line at the body either, since the environment drives these things in turn. But what is at the core that can actually have subjective awareness? That is a scientific unknown, why there should be any such thing. We only even know there's such a thing because each one of us experiences it (unless I am the only one). There is nothing about behavior or the chemical systems that would suggest it. That's what implies that there might be something non-physical to this ability to experience.

>> No.3057184

>>3057137
The proof of the soul is in the experience of it.

>> No.3057190

>>3057184
>experience

Hallucination.

>> No.3057223

>>3057173
Personality, along with behavior, isn't ultimate form, but is somewhat closely tied. I've taken drugs that have affected my personality and mood fairly strongly, and behavior as well, but I've been the same fundamental conscious being through out, just with modified outward properties. The part that cannot be affected with drugs or brain structure changes is the part that I would consider the soul, but you can't easily define what that part is in any terms besides the terms of personal experience.

>> No.3057238

>>3057223

Yeah, that's the problem. Evidence for the soul would be purely subjective and impossible to actually test scientifically.

But on the same line, if the soul is the seat of conciousness, how could mind-altering drugs (a physical thing) effect your conciousness?

>> No.3057242

>>3057223
>The part that cannot be affected with drugs or brain structure changes is the part that I would consider the soul

Your brain has no part like you describe, unless you're describing your skull.

>> No.3057281

>>3057242
I'm not talking about any part of the brain. I'm talking about the part of the mind that is essentially you. If you've experienced brain changes, you know what I'm talking about.

>> No.3057290

>>3057238
>Yeah, that's the problem. Evidence for the soul would be purely subjective and impossible to actually test scientifically.

right.

>But on the same line, if the soul is the seat of conciousness, how could mind-altering drugs (a physical thing) effect your conciousness?

That's just it. Drugs can change a LOT of things. They can change perception, mood, and so forth, but they can't change everything. Once you see what they can change you get a sense of what they can't change. And that's the elusive "you".

But yes, this is out of the reach of science, because it cannot be measured by a third party.

>> No.3057297

>>3057290

Basically. It would be like asking "Why do I like salmon but not eel? Do a study on it!"

>> No.3057324

>>3057281
Dude, I'm trying to tell you, you don't have a "part of your brain" that isn't effected by drugs.

I understand that you have this religion thing going on, but it's really something you want to believe.

We're all people, imperfect and made of meat.

>> No.3057335

>>3057290
The soul is not in reach to begin with. You're just like all the other humans on earth, men and women, young and old.

"I'm spechul, because I'm me!"

>> No.3057336

I personally do not believe in souls. If they do exist, then they are simply recording devices to carry personality+memories to an afterlife. Which makes the definition of a soul subjective. Tl,Dr. We are back where we started, only more confused.

>> No.3057355

>>3057324
Once again, I never said there was a part of the brain that isn't Affected by drugs. I'm talking about the part of the mind that is not. If you don't have the experiences necessary to figure this out, it is your problem. Don't take it out on me by accusing me of "wanting to believe" things.

>> No.3057380

>>3057355
No, I'm saying your experiences are probably hallucinations, and you're not unique. If you had a soul, it would be the same one we all use, which is to say, none at all.

>> No.3057392

>>3057380
>No, I'm saying your experiences are probably hallucinations
lol
denial much?
>If you had a soul, it would be the same one we all use, which is to say, none at all.
You're trying to tell me you're not conscious?

>> No.3057398

>>3057392
I can't be in denial of something that you can't fucking prove, idiot.

>> No.3057406

>>3057392
>You're trying to tell me you're not conscious?

Oh, so now the soul is CONSCIOUSNESS, now?

>> No.3057421

BOTH OF YOU. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

>> No.3057426

>>3057398
When someone explains why you're wrong about something and your only recourse is, "well you're probably hallucinating", yes that's denial.

>> No.3057429

>>3057406
obviously

>> No.3057455

>>3057426
If you're describing something that you cannot prove or reproduce.
Seriously, you are EXACTLY like everyone I've ever met, especially the crazy ones.

>> No.3057464

>>3057429
[citation needed]

>> No.3057479

Sci 101:
Don't say anything subjective, or these two guys will argue about the definition of a word.

>> No.3057492

>>3057455
Yes, it's a given that the subject lies out the realm of proof. No, I'm not fundamentally different from you or from a crazy person. Which is why you should be capable of making similar observations to mine.

>> No.3057495

>>3057479
Oh, look.

I have a dragon in my garage.

>> No.3057498

>>3057464
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soul

>> No.3057499

>>3057492
I grew up, kiddo.

>> No.3057511

>>3057495
An invisible, hovering, intangible dragon that breathes cold fire?
I have a magic sheep counting bucket.

>> No.3057508

>>3057498
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unicorn

>> No.3057516

>>3057499
>teenager in the internets calling people kiddo

>> No.3057528

>>3057516
And believing you are a unique flower is mature how, exactly?

>> No.3057547

>>3057528
I said I was NOT unique, retard. My advice to you: Pay more fucking attention. Grow up. Get less offended by new ideas . Learn things. Experience things.

>> No.3057561

>>3057547
>experience things

Like a soul?

>> No.3057573

>>3057561
Only if you give enough of a fuck to pay attention.

>> No.3057589

>>3057573
How does "paying attention" magically give you a soul?

>> No.3057594
File: 53 KB, 800x600, the preacher preaches.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3057594

There is no evidence of the existence of a soul.

Until there is, acknowledging its existence is rather moot.

>> No.3057596

You know what? Fuck the soul. Lets just call it "mind" and relax.

>> No.3057622

>>3057596
"soul" generally refers to the immaterial and/or eternal part of the mind. The mind includes the body as well.

>> No.3057634

>>3057622
2/10, that's the best I can give ya.

>> No.3057786

>>3056422
How does /sci/ feel about having candy fairies deliver gum drops from wishes? This question makes as much sense.