[ 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: 224 KB, 544x438, 41142.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4177232 No.4177232 [Reply] [Original]

>that feel when you are a pawn to the universe

>it created you one way, it will destroy you and perhaps recreate you another way, you have no power over any of this

>that feel when you might be re-created as a christian fundamentalist republican, or an aids infected malaria infested starving child

the universe, a terrible place

>> No.4177239
File: 131 KB, 500x461, that feel no.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4177239

>> No.4177241

>recreated

Prove it

>> No.4177244

>>4177241

disprove it.

>> No.4177248
File: 308 KB, 650x520, whatwhatinthebutt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4177248

>>4177232

>> No.4177252 [DELETED] 

>>4177232
>>4177244
>>4177241

whythefuckdoesitevenmatter.jpg

>> No.4177258
File: 368 KB, 1654x789, 1324437817142.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4177258

>>4177232

>> No.4177274

>That feel when you, a few mere dozens of kilos of organic matter, matter more to the fate of the universe that created you than a thousand stars and a million planets.

Feels good man

>> No.4177275

"You" are never "you" for any appreciable amount of time. The air you breath (and thus oxygen in your bloodstream), the water you drink (remember, your body is approx. 70% water) is all comprised of atoms and molecules that we all share. "You" won't be recreated as anything, because "we're" already one. That being said, stop hating on yourself and try to understand and explain, that way "you" enrich all of "our" lives.

>> No.4177276
File: 58 KB, 250x250, oh-boy-here-we-go-again.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4177276

>>4177232
>recreated

>> No.4177279

>>4177276
well if the universe in infinite, there's a big chance, you will be recreated right ?

>> No.4177283

>>4177232
I don't know if you would be reincarnated as a starving malaria child, if you lead a "greater good" life

>> No.4177287

>>4177279
Reincarnation assumes that there is something immaterial that drives our consciousness and survives after we die.

This, of course, is entirely unfalsifiable and thus does not belong here on /sci/.

>> No.4177288

>>4177283

universe doesn't give a shit about your greater good, you dont deserve anything it's all random to us

if the universe wants to make you an ant, then you're an ant. no exceptions

>> No.4177293

>>4177287
Are memes immaterial?

>> No.4177298

>you experience the universe
>you are the universe
>you are your own pawn
>you are a slave to yourself

>> No.4177301

>>4177287

it has nothing to do with reincarnation or a spirit floating from one body to another

all that has to happen is the brain pattern that gives rise to your consciousness is recreated in some other conscious entity, it could be anything, animal or human

its just a pattern occurring again...if a pattern occurs once, it could occur again---your consciousness is just a specific brain configuration---nothing is stopping the universe from recreating that pattern--whatever it is, you aren't a special unique snowflake

>> No.4177303

>>4177287
not realy, it's like the beam paradox from star trek

>> No.4177313

>>4177293
memes are virtual information. ideas are immaterial, but they must be encoded in material.

so, no. memes are material.

>> No.4177321

>>4177288
Has the universe not demonstrated an equal and opposite reaction through out history? Look for events today that might have occurred in the repetitively close past that might have been a similar problem in the past. Science is supposed to be a way of evolving. Seems like it has the opposite effect around there.
>>4177287
And who's "/sci/" are you referring to? The scientific Deduction method, or the induction method.

>> No.4177322

>>4177301
Assuming my "brain pattern" is the configuration of electrons within my head - if the universe "reused" my "brain pattern", then it would be reusing my memories. Do you remember anything from a past life?

no. your identity is the sum total of your memories. so if no memories exist from prior lives, then you did not previously exist as someone else.
>>4177303
that's nice.

>> No.4177323

>>4177287

Do people seriously believe this? That epiphenomenalism and the like are immune to science because they are unfalsifiable?

>> No.4177330

>>4177321
I'm referring to the board you're currently posting on. Things that are either unfalsifiable are useless to science and thus do not belong on a science board.

>> No.4177329

>>4177313
>ideas are immaterial

confirmed for not knowing how the brain works

>> No.4177337

>>4177313
So when I create a meme, can that go on without me? Do i sever all connections to the meme?

>> No.4177338

>>4177321
trying to use human moral in the universe
come on , you can produce better thoughts than this one

>> No.4177343

>>4177329
>didn't read my post
ideas are encoded in material, just like 2D words are made up out of 3D atoms. Words don't technically "exist" per se, we just use particular configurations of atoms to communicate.
>>4177323
yes, that is exactly what I believe. prove me wrong.

>> No.4177378

>>4177322
>Assuming my "brain pattern" is the configuration of electrons within my head - if the universe "reused" my "brain pattern", then it would be reusing my memories. Do you remember anything from a past life?

no, consciousness and memories are literally 2 different things

you can have the same consciousness and lose all your memories in this life

recreating consciousness is one thing

>> No.4177382

>>4177288
Has the universe not demonstrated an equal and opposite reaction through out history? Look for events today that might have close past that might have been a similar problem in the not so close past. Science is supposed to be a way of evolving. Seems like it has the opposite effect around there.
No I do not think there is a single all knowing being. I am rational. Possibly someone who could give that indication by seemingly normal acts.

>> No.4177387

>>4177378
you're implying that personality is entirely a priori. Which I don't think is a valid statement to make. Besides, the hypothesis that consciousness can somehow transfer from brain to brain is unfalsifiable.

>>4177337
The meme can go on without you if the material that encodes that meme remains intact, just like a book exists after its author dies.

>> No.4177390

>>4177232
The real question is whether the brain's internal state can be cached in a surjective fashion with an external system, and then conservatively reduced back to another internal system that can produce the same surjectively external fashion.

>wtf did I just say?

>> No.4177396

>>4177232

I venture to say that one retains all memories from more of a history point of view. It is human instinct to record the past. As for the conscience aspect, that is something retained forever, but molded with time.

>> No.4177407

>ITT EVERYONE AFRAID OF BEING RECREATED

>hurr prove it, hurr conscoiusness prove it, hurrr

its sad and terrifying I know guys, just chill

>> No.4177409

>>4177343

So you believe that consciousness is immaterial, so presumably you also accept the possibility (whatever the heck that means) of the zombie world, which is atom-by-atom identical to our universe but with the key difference that nobody is conscious?

>> No.4177417
File: 45 KB, 401x575, f0208576.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4177417

>>4177407
If I'm recreated, I hope I get to be a really poisonous spider so I hide in people's beds and bite them.

or maybe a shark. sharks are awesome.

>> No.4177423

>>4177409
consciousness (whatever it is) is virtual. It has characteristics of being material (i.e. is encoded in material and can be affected by material via its substrate) but does not exist after its material substrate is gone.

As for the philosophical zombies - yes, that is a possibility. But whether or not I am one is unfalsifiable, so I don't worry about it.

>> No.4177438

>>4177423
So, essentially, immaterial to you means infinite precision?

>> No.4177455

>>4177423
basically all you are saying is that everything comes from the material.

>> No.4177459

consciousness is simply encoded into our DNA as it is absorbed. As for the whole zombie world deal, yes and now. It is very possible that it "could happen" but not likely. Some government agencies are not all bad (CDC). The whole zombie lure came from legends in Africa and this was proven, movies were made etc. and people started to think they meant living dead. They are impossible. To be living it must be created from something living. So reanimation is possible, but what people forgot was the original folklore that gave way for science to "deduce" how this was happening. They said it was a very rare combination of minerals and naturally occurring things, when ingested or injected, you would show signs of being of a living dead nature, but its effects wore off and the hangover included death by fever. Thus the association. Now assuming that there is a scientific way recreate that, one would probably start with a clone. a completely soulless being. That seems to be mention in a few religions (oldest way of keeping history , incidentally also the most translated). The end result is a battle of life and death.

>> No.4177464

>>4177423

So I think you would accept that consciousness is basically information theoretic in nature: As you say it is encoded in mere atoms, but it is not the atoms themselves but rather the patterns they form.

And you also believe that zombies are possible.That's just perverse.

So I could take the exact same configuration of neurons and electro-chemical signals in two separate universes, and in one of them it would encode consciousness and in another one it would not? Really? Come on.

>> No.4177466
File: 181 KB, 397x396, f0207088.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4177466

>>4177438
immaterial implies "unpredictable by the laws of physics and therefore unobservable". I'm not sure what you're on about with infinite precision.
>>4177455
well yeah. where else would it come from? immaterial does not beget material.

>> No.4177471

astrology theorizes that our entire lives are encoded in the universe

>> No.4177472

>>4177459
what are you talking about, real zombies are just people that were privy from salt and some minerals , that for this can't reason

>> No.4177481

fixed
>>4177459
what are you talking about, real zombies are just people that were privy from salt and some minerals , and for that can't reason

>> No.4177478

>>4177466
on a side note, laws were developed by the christian church. hence the ten commandments.

>> No.4177485

>>4177232
I was remarking about the possibility that we are pushed in the direction that those are the only kind of living dead. that the other kind, is the real kind, not just the induced kind. They are simply sole-less people.

>> No.4177493

>>4177464
You are correct in stating that I think that consciousness is entirely a material phenomenon.
BUT: I freely acknowledge that I do not know whether or not we are all philosophical zombies. I know you're trying to get me to argue in favor of dualism - the truth is that I am perfectly aware that dualism may be correct. However, there is no possible way that anyone will ever empirically verify or falsify dualism or monism. I choose monism because it allows me to make more statements about the nature of consciousness than dualism does.
>>4177478
the standard model of physics and laws of elohim are different. you know this.

>> No.4177496

>>4177466

Oh dear this one may be too far gone.

Look people, this is what happens when you try to do material reductionism but you get confused about levels. It's not quite as bad as straight up super naturalism but it will still leave you pretty darn confused. Let this be a warning to the rest.

>> No.4177498

>>4177466
unpredictable is a state lacking in precision.

You believe conciousness is infinitely fine grained, that to reproduce it, you would require infinite precision.

So, you believe that conciousness is infinitely precise.

Anyways, you sound like a moron.

>> No.4177503

More than likely all of the atoms of your body will never leave the solar system and will eventually be swept up into our parent star, sucked into a black hole or just left on a lifeless rock until atomic decay.

>> No.4177508
File: 5 KB, 184x184, f0200768.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4177508

>>4177498
No, I believe that consciousness is a reproducible, predictable phenomenon. See my other posts.
>>4177496
I think you've misunderstood me.

>> No.4177512

>that feel's ass

what the fuck is this r9k??

>> No.4177523

>>4177493

What would it even mean for dualism to be true? Does the universe come with a little xml-tag attached that says either "dualism-true" or "dualism-false".

>> No.4177525

If a kid had AIDS and malaria at the same time... well... that would be some shit.

>> No.4177531 [DELETED] 

>>4177523
>xml-tags
>the universe

lol'd

>> No.4177532

Who says that you can't. Physics? Science was invented to discredit religion. Religion is controlled by a bunch of conformists. Religion makes a lot of sense depending on your ability to think like those who wrote it. They hid the facts in the fiction. That about sums it up. As for real the real zombie and fake zombie, the living dead type of zombie is a perceived-from-media classic. A real zombie is a sole-less being, which cannot be created from nothing. Your laws of science seem to bend this "rule" a lot. Just not in the right direction.

>> No.4177547

>>4177523
If dualism is true, then some component of our mind exists apart from our body. Since it is not incorporated with the material substrate of our body (according to dualism), it itself is not material. However, the problem with dualism is that it is unfalsiable because you can't measure an immaterial object.
>>4177532
errors + stupid = this post.

>> No.4177548

>>4177508

>>I think you've misunderstood me.

I hope so. I really do.

>> No.4177553

>>4177503
think in a bigger scale of time son.

>> No.4177555

nothin but atoms bumping into atoms

>> No.4177560
File: 28 KB, 500x500, face_contact.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4177560

>>4177232
>implying I am not within the universe
>implying I am not part of the the universe
>implying I am not the universe
We are all the universe.

>> No.4177561

I think the best approach would be to think about how one could completely disprove the other, or both?

>> No.4177563 [DELETED] 

>>4177560
get out hinduism this is a western board

>> No.4177564

>>4177560
I'm god, next

>> No.4177567

>>4177548
Well, maybe I can clarify. What were you asking?

>> No.4177571

hero's gambit:

if reincarnation is true there are 3 selection methods: karma, random, and closest foetus.

judging from the state of the world karma probably isn't true and there's nothing we can do if it's random. this leaves closest foetus as the wager. i.e., if you're going to die it's smart to move to a local environment you would be happy growing up.

>> No.4177581

>>4177547

But my mind has material influence on the universe. My mind controls my body, and my body can pick things up and move them around and the like. If I can even so much as reflect on some aspect of my consciousness and then say "I am aware of this aspect of my consciousness" then that part of my mind has had a material effect on the physical universe.

None of this requires the thing-that-is-thinking to be made of neurons or atoms or quarks or anything. In order for something to be inaccessible to science::the-method, it is not enough for it to merely not be made of the things that science::the-body-of-knowledge currently understands. It would have to be entirely uncorrelated with things that are measurable.

>> No.4177604

>>4177581
Exactly. If your mind has influence on the material universe, then clearly it is not immaterial. Right? So the "thing that is thinking" must be material on some level - and IF by some chance there is something above that level, then it is immaterial and does not interact with my brain.

This is why I don't believe in a soul. An immaterial soul cannot interact with a material brain.

But the unfalsifiable possibility remains that there IS a soul and it just hovers over the electrons in your brain without doing anything.

>> No.4177606

Bump because this is fun.

>> No.4177649

>>4177604

That dualism is unfalsifiable shouldn't make you say "Oh I guess I can't answer this question". It should make you say "Oh I guess this isn't actually a coherent question at all".

Again I ask: What would it mean for dualism to be true; For some component of your mind to exist independent of the universe where your mind actually is and does.

>> No.4177661

define consciousness.

>> No.4177672

>>4177232

>the universe, a terrible place

I never asked for this

>> No.4177673

>>4177649
Science cannot answer an incoherent (i.e. illogical) question. So you were right both times.
As for the ramifications of dualism: It could mean ANYTHING. Since the part of us that exists extranaturally would be immaterial and thus unmeasurable, we can't gain any insight onto its nature. It could be pink elephants or a universal human soul for all we know. Or both!
Again - this is why I am not a dualist.

>> No.4177681

>>4177661
the combination of subjective experience and awareness of self

>> No.4177686

the ultimate question for consciousness is a HARD problem. I mean, even if we could qualitively describe all the processes of the brain, we wouldn't know what it would feel like to be a rat.

>> No.4177693

>>4177673

I fully agree on the first point. What I meant was more a matter of emphasis. You should conclude "I can't answer this question, because it's not a coherent question", with the latter half being the important part. I don't think we have any disagreement here.

You've misunderstood what I intended to ask though. I don't mean "What would be the implications if dualism were true", but rather "In what sense could dualism be true".

>> No.4177710
File: 455 KB, 499x320, sagan-sand.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4177710

>>4177232
Stop seeing yourself as a flea trapped in a clock and start seeing yourself for the very complex yet organized emergent phenomena within a structured yet boundless universe that you are.

>> No.4177711

>>4177681

wrong
and thats not a definition, just a vague description

>> No.4177712

>>4177693
Hmm. well, dualism can't be true in an objective or empirical sense. I suppose it could be true in a subjective sense, but since our senses operate materially, we wouldn't know. Or dualism could be extranaturally true, which would imply that our visible universe is just a microcosm with its own set of particles.

However, I don't like to use the term "true" outside of objective, predictable frameworks. So, if you ask me, dualism cannot be true at all.

>> No.4177713
File: 48 KB, 480x720, 1323320651247.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4177713

OP sounds like a one thousand year old enlightened sage

>> No.4177717

>>4177713
>saved

>> No.4177718

>it created you one way, it will destroy you and perhaps recreate you another way, you have no power over any of this

>lol but there is no god

>> No.4177738

>>4177712

>>So, if you ask me, dualism cannot be true at all.

Great! I think we're done here. This exactly the point I wanted to make.

There's no reason to expect the truth value of some sentence to be a well-defined or ontologically basic thing, even if that sentence happens to have the syntax of a question.

So much of the pointless arguments of philosophers stems simply not understanding this. And you can hardly blame them: The part of your brain that takes care of interpreting language doesn't tell you "this is something that has the syntax of a question but I'm not sure yet so proceed with care", it tells you "this is a question, answer it please".

>> No.4177745

>>4177738
So we came all that way to agree. Haha.
high five!

>> No.4177763

>>4177745

Indeed. This really is the best way for something like this to resolve.

So uhh what was this thread about originally again?

>> No.4177802

>>4177763
reincarnation and the overwhelming power of nature, I believe.

>> No.4177881

its quite possible to be recreated as a piece of jelly that simply suffers immensely for thousands of years...

the universe could do this to you...you can't do shit about it, like that guy who is turning into a tree

wtf is going on!