[ 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: 1.11 MB, 2560x1600, 1330113936671.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4683708 No.4683708 [Reply] [Original]

Where does thought exist?

Is it possible thought is a different dimension, and sentient life is where it collides with the 3 spatial dimensions?

The more complex the life form the bigger the size in this dimension. When a life ends it just goes back to the bigger pool in the thought universe and new life will access this pool.

>> No.4683717

It seems you don't know what a dimension is. But yeah, thoughts are non-physical and talking about their "location" doesn't make sense. The concept of location is only applicable to physical phenomena.

>> No.4683732

>>4683708

How? How can you say that thoughts don't have to have a location, they do. Something just can't exist and not be somewhere.

>> No.4683736

>>4683732
It is non-physical. As I said you can't talk about "location" of the non-physical. Location only makes sense when you have a physical object. Thoughts do exist, no doubt. But asking "where?" is the wrong question.

>> No.4683739

Thoughts exist in neurons and are propagated and maintained through neural connections supported by various ionic and chemical processes.
/thread

>> No.4683740

All evidence suggests that freewill is a divergent property of a brain, Alzheimer’s can drastically change how someone thinks. Then people have also identified different brain activity in MRI’s which occur for different emotions such as love.

To me the possibility is lower than that say, dragons. There is no evidence to indicate that it is the case and we already have a multitude of evidence to suggest that thought lies in the matter within the brain.

>> No.4683744

>>4683739
That's not all there is to thoughts. The subjective aspect cannot be located in neuronal activity.

>> No.4683748

>>4683740
What you mean is perception, not thought. Thought has always a subjective component as well.

>> No.4683757

ITT: fucking retarded samefag talking to himself.
ITT: dumbshit fuckwit with damaged schizophrenic brain seeks to mumble his psychotic dream interpretations at us and call them facts and reality.

Go die in a fucking fire, retard fundie. You are fucking stupid and fucking insane. Go play with your friends and leave /sci/ alone.

>> No.4683758

>>4683748

QUALIA
QUALIA
QUALIA
QUALIA

LOOK AT ME

QUALIA

Why hasn't this guy been banned yet?

>> No.4683762

Magnetic field consciousness field.

>> No.4683763

>>4683717

location is a statement of an object in relation to other objects.

>implying thoughts aren't in relation to anything else
>implying i'm not better at you in philosophy

>> No.4683764

>>4683736
meta=non
physical = physical
So metaphysical?
/x/

>> No.4683765

We are different parts of the same consciousness.

>> No.4683768

>>4683744
I assume you have a valid, accredited, and peer-reviewed source to back up those claims and can actually explain what you mean without being so incredibly vague.

>> No.4683773

>>4683757
There isn't anything wrong with any of his statements. Qualia are not physical. Dualism is the only interpretation compatible with observation. It does not assert anything more than subjective perception being distinct from what we can observe.

>> No.4683780

>>4683768
You cannot link thought/qualia to brain activity empirically. There are no scientific papers for this very reason. Try to devise an experiment which measures subjective perception. You cannot, becase it is not observable or physical.

>> No.4683784

>>4683773

>samefagging

>> No.4683785

>>4683758
Because other than you I contribute to our all scientific education.

>> No.4683786

You're just, like, totally like, blowing my mind, maannnnn. Thought universe, WHOOOOOOAAAAAA!!!

>> No.4683789

>>4683763
Thoughts are not in physical relation to other objects. You can't even objectively determine the distance between thoughts.

>> No.4683791

>>4683780

And claims that aren't falsifiable are what we call

NOT SCIENCE

>> No.4683792

>>4683764
Thoughts or at least components of them are metaphysical. That's right. OP should either restrict his question to the physical aspects (in this case he shouldn't talk about "thoughts" but about brain patterns) or he should take it to /x/.

>> No.4683793

>>4683768
Qualia are a philosophical problem that shows the limitations of science. Of course there will be no scientific paper on things that are beyond what science can examine.

>> No.4683794

hey iq Fundie,

Is the many minds interpretation really possbile... Like is Dualism really compatible with physics/science or are you just full of shit?
Thanks

>> No.4683796

>>4683792

If it's not true why can't we discuss why it's not?

You've done nothing but offer your own opinion and nothing else.

>> No.4683800

>>4683791
That's right. I hope OP understood why his question was unscientific.

>> No.4683801

>>4683780
Duuuuude, biochemical electrical processes and brain functions can't be observed so it's alllllllll groooovvvy

Except that it can be observed and there is plenty of research available out there, and theory building to more research

I find the lack of materialists in this thread disturbing

>> No.4683802

So what is information and how is it carried/transmitted?

>> No.4683804

>>4683801
I think IQ is talking about the actual "experience" of the thought patterns, which is qualia/not science and doesn't really need to be discussed here

>> No.4683806

>>4683794
It is hypothetically possible and it is unfalsifiable. That's all we can say. Please don't confuse me with the quantum wave function troll who occasionally uses my tripcode.

>> No.4683808

>>4683801

There is no lack. It's just that arguing with religious people (IQFundie) is a waste of time. When someone believes in something that can't be proven and they get to claim immunity from testing, then they become attention whores. Always wanting to comment on everything and argue with everyone because their opinions are so important and right.

>> No.4683809

>>4683804
There is no philosophy/theoretical neuroscience board, so qualia belong here

>> No.4683810

>>4683773
sametard fundie, go die in a fire like I told you.

You are schizophrenic. Enjoy the wonderfullness of dying in a fire with your subjective lies and utter nonsense.
I'm sure the qualia will all be copacetic up in yo ass, so don't you worry none, y'hear?

>> No.4683812

>>4683796
I haven't posted any opinion so far. I was just pointing out that OP's question as he asked it was not scientific. We could discuss a lot of philosophy here, but I thnk we shouldn't do this.

>> No.4683813

>>4683804
There is no difference between conscious experience and thought

Qualia can't be taken seriously as a concept because it's bullshit

>> No.4683814
File: 36 KB, 279x492, 1324083114837.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4683814

>>4683812

you're not the fucking king of /sci/, fuck off and take your negative opinion somewhere else.

If you don't like it don't post.

>> No.4683816

>>4683801
Of course brain activities and biochemical reactions can be observed, but that won't tell us anything about qualia. You should look up the term, if you never heard of it.

>> No.4683817

>>4683780
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
There are many experiments that monitor and measure perception and we are beginning to understand what individual genetic differences contribute to shifts between individuals.

>> No.4683818

>>4683810
There's no need to be upset.

>> No.4683819

>>4683813
"Because it's bullshit" is not an argument. If you want to spout uneducated and unqualified opinions, do it on /b/ or on facebook. Please leave the science board.

>> No.4683820

>>4683814
I am correcting a misunderstanding regarding science. Tell me how this isn't beneficial to the purpose of this board, i.e. discussing scientific topics.

>> No.4683821

>>4683816
What don't I look up aether and aetherial properties to understand spacetime while I am at it.

>> No.4683822

>>4683816
There is no "raw feels" without brain activity, there is no biochemical electrical differences between "raw feels," that is, conscious experience - and conscious thought

The entire concept is an attempt to divorce experience from the matter which enables experience in the first place

>> No.4683824

>>4683817
Physical perception can be examined, no doubt. But that's only the objective aspect. You can't measure or observe the subjective experience of a person.

>> No.4683825

Ok Fag fundie, are you a Dualist or not? Answer me straight

>> No.4683828

>>4683809
Does that mean I can post tulpa threads without being banned again?

>> No.4683830

>>4683821
The difference is that aether was a physically testable hypothesis and was amenable to science. Qualia are a philosophical argument to show the limitations of science and it is important to accept that science is limited and doesn't transcend the physical world.

>> No.4683832

>>4683824
Then how do we examine physical perception if we do not examine individuals because last time I checked, individuals are the only things we can analyze that are capable of physically perceiving?

>> No.4683833

>>4683822
The problem is that these raw feels cannot be communicated and thus not be examined. Neuroscientists know that and only examine what they can observe.

>> No.4683834

>>4683822
Just because the matter enables it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist separately while it's enabled

>> No.4683835

>>4683828
Tulpas are not philosophy or TNS, they are hallucinations. Take it to /x/ or 420chan

>> No.4683837

discussing topics is about as useless a bunch of shit as you could hope for, fundie troll.

why not talk about something real instead of insisting schizophrenic delusions are not only real but supernatural and magical?

Oh, but I forgot that you are insane. Nothing I say will make a difference to you. You should be permabanned from /sci/.

>> No.4683838

>>4683830
Your claim is that experience transcends the physical world

So you are welcome to prove it

>> No.4683843

>>4683834
Just because matter enables something, doesn't mean that it's part of the physical world?

Your derp is showing

>> No.4683842

>>4683830
No it is not, the concept of aether was never eliminated because it was physically testable, it was eliminated due to Occam's Razor demonstrating that Maxwell's equations worked perfectly fine when assuming no aether existed, so there was no need to use the concept.

>> No.4683845

>>4683832
The research is done with individuals, but it is about objectively observable and communicable things, not about subjective experience. We can show a person a picture. We know how this picture looks like and we can see his brain activity. If done with sufficiently many persons, we can come to the conclusion that this brain activity pattern represents the perception of said picture. But what we can't do is knowing how the colors of the picture subjectively look to the person. He says for example he sees "red". But that only describes a wave length he perceives. It doesn't describe how this "red" looks like to him. Maybe it looks like what you call "blue" to him, but still there's no misunderstanding, because both of you call it "red", when communicating.

>> No.4683846

>>4683834
How can qualia come out of matter? How can it be tested?

>> No.4683847

>>4683838
Best post in thread.

>> No.4683848 [DELETED] 

>>4683837
I'm sorry to hear that you can intellectually contribute. Please refrain from shitposting.

>> No.4683849

>>4683833

If you can't confirm something, how do you know you observed it? If can't be proven, or unproven, what's the difference between it and nothing at all?

>believe in qualia
>can't test it
>can't measure it
>can't observe it
>can't disprove it because any criticism can be explained away as "but it's not physical!"

>> No.4683851

>>4683837
I'm sorry to hear that you can't intellectually contribute. Please refrain from shitposting.

>> No.4683852

>>4683846
It can't be, and IQ is just trying to show that you can't prove unicorns with science

>> No.4683853

>>4683845
What if we connect his occipital lobe to your thalamus and you can share qualia?

>> No.4683855

>>4683838
How am I supposed to provide proof for the existence of subjectivity? It is inherently not topic of science, so it is impossible to provide objective evidence.

>> No.4683856

>>4683853
I like this idea.
But what if the parsing of qualia comes even after the thalamus, so that it wouldn't make a difference?

>> No.4683857

>>4683842
The concept of qualia has relevance because it not only shows us that scientific understanding is inherently limited, but it also refers to something we experience.

>> No.4683858

>>4683825
>>4683825
>>4683825
>>4683825
>>4683825
Answer me Fundie

>> No.4683860

>>4683833
They can be communicated, however the language is a vast complicated language of chemical and ionic interactions instead of plain English, so it is beyond the grasp of simpletons like yourself who refuse to study these kinds of things because they would rather believe their first intuition than dedicate decades of their life to truly get which is understandable since life doesn't have to be deeply understood to be lived or even enjoyed.

>> No.4683861

>>4683855
It's not subjective experience which your claim is concerning, it's that this subjective experience transcends the physical world, that subject experience doesn't rely on a brain with which to experience

This is your claim to defend, not for me to point out to you how mystical you're being

>> No.4683862

>>4683849
You are still mistaking qualia for a subject of science. This is not the case.

>> No.4683864

>>4683853
I still wouldn't know if I'm experiencing his qualia or if mine just have been altered due to the brain surgery.

>> No.4683866

>>4683856
We could connect the frontal lobes together, or the entire neocortex. All hypothetical, of course.

>> No.4683867

>>4683862
Qualia instead belongs in a theological seminary

>> No.4683868

>>4683862

Nope, I'm not asking you if it's science. It's a philosophical question. It's about good epistemology. Just because something isn't science, doesn't mean you can just run rampant and say whatever you want without proof.

So tell me what the difference is.

>> No.4683869

>>4683860
No, you really didn't understand the concept of qualia. Their most important inherent property is that they can never be communicated. While you can look at biochamical an neuronal reactions all day, you will never know the subjective experience of a person.

>> No.4683870

>>4683862
No, I think you are mistaken since you are the one who keeps bringing it up on a science board.

>> No.4683871
File: 173 KB, 800x600, qualia_is_religion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4683871

>> No.4683873

>>4683861
Most likely it depends on a functioning brain. But still it is not objectively measurable or observable. That's all I'm saying.

>> No.4683874

>>4683708
>untestable drivel
>untestable drivel
>more untestable drivel

>> No.4683875

>>4683869
I was not talking about qualia since that is bullshit, I am talking about the raw feels that preempt thought that you falsely attribute to your bullshit.

>> No.4683876

>>4683867
No, it doesn't. It has nothing to do with religion. Qualia are a topic in the philosophy of science, because they show us the limitations of science.

>> No.4683877

>>4683851
Ahh, but it is YOU who are shitposting here in /sci/!!!!!

You really are quite stupid as well as insane. A perfect poe of a troll.

>> No.4683878

>>4683876
>Not physical
>Thus not subject to science
Sorry, no.

Also, please ignore the troll. I wonder if the report functionality is working yet ...

>> No.4683880

This is really no different from some religious troll thread. Someone makes a positive claim, then can't offer any evidence to back it up, repeat your mantra ad infinitum

I'm out, I have no interest in arguing with the faithful

>> No.4683881

>>4683874
>using the word "drivel"
Are you a mod?

>> No.4683883

>>4683881
I wish.

>> No.4683882

>>4683868
Then we're back at arguing about the meaning of "existence". Do thoughts "exist"? Or does abstract math "exist"? How do you prove you have thoughts? etc etc
Please don't even try to answer these. I'm not interested in philosophical debate right now.

>> No.4683884

>>4683870
I don't bring it up as a topic of science. I bring it up to show the limitations of science, because some uneducated posters here think science can do more than it can actually do.

>> No.4683887

>>4683875
Qualia are the raw feels. Can you please stop posting opinions and curse words and instead contribute to the discussion like a mature adult?

>> No.4683888

>>4683884
"Science can't explain Jesus multiplying the loaves and fish! Therefore science has limits."

>> No.4683889

>>4683884
And do you rationally believe in the stuff you claim? Do you actually think qualia are not a result of neurons firing?

>> No.4683890

>>4683888
Please don't bring up religion.

>> No.4683894

>>4683882

No we're back to you not answering my questions. You keep side-stepping it.

>not interested in philosophy

Then stop bringing up qualia.

>> No.4683893

>>4683889
I'm not saying they are unrelated to neurons or their activity. What I'm saying is that we will never be able to recognize them in neuronal patterns due to their incommunicability.

>> No.4683895

>>4683894
I had to bring them up. OP's ignorance was asking for a correction. Can we let the thread die now?

>> No.4683899

>>4683884
Then, AGAIN..., you should be posting your preaching posts in /x/ where it belongs.
If you are going to argue about the limitations of science, you'll have to prove it, and you are deliberately holding to a schizophrenic ideology that specifically states that it is "unknowable" and "unprovable" and is "metaphysical" and all the rest of it.
So get the fuck out of here and go back to /x/ where YOU FUCKING BELONG!
Your intrusions here are neither scientific, rational, knowledgeable, provable, arguable, nor even sane.
You are attacking this /sci/ board from /x/ and that is ALL you are doing here.
You deserve a permaban from /sci/ for insisting on talking about your delusional belief system that relies on ignorance and delusions in a self-referential loop of utter bullshit.
GTFO and DFCB.

>> No.4683901

>>4683887
No, you are simply using qualia to explain away the raw feels in a way that you can try to claim science can not explain it by definition because you have defined qualia as unexplainable by science when you can't even accept that the raw feels may have some other simpler explanation that does not require belief in unexplainable magic.

>> No.4683902

>>4683899
Excuse me, but qualia are a well known philosophical argument and refer to something we experience. This has nothing to do with belief or insanity. If you don't understand the concept, well then it's your problem, but please don't shitpost. Try to educate yourself on the matter before posting and if attempts of education fail, then you probably shouldn't be on a science board.

>> No.4683903

>>4683901
It seems you want to twist semantics now. I won't play your game. Fact is that something that inherently can never be communicated can especially not be examined by science.

>> No.4683905

>>4683903
but... it is only that way because it is designed to be that way and at the same time be completely untestable and it is not based in any way on observation or science and does not belong here to explain away other things that have physical explanations... its a form of No True Scotsman Fallacy

>> No.4683910

>>4683902
>then you probably shouldn't be on a science board.
Are you just doing this ironically in post where you clearly said you are trying to argue science using old philosophy?

>> No.4683911

>>4683902
You are the one shitposting here you fucking piece of shit fundie!
You are attacking /sci/ from /x/. We don't want you here. You are posting shit. You are shitposting. You are shit and you are posting. You are total shit as a poster and you are as immature as any Santa-sucking kid expecting Santa to "see" your qualia and "know" whether you've been bad or good.
So get the fuck out you fucking religious troll.
/sci/ is not the place for anything you have to say because you are a fundie who refuses to acknowledge the fact that you are lying or schizoid.
There are no other options here. Go back to /x/.

>> No.4683912

>>4683905
It shows us that there are things we experience that cannot be understood by science. Science is limited and every scientist knows this. I seriously don't understand why simply accepting that science can't explain "everything" causes so much emotional distress to some of the less educated posters.

>> No.4683914

>>4683910
I am trying to give you a better understanding of science by showing its limitations.

>> No.4683921

>>4683912
I am not saying science can explain everything, I am saying that everything that is explainable can be explained by science, then you try to come along and explain things with magic, then somehow say that the thing you just explained is unexplainable and that science's explanations is wrong because it is unexplainable since you just explained it.

>> No.4683924

>>4683921
He's taking up the old philosophical question of "How do I know whether my red 'looks like' your blue?". It's an interesting question, but not well defined. It begs the homunculus fallacy IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument

Science cannot answer this question because it's ill-defined and not testable. Whatever. Let IQ Fundie claim victory, and stop shitting up /sci/ with /x/ bullshit.

>> No.4683926

>>4683921
I did never explain things with magic. I just pointed out that some things can't be explained by means of science. That's a difference.
Gotta go now. Gonna reply this afternoon.

>> No.4683928

>>4683924
But science can tell if people see color differently to a degree with consistency tests and by analyzing the rods and cones of the eye, but the problem is not that it is completely untestable, but the massive scale and adaptability of the brain with trillions of neurons that can often be located in different functional regions depending on genetics and the lifetime learning environment mixed with the relatively short amount of time we had the tools at our disposal to collect and analyze the evidence.

>> No.4683929

>>4683926
If they can't be explained by science, then they can't be explained and you are wasting your time because any explanation you come up with that is not consistent with or able to validated with science is akin to magic.

>> No.4683930

>>4683914
You can't show us any limitations you fucking retard other than your own. And that's what you keep doing.

If all you did was just say "science has limitations" we would go "uh-huh" and turn back to what we were doing before you came here shitposting.
But you don't stop there. You insist that ignorance is ignorance and then turn around and say that you "know" something you also say is "unknowable".
You are nothing but a liar and a fraud.
You try to avoid everything by saying it's all unknowable and then turn around and say you know exactly what's going on.
You are a delusional idiot who can't even think straight. Why should anyone listen to you at all?
What makes you think qualia are real when you speak of "limitations" yet never quite manage to face your own mental limitations?
You suck so bad you are pathetic beyond words.
Go back to /x/.

>> No.4683931

>>4683928
>But science can tell if people see color differently to a degree with consistency tests and by analyzing the rods and cones of the eye,
You are choosing to interpret the question differently. This does not answer the question whether my red "looks like" your blue. It's carefully constructed to be beyond all possible testing.

>> No.4683933

>>4683931
actually, no, you are while simultaneously ignoring Occam's Razor which would say if people can consistently identify the same colors the same ways and their eyes and brain functions are physically similar, then they are seeing the same color and how does any of what you are saying relate to the existence of thought outside of the brain anyway?

>> No.4683935

>>4683933
>actually, no, you are while simultaneously ignoring Occam's Razor which would say if people can consistently identify the same colors the same ways and their eyes and brain functions are physically similar, then they are seeing the same color
Whatever. You refuse to acknowledge that the homunculus solution. Irritating for the purposes of this conversation, but ok.

>and how does any of what you are saying relate to the existence of thought outside of the brain anyway?
Everything. Go read the wiki page again ^H^H^H^H^H for the first time, and learn something.

>> No.4683937

>>4683931
With current technology, yes, it is currently impossible to test this, but we might be able to narrow things down a bit in the future.
As our self-awareness is only a feedback-loop of self-referential and processing loops, I would bet we do indeed see things similarly enough for our brains to work as they have evolved to process information in basically the same way.
There are exceptions, as in psychotics like the qualia fundie, but all in all we should be seeing and experiencing things much the same.
We use the same equipment, we have the same basic processing abilities, and should therefore have the same sorts of feedback loops of perception / input / processing / memory / output / etc.

>> No.4683940

>>4683937
Ugg, I hate siding with IQ fundie here - I'll try this one last time.

I propose an experiment. In this experiment we will put artificial eyes in my head, take out my existing eyes, and wire this up to the optic nerve. We will calibrate this so that I "experience" colors normally. Let's suppose further that the calibration for different people is about the same.

Let's do an experiment now with an infant, where we switch two of the color signals from the cones/rods replacements. They will grow up experiencing "red" as "blue", right? That is, they will see a red object, correctly identify it as red, but if we fixed their eyes through a correct biological replacement or tissue regrowth or something, we would expect that they would be greatly confused. They would say something like "But red looks like blue now!".

So, I ask the original question again - how do you know that my red "looks the same as" your red? It seems you're willing to make the argument that: well, consciousness is purely a product of physical processes in the brain (true), and our physical processes are probably pretty similar (probably true), and the activity in your brain and my brain when we see red is probably about the same (probably true), and thus my red "looks like" your red (meh). I think the argument misses the crucial point that what we see is "relative". That last link I dispute as "obvious". If you want to pull some Occam's Razor bullshit, fine, whatever, I give up on the conversation - but you should recognize that by pulling that card, you've admitted that it's untestable.

>> No.4683945

Holy shit what a tl;dr thread.

If the question is, "how do the mathematically predictable motions of atoms, electrons, and photon give rise to internal subjective experiences?"

The only acceptable response is: THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

I don't know why you experience the color red when photons of a certain wavelength strike the back of your eye causing neuron clusters to fire, but I'm pretty sure we'll figure it out in the next few decades, and it won't involve fucking magic.

You are a complex input-output machine made of perfectly ordinary matter, just like the computer you're typing on. Your behavior and output it simply more complex due to a more complex physical internal structure. How complex a meat pile has to be before it has internal subjective experiences is one of those questions we simple haven't answered yet.

Fuck dualism.

>> No.4683946

>>4683935
First off, the wiki clearly leads by saying that solution is a fallacy even going so far as to make the homunculus solution synonymous with the homunculus fallacy and so I don't really even get what you are trying to argue.

Second, it says nothing about thoughts existing outside the brain and basically just says that a separate sentient being similar to yourself is not in your brain making decisions because that being would need a being in its brain which would need another being and so on infinitely. This all only validates my point that the chemical and ionic language of the brain is so hard for people to understand because it is basically an alien language to us that is not really explainable in english at all and requires an entirely new set of metrics and terms that are unique to the brain and physical biology, but can explain everything in the proper context with the proper understanding and background, but which is not very useful outside of that framework.

>> No.4683947

>>4683940
Equivalently - devise me an experiment which has the potential to falsify the assertion "my red 'looks the same as' your red".

I claim that you cannot by the construction. The construction of the claim, aka definitionally, it's impossible. It runs right into the homunculus problem - that is our experiences is merely projected onto a screen, where the "real" us sits and watches. Only with such a intuitively-correct approach can we even begin to define "looks the same as". My experiences are my own, and cannot be shared with anyone else. I can describe them in terms with which we're all familiar. Moreover, as this is all the result of physical processes, specially evolution by natural selection, and under the additional assumption that I'm not special and there is a shared physical world, then it follows readily that other people have experiences just like mine. Under that view, I'm ... open ... to your argument, appealing as it is, but it's not falsifiable, and thus I don't like it. I don't think you can go from the step "the brain activity is the same" to "the experiences are the same w.r.t. easily switched experiences such as colors".

I wonder if synesthetes would give any useful insight. Dunno. It is fun times.

If you do take the assumption that I'm not special, then I wonder how far you can run with it... Maybe you can get your conclusion. I'm not convinced yet.

>> No.4683948

>>4683940
I never said it was testable, but science keeps progressing. Perhaps at some future point we'll be able to test it.
Occam's Razor, yes. Why not pick ANY random imaginary explanation instead of just one like qualia, and simply point to it and say "it is untestable"?
If you have to grasp at organic straws to make your point, when I am arguing for similar equipment giving similar results, then you merely bolster my argument that Occam's Razor makes more sense and is more likely for neurobiological reasons.
You want to perform surgery to cross wires like that means something? It doesn't.
Again, I'm just talking probabilities here that point AWAY from qualia as being a legitimate form of speculation to the point where you are defending it from a basis of ignorance rather than knowledge.
Arguing from ignorance isn't done if you want to have something to back up your arguments with.
This is the mistake the fundie keeps making. Without any reason to believe or even suggest that qualia is a rational point of view, you fall into fallacious arguments based on "what if" statements that are just as useful as talking about unicorns.

>> No.4683950

>>4683947
>If you do take the assumption that I'm not special, then I wonder how far you can run with it... Maybe you can get your conclusion. I'm not convinced yet.

Come to think of it, you might be able to get there with that additional assumption.

>synesthetes
This is where the fun research would be.

>> No.4683952

>>4683948
>refuses to accept the coherent-ness of "qualia"
Well then. I think we're at a conversation stopper. Good day.

>> No.4683954

>>4683952
And thus you reveal yourself to be the qualia fundie masquerading as a scientist.
Get the fuck out and go to /x/ and stay there.

>> No.4683956

>>4683954
Lolno. I've been around a lot longer than that faggot, and while some might consider me autistic and annoying, I'm nowhere near as bad as him.

Anyway, good day.

>> No.4683955

>>4683940
>how do you know that my red "looks the same as" your red?
Again, if we can identify the same colors consistently and all our eye and brain functions with relation to vision were similar, why would there be reason to believe they looked any different, what would that effect if we could consistently agree on colors, how would it change our understanding of brain functions, how does that relate to thought existing outside of the brain, and how do you know the wind isn't God allowing us to bask in the ambiance of his refreshing farts.

>> No.4683957

>>4683955
>Again, if we can identify the same colors consistently and all our eye and brain functions with relation to vision were similar, why would there be reason to believe they looked any different,
This needs an additional assumption that I'm not quite ready to make yet. This is trying to distinguish between p-zombies and "real people". I'm of the opinion that it's unfalsifiable, and thus I'm usually quite hesitant to say anything on the matter.

>[...] and how do you know the wind isn't God allowing us to bask in the ambiance of his refreshing farts.
God doesn't exist; question is ill-formed.

>> No.4683960 [DELETED] 

>>4683957
qualia doesn't exist either, the entire premise of all your arguments are not only invalid, but they have absolutely no utility.

>> No.4683962

>>4683708
>Where does thought exist?
It is in the brain.
Thought is an emergent property of neural activity.
When you have low neural activity (sleeping) there is no thought. When people are thinking about something their neural activity increases.

>> No.4683963

>>4683960
>denies qualia exists
Sorry - had I realized this was your position sooner, I wouldn't have posted. What a colossal waste of time. /sigh

>> No.4683964

>>4683957
qualia doesn't exist either, the entire premise of all your arguments are not only invalid, but they have absolutely no utility where God actually motivate people to do things regardless of his existence status.

>> No.4683965

>>4683963
yes, completely lacking utility is synonymous with being wasteful of time

>> No.4683969

>>4683963
>>>refuses to accept the coherent-ness of "qualia"
>>Well then. I think we're at a conversation stopper. >>Good day.

Pretends he didn't just say what he just said.
Stays around after saying good bye
Keeps defending qualia
Yep. This is the qualia fundie piece of shitposter.

>> No.4683973
File: 31 KB, 354x450, plato[1]..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4683973

>>4683708
What you are talking about is Plato's forms.

Skim thru the wiki articles, and if you like them, read the actual books, such as Phaedon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_realism

>> No.4683971

>>4683969
I have even odds this is IQ fundie trolling me now.

Goddamnit. That's what I get for trying to be helpful on /sci/. Fuck you IQ fundie.

>> No.4683975

>>4683971
but you are the one trolling
You name yourself scientist just to argue philosophy.
You make all these philosophical arguments and can't even explain how they relate to the subject being discussed.
You continuously refer to a known fallacy as an argument.

>> No.4683977

>4683975
>You continuously refer to a known fallacy as an argument.
My first post on the subject here:
>>4683924
>It begs the homunculus fallacy IMHO.
Fuck you sir, fuck you.

>> No.4683978

>>4683975

this ^^^^

>> No.4683979

>>4683977
AND YET YOU KEEP DEFENDING IT YOU FUCKING TROLL

>> No.4683981

Colour thought experiment along the
>>4683940
line.
If I use a special medical procedure and replace some if my eye B/W rods with IR(Infra-red) cones. When I look at a monitor with an IR image on a black background it what will I see? I will see what looks like a black and white image. Now if I am sent out into the world and I see rainbows and the full spectrum of colours (including IR) my brain will start to build an internal memory of the new spectrum I observe. Next time I see the computer screen with the IR image I will be seeing that there is IR colour there. The colour comes from my memory of built up observations/experiences.
If everyone had identical experiences then their perception of colour would be the same. Because we can imagine that everyone has a slightly different series of memories and experiences we can imagine that they might experience the same thing like an apple in a different way. We can imagine their experience of the apple is coloured by their memory of apple.

>> No.4683984

>>4683979
>Scientist defended the homunculus argument
Nope. Whatever. I'm just being trolled, whether by IQ fundie or not. I'm just shitting up /sci/ now because the (other) asshat in the conversation won't use sage.

I'll just work on my DnD campaign. Night /sci/.

PS: Not my fault. I genuinely wanted to help you understand IQ fundie's argument, flawed as it is. Had other people posted to the various programming and genetics threads, I would have been happy to participate there too. Of course, some asshat just came in to one of them to start a Windows vs unix-like pissing war - so par for the course on /sci/.

>> No.4683985

>>4683977

>dances around everything like the slimiest Catholic Jesuit ever to shitpost in /sci/
>keeps denying what we can see he wrote, like any religious apologist.

>> No.4683986

>>4683984
>says "Not my fault. I genuinely wanted to help you understand IQ fundie's argument, flawed as it is."
>won't shut up and go back to /x/

>> No.4683994

bracing for scientist to say bye and for fundie's third trip to log in and start making/reinforcing retarded arguments

>> No.4684000
File: 200 KB, 837x1390, OddIQfundie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4684000

>>4683984
>I genuinely wanted to help you understand IQ fundie's argument, flawed as it is.
Here is my understanding of it.
Science uses a naturalistic philosophy of the universe.
I define X to be outside the naturalistic universe.
Therefore science can not into X.
I will lash out and spam anyone who attempts to look at anything even idly related to X in a naturalistic way. All threads which relate in any way to X are open to my retardation.

>> No.4684018
File: 43 KB, 600x431, lmao_super.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4684018

>>4683708
>Is it possible thought is a different dimension

Nope.

\thread