[ 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: 104 KB, 550x679, qualia.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6049277 No.6049277[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>> No.6049294

10/10

>> No.6049306

Sounds about right
3rd year theoretical physicist here - we do that mainly with 2pi

>> No.6049315
File: 937 KB, 720x624, 1379760558907.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6049315

>qualia

>> No.6049339

>>6049315

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

Oh wait, you're dead.

>> No.6049394

The cortico-striatal-thalamic loop, is the source of the ordered input necessary for a higher level upper cortical loop. Feedback is controlled by the inhibitory potential of the cortices. Through 5-HT2A efferents from layer V, transmission, processed, from layer III through the interneuron layer reaches the basal ganglia and brain stem. The core thalamic input to layer I is combined with the ordered matrix input to VI. A process happens with layer III/I and II/III efferents: these circuits are where our self/other perception, and the mechanisms for logic lie.(anteriorly) Also, it is how, through the entorhinal cortex, which almost completely lacks layer IV, can control orbitofrontal and thalamic output from the hippocampus, as well as (indirectly) provide a pathway for hippocampal communication to the other cortices. This is opposed by the frontal lobes, which have much larger granular areas, thus inhibitory potential,from input to the striatum.
Another modulatory factor is the corpus callosum, providing a direct inhibitory connection, interhemispherical, to the cortical layer VI, thus indirectly to layer V. As such, the halves of the brain exert some control over basal input of the other side, but can only inhibit due to the GABAergic nature of the corpus callosum. The root of this control is an extraordinarily complex dihemispherical beat frequency in layer IV between layer V and layers II/III. One might say qualia happens here. How the other side can (indirectly) inhibit the 5-HT2A signal cascade, is crucial for the development of language. It requires highly structured left side structures allowing for the imagination of the formants, and the mouth movements that correspond to them. It also needs a more distributed, contextual, reality based side, to integrate the naturally nonsensical medium of language back to intuitive sensory/spatial analogies.

>> No.6049417

>>6049315
>mfw this fallacy detector has become a dogmatic appeal to authority.
I discussed long ago why this does not work and why evidence through experience is not to be dismissed without further research.
>>6049394
>One might say qualia happens here.
That sounds interesting. Is this recent? Can you provide an article to further read about it?

>> No.6049431
File: 12 KB, 259x194, url.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6049431

>>6049277
It was proven some time ago that plants have quantum "brains" and telepathy.
Therefore plants are the master species, we should bow to them.
>You will never be a telepathic plant with qualia.

>> No.6049442

>>6049431
Jesus fuck, that was one study ages ago, and none of the retests of it have been successful.

>>>/x/

>> No.6049445

hurr sqrt(-2)= i

>> No.6049449

>>6049442
>The experiment was wrong or had something incorrect.
>therefore it belongs to /x/
I see your logic here. Newton was not 100% accurate so he was a wizard ghost banshee demon.

Do you want /x/ related material? Here:
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1996/subtle.html

However, have you even tried these experiments yourself? I managed to reproduce some of the results described in this text. I can assure you some of the phenomena associated to qualia are not a just blind assertion, but a reality which is easily testable.

Since you will probably dismiss any evidence I provide (because the data I collected will not be reliable for you) I can only tell you to be serious about it and do the research on your own.

>> No.6049453

>>6049445
sqrt(2)*i

>> No.6049468

>>6049449
>It was proven
>It was proven
>It was proven
You didn't say there was evidence for it, you said it was proven implying that there had been 100's of retests and it was scientifically agreed on to be true.

>> No.6049469

platonic forms aren't hypothetical

>> No.6049470

>>6049468
I read on different places there was evidence of it. You said that my sources were wrong. I looked for information again and discovered there was updated information about this research. Fine.

You seem to have ignored everything else I said, though.

>> No.6049473

>>6049431
>>6049449

Not only was that only one test but it was completely disproved when they found plants release chemicals to "talk" e.g plant is being eaten by an animal it releases a chemical that warns other plants of whats going on.

>quantum "brains"
No just no

>I managed to reproduce some of the results described in this text
The telepathy test is not hard to do but although the plants give the illusion of being telepathic, if you have the equipment to test for chemicals being released from the plant you'll see its not telepathy.
And you are 100% full of shit if you say you managed an experiment to test the quantum brains.

>Newton was not 100% accurate so he was a wizard ghost banshee demon.
His law of gravity applied and worked in pretty much 100% of all situations and is still used today.
How the fuck can you really compare Newton not being 100% accurate to a fucking test done once and disproved by 100's of other tests?

By your logic we should talk about ghosts and unicorns on /sci/ because Einstein wasn't 100% correct.

>> No.6049475

>>6049470
That wasn't the guy you were originally replying to, I just thought it was retarded how you considered it proven.

>I read on different places there was evidence of it
That doesn't fucking make it proven. Buy a dictionary.

>> No.6049478
File: 13 KB, 300x200, ufol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6049478

>>6049449
>dat logic

>> No.6049480

>>6049449
Jesus Christ this post gave me cancer.

>> No.6049485

>>6049473
What I did was to test telepathy on humans. I do not know yet why it is produced but I have found that distance does not really matter. When I find the why I will provide a link for the full experiment, but I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

>> No.6050403

>>6049417
>I discussed long ago why this does not work
No, you didn't. You didn't disprove the scientific method.

>and why evidence through experience is not to be dismissed without further research.
Do you even understand Hitchens' razor? Did you even read the quote?

>> No.6050924

>>6049485
>telepathy on humans
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>> No.6052639

>>6049339
Evidence for what? She did not make a scientific claim.

>> No.6053535

>>6049315
I like his scientific sunglasses.

>> No.6055091

>>6053535
Those are safety goggles.

>> No.6056286

>>6049315
Smoking is not allowed inside of a science mill.

>> No.6057780

>>6055091
They are not as fashionable as space goggles.

>> No.6058787

>>6057780
What scientists wear those?

>> No.6059953

>>6058787
Space scientists. They need space goggles to protect their eyes from the radiation produces in astrothermodynamics experiments.

>> No.6060011

>>6049315
How long has this "anyone who talks about consciousness is a dualist" spam thing been going on for?

That dogma has long since failed to take over neuroscience, and metaphysical terms like "materialism" and "dualism" are generally dismissed now since none of them are quantified/scientific.

I've been watching a lot of neuroscience lectures anyway, and they all seem to acknowledge qualia without any controversy. Wasn't aware this was still an issue (I know some people still mystify qualia, new age style, but there's no spam about all the other concepts people add mystical properties to).

>> No.6060029

You don't get to call something metaphysical unless you can define it, douchebags. Same goes with calling anything anything because you have to know what something is before you can describe it. Come on.

>> No.6060034
File: 21 KB, 280x311, 1379734613653.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6060034

>>6049478
>>6049480
>>6049468

samefag

>> No.6060071

>>6060029
>because you have to know what something is before you can describe it

What's the difference between knowing what something is and being able to describe/define it?

OP pic = What we currently know doesn't explain a result we keep getting, so we're missing something. Let's get hypothetical...

Qualia = quantified enough to know there's something there that needs explaining, but not yet quantified to the point of any kind of hard science (like everything else that is now a hard science once was).

>> No.6060081

>>6060071
That's fine, but that doesn't necessarily make it metaphysical.

>> No.6060087

>>6060011
The hard problem of consciousness has been solved? I must have missed the news.

>> No.6060114

sqrt3 is 1+qualia

>> No.6060133

>>6060081
Oh, I just used "metaphysical" because "materialism" has a few other meanings that are quite different from the one used with respect to consciousness, and I wanted to be clear which I meant. That backfired sorry.

>>6060087
Didn't mean that sorry. They weren't claiming to have explained qualia, just acknowledging their existence as something in need of an explanation, without any controversy.

They aren't saying things like "I want to show that qualia exist", but instead things like "I want to find out the neural correlates of qualia, and this is how I think we can do it" or "I think mirror neurons play a large role in creating qualia/are qualia".

>> No.6060141

>>6060071
>What's the difference between knowing what something is and being able to describe/define it?
Knowing what something is lets you describe it in an infinite number of ways.

>> No.6060845

>>6060141
>an infinite number of ways
Please show me all of them.

>> No.6061769

>>6060845
I tried to post but it said
>Comment too long (infinity/2000)

>> No.6062933

Physicists believe vectors are arrows in 3D space.

>> No.6064010

>>6062933
And they believe all functions are smooth.

>> No.6064902

>>6064010
They also believe you can subtract infinity from infinity.

>> No.6065947

>>6064902
Just like they think cats can be dead and alive at the same time.

>> No.6067254

>>6061769
How long did it take to type?

>> No.6067606

>>6067254
a few seconds

>> No.6068612

>>6060133
>"I want to find out the neural correlates of qualia, and this is how I think we can do it"

How can you do it? What are the most promising approaches to the hard problem in neuroscience?

>> No.6069553

>>6067606
That is fast. You must have a high WPM.

>> No.6070803

>>6069553
I do not have a high wavelet package modulation.

>> No.6071652

>>6070803
How low is it?

>> No.6072581

Thank you. I always wanted to do math like a physicist.

>> No.6072601

>>6049431
the level of stupid in this post can almost punch me through the internet

>> No.6073191

>>6049277

you should march that straight up the Large Hadron Collider. you might win a nobel prize.

>> No.6073582

>>6073191
The Large Hadron Collider is currently not operational.

>> No.6073610

>>6049277
that is fucking hilarious

>> No.6074842

>>6073582
When will it operate again?

>> No.6076236

>>6074842
When they figure out how to destroy the universe with it.

>> No.6077245

>>6076236
I hope that happens soon.

>> No.6078476

>>6060011
>That dogma has long since failed to take over neuroscience

Actually it is very successful. Dennett is very popular.

>> No.6079384

I will do this in my next physics exam.

>> No.6080064

My calculations always add up.

>> No.6080664

>>6049315
In this moment, I am euphoric, not because of any qualia, but because of phony gods that can be dismissed without evidence.

>> No.6081621

Does someone have the version of OP's pic with imaginary numbers?

>> No.6082476

>>6080664
How can his euphoria be caused by something that doesn't exist?

>> No.6082491

Hypothesis: I weigh 1 kg

Data: I weigh 66 kg

Conclusion: There must be 65 kg of "dark matter" making up my body.

>> No.6083497

>>6082491
The conclusions is logically sound and valid.

>> No.6084292

>>6049417
>That sounds interesting. Is this recent? Can you provide an article to further read about it?

The poster was trolling. Of course it's nonsense and he inserted this sentence for the sole purpose of receiving responses from gullible persons like you.

>> No.6085598

>>6082491
You should gain some weight.

>> No.6086803

>>6082491
>66kg

Are you a manlet?

>> No.6088133

Mathematicians use the same trick. They call it "imaginary numbers".

>> No.6089305

>>6088133

Imaginary numbers can be used to solve differential equations though.

>> No.6090234

>>6089305
I thought they were used to solve quadratic equations.

>> No.6090244

>>6086803
>>6085598
not him but you must be American.

that's perfectly fine if he's not really tall

>> No.6090252

>>6090244
I'm not american and that's not fine. Even for a manlet he or she would be very skinny. Do you even BMI?

>> No.6090257

>>6090234
Solving quadratic equations is just a special case of solving differential equations.

>> No.6090327
File: 42 KB, 421x600, Pauli.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6090327

Momentum and energy missing in your decay reactions?

Create a new particle to account for it!

>> No.6091616

>>6090327
How do you call your new particle?

>> No.6091621

>>6091616
Me!

>> No.6092551

>>6060011
>and metaphysical terms like "materialism" and "dualism" are generally dismissed now since none of them are quantified/scientific.

[citation needed]

>> No.6093561

>>6092551
He doesn't have a citation because he was talking out of his ass.

>> No.6094659

>>6090257
No, they are much harder.

>> No.6095939

>>6094659
How much harder?

>> No.6097206

>>6095939
At least 2 points more on the Mohs scale.

>> No.6097218

>>6049277

We have x(i) data but we see y(j) data in the field.

So we see
x(1) + x(2) + x(i) = y(6)
and hence we know x(i) has to exist. Basically we are building equations, looking in the field, and then making changes to our "model".

>> No.6098088

>>6097218
That makes no sense. Speak English.

>> No.6098966

>>6097218
What is x and what is y?

>> No.6100430

>>6097218
>We have x(i) data but we see y(j) data in the field.

Where did you get x data?

>> No.6100453

>>6098966

x and y are functions.

>>6100430

from the model. try to keep up

>> No.6100466

>>6049485
okay...
how did you test it? what were your results?

>> No.6100474

>>6090252
a guy with 1.7m and 66kg has a bmi of 22.8, which is average

>> No.6102375

>>6100474
>1.7m

Even among manlets that's very small.

>> No.6102375,1 [INTERNAL] 

>>6102375
nope, that's a normal height