[ 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: 36 KB, 640x395, einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7123984 No.7123984 [Reply] [Original]

We usually assume that people are conscious at the same time as us, right? For example... when we have a conversation with somebody, we imagine that we're directly interacting with somebody's consciousness, and they are conscious at that very moment. This is almost too obvious to be worthy of comment.

But doesn't special relativity demonstrate that this assumption of synchrony is baseless? Say that it's true, and that your friend, in the same room as you, is conscious at the same time as you. But then you get in a rocket and blast off for a near-lightspeed return trip. For you, when you return, one year (say) of time, and one year of conscious experience, has elapsed. But for your friend, five years of real time has passed. For them, the elapsing of one year of time, and one year of conscious experience, occurred four whole years ago. So if you were initially "synched", your friend's conscious experience is now four years in the past, and when you interact with them, they won't experience that for another four years.

There's therefore no basis at all for assuming synchronicity of conscious experience, and it leads to outright contradictions. All of the people you meet... they aren't consciously aware at that point in time.

>> No.7123994

>>7123984
>So if you were initially "synched"
it doesn't matter if your friend has lived 5 years while you have lived 1 year through time-dilation shenanigans
you don't suddenly become "OUT OF SYNC" while standing in the same room, at the same time

your premise is shit and so is your thread

>> No.7124020

>>7123994
Shouting "but that's false" is neither a valid counterargument, a helpful contribution to discussion, or the product of an intelligent mind.

>> No.7124059

If two clocks become de-synchronized by way of time-dilation they indeed don't display the same time any more, but that doesn't mean that they're not still both ticking at the same time. You can throw the two asynchronous clocks at each other with grand force, and they'll both get destroyed.
There's no reason to look at brains or consciousness as if it's anything special (in this context at least), if your friend travels to proxima centauri and back and you say hi to him, the sound will enter his ears, vibrate his sound sensors, get converted into electrical impulses and transported to the brain, which makes him conscious of it.
If you want to claim he stays unconscious of your greeting for 4 years, you're gonna have to explain what the greeting is doing for that long.

>> No.7124066

>>7124020
i think that what he's saying is: this "out of sync" concept doesn't make sense.
while you're in the rocket, time will be passing more slowly and your brain will be working according to that so if you were communicating with your friend at that point he/she would probably see some delay. however, once you're back to earth and you're both experiencing time at the same rate again, that's it. everything's back to normal, and all that's different is that you're younger. at least that's how i understand it.

>> No.7124082

>>7124059
I understand that. But this is about subjective experience. I could argue that you're basically talking to a philosophical zombie at that point, and the interaction is simply the result of the physical matter of the brain - the subjective experience is yet to catch up. Don't get too hung up on that though. What I'm really saying is that our concept of subjective experience -- the idea that our consciousness experience is simultaneous -- is clearly flawed. Do you agree with this, or at least see what I'm getting at?

>> No.7124088

>>7124082
This is obvious to anyone above middle school intelligence. Why exactly did you try to combine the idea with time dilation?

>> No.7124089

>>7124082
I don't think a lot of people actually have that idea, but you're right that it doesn't make sense.

>> No.7124092

>>7124082
>I could argue that you're basically talking to a philosophical zombie at that point
except that you can't
1 year of time has passed for you, you spent this 1 year doing something in a very fast spaceship
5 years of time has passed for your friend, he spent those 5 years watching futa porn and wanking off to it
once you get back on earth you're both in the same time frame and can interact with each other, your friend is just as much as a mindless zombie lagging behind 4 year as your grandma is a mindless zombie lagging behind 50 years
neither is true, your whole premise doesn't make any sense
experiencing a longer/shorter timespan through timedilation doesn't change anything once you're standing in the same room as your friend talking with each other

>> No.7124106

>>7124088
>>7124089
You find it obvious that the people around you can't coherently be thought of as being conscious at this time?

...okay, I guess. It's extremely counterintuitive to me.

>> No.7124118

>>7124106
I find it obvious that people around me are philosophic zombies because consciousness is a subjective experience and that's what subjective means.

>> No.7124149

>>7124092
> your friend is just as much as a mindless zombie lagging behind 4 year as your grandma is a mindless zombie lagging behind 50 years. neither is true
Again I don't see any argument from you, just assertion. And you haven't tried to resolve the inconsistency.

>> No.7124155

>>7124118
And what's what subjective means? I don't follow, rephrase please.

>> No.7124157

>>7124149
He's using assertion because you don't have common sense enough to realize the argument. Your consciousness will be slowed down when you take the trip, just as your aging does. When you return and you're 5 years older, his conscious mind is still in the present, he just sees your physical body (and conscious mind if he could look) as being 5 years older. You're both still there in the present talking to each other and experiencing each other. It does create an apparent paradox but it's just accepted that time dilates because light speed is constant in all reference frames.

>> No.7124163

>>7124155
Subjective means it can't be tested or verified by outside observers, and that's because we can never know whether others are just philosophical zombies or not

>> No.7124170

>>7123984

I was like "wtf is this guy going on... lolwut? whaat? ... hmm.. AAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!" Fucking genius. :D

But yes, this:
>>7123994
> Right for so many reasons..

>> No.7124179

>>7124157
>He's using assertion because you don't have common sense enough to realize the argument.
What a retarded thing to say. Do you even know what the word "assertion" means? I can't "realise an argument" if he types nothing.
> Your consciousness will be slowed down when you take the trip, just as your aging does.
Yes that's what the OP says. The assumption is that your subjective experience progresses at the same rate as your physical rate of time and ageing. Seems like a pretty solid assumption.
> When you return and you're 5 years older, his conscious mind is still in the present,
And you've lost me. When you return you're only one year older. Clearly you can't even follow the basic details explicit arguments, let alone "use common sense to realise an argument".

>> No.7124185

>>7124170
> Right for so many reasons..
Give one.

>> No.7124187

>>7124179
It doesn't matter how much older you are, it has no effect on how your friend will interact with you. Am I missing something here?

>> No.7124221

>>7123984
Your initial assumption that the consciousness of all individuals is tied together across time is why you are having issues letting go of this thought. Consciousness is singular and happens in the individuals present, not in the collectives present. You can't look into my consciousness's past and I can't look into your consciousness's future, that would be time travel.

>> No.7124240

>>7124020
The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

>> No.7124242

Define "consciousness".

>> No.7124252

>>7124240

Exactly.

>>7124185

No. Because of see above. Your entire premise is so fucked up wrong that it also acts as a whole fucking concert hall filled with alarm bells on exactly what's going on. If you had the capacity to understand reasonable counterarguments, you would never have posted that garbage in the first place.

So this CAN go in one of two ways:

One: People will post sound arguments and common sense reason for why you're so far off the mark, and you will keep responding with oneliners and possible additional retard conclusions along the lines of a child always going "why?". Then we will repeat this up until one of us dies of old age, having achieved nothing.

Two: We will understand that there's nothing to be gained. You will be left to your delusions, and we will move on.

Guess which one of those two options I just picked?

>> No.7124258

>>7124240
If you care about energy so much then why did you type that pointless comment? Get lost you imbecile.

>> No.7124261

>>7124252
Just look at the cognitive dissonance in this one. Completely incapable of giving an answer. Still writes a long, supercilious bullshit comment.

>> No.7124271

>>7124261
Well you know what they say: sometimes the why of it is more important than the what. So I gave you the why.

>> No.7124289
File: 26 KB, 1024x1024, b8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7124289

>> No.7124294

NOW WAT IF half my brain traveled at lightspeed to some other planet and the other half stayed home?

>> No.7124299

>>7123984
this fucking board is full of shitposters jesus christ

>> No.7124304

>>7123984
This may be an elaborate troll or someone going out of their way to imitate the 'style' of Frank Yang.

>For you, when you return, one year (say) of time, and one year of conscious experience, has elapsed

Ok.

>But for your friend, five years of real time has passed.

*time

>For them, the elapsing of one year of time, and one year of conscious experience, occurred four whole years ago.

Yes, they experienced a year's worth of consciousness four years ago, for them.

>So if you were initially "synched", your friend's conscious experience is now four years in the past, and when you interact with them, they won't experience that for another four years.

There is no logic from the previous points to this conclusion. It's baseless. Look at the situation from an independent observer and think of each person having a time rate. Rate(me during trip)=1t, Rate(friend on earth)=5t. Rate(me once back on earth)=5t. Where do you draw the idea that their 'consciousness' is permanently behind in experience? Do you misunderstand how relativity works?

>> No.7124309

>>7124149
>Again I don't see any argument from you, just assertion
>while saying "if your friend experiences 5 years, while you only experience 1 year through timedilation, when you reunite HE'S ACTUALLY A ZOMBIE AND HIS CONCIOUSNESS IS STUCK 4 YEARS IN THE PAST"

holy shit, you fucking mongloid

>> No.7124314

>>7123984
You can't make the claim and then complain about something having no basis when you then claim that consciousness is contained in a fixed time, baselessly.

>> No.7124325

>>7124304
> This may be an elaborate troll or someone going out of their way to imitate the 'style' of Frank Yang.
I don't know who Frank Yang is but it's not a troll. I'm obviously trying to make cogent arguments and nobody is getting particularly mad.
>*time
Yeah I saw that when I reread. Can't remember what the "real" was there for, it's a typo.
> Where do you draw the idea that their 'consciousness' is permanently behind in experience? Do you misunderstand how relativity works?
I have a good knowledge of relativity (i.e. I understand the basis and I can do the math). I don't want to draw the conclusion that their conciousness is truly in the past. It's a reductio ad absurdum. It's supposed to disprove that there's such a thing as concurrent subjective experience at all. There are two assumptions: that subjective experience is concurrent, and that subjective experience of our current time moves at a constant rate. My point is that these assumptions are inconsistent with special relativity.

>> No.7124331
File: 998 KB, 250x251, ddd.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7124331

I'm starting to think these pseudo-philosophical chucklefuck threads are created by the same person everytime
it's always some rambling about conciousness/ego/mind/culture with a random topic of science attached as "proof" for these convuluted walls of text
when read as whole they always sound like the ramblings of a schizophrenic deep inside a delirium
and 100% of the time the OP responds to posts with "you just dont get it" and "prove that I'm wrong!" to defend his badly written, baseless and nonsensical claim

I don't know if I'm being trolled anymore, that alone makes this atleast a 7/10

>> No.7124334

>>7124325
Which point of special relativity is not consistent with subjective experience being concurrent/subjective experience of current time moving at a constant rate? I'm not trying to be mean, I actually don't see how you can conclude this. Both of those two things look like they would fit without issue to me?

>> No.7124349

>>7124331
> responds to posts with "prove that I'm wrong!" to defend his claim
Using counter arguments to counter the original argument? What an absurd request! How utterly illogical! Idiot.
>badly written
How so?
> when read as whole they always sound like the ramblings of a schizophrenic deep inside a delirium
Well two people so far said they understand what I meant although they didn't think what I was disproving was commonly held anyway. But in any case that demonstrates that these aren't purely incoherent ramblings, so maybe you're just slow?

>> No.7124368

>>7124325
the assumption that subjective experience of our current time moves at a constant rate is wrong. It's inconsistent with special relativity because special relativity is how the world works.

>> No.7124371

>>7124349
>Well two people so far said they understand what I meant
Congrats you found some people that are just as autistic as you. Actually more so because they were actually able to understand your ramblings and still point out why you're retarded.

>> No.7124375

>>7124349
>Using counter arguments to counter the original argument?
"prove that my claim, which was made without proof, is wrong" does not suddenly validate your claim
you're connecting dots which aren't even part of the same picture and you 'defend' it with "YOU CAN'T PROVE OTHERWISE THUS I MUST BE CORRECT"

>Well two people so far said they understand what I meant
I also understand what you "meant" in your shitty text
it doesn't make your whole premise any less retarded and illogical, while the obvious answer is so damn obvious I have no idea how you could possibly miss it
I guess since the answer "nothing changes besides your age difference" runs contrary to your whole premise you have chosen to ignore it throughout the thread

>> No.7124382

>>7124334
> Which point of special relativity is not consistent with subjective experience being concurrent/subjective experience of current time moving at a constant rate?
Firstly I should clarify that the assumption I think is false is the one about concurrence. It seems very obvious that if you're in an inertial frame, subjective time passes at the same rate. That is, after one year on the rocket ship, the same amount of subjective time has passed as after one year on Earth.
Second, the point is simply this: say the subjective experiences are concurrent at the start of the trip. After one year of subjective experience for the rocket guy, he's back on Earth, five years in the future. But after one year of subjective experience for the Earth guy, it's still a long time before his friend returns. So their subjective experience definitely isn't concurrent any more.

>> No.7124387

>>7124375
Are you done shouting? If you don't have any substantive counterarguments to offer, please go away. The best try you made was this:
> nothing changes besides your age difference
But I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. What am I saying "changes" which actually doesn't?

>> No.7124388

>>7124382
>But after one year of subjective experience for the Earth guy, it's still a long time before his friend returns. So their subjective experience definitely isn't concurrent any more.
THIS THIS IS WHAT IVE BEEN TRYING TO EXPLAIN THANK YOU YOU MAGNIFICENT FAGGOT OP PLEASE UNDERSTAND

>> No.7124391

>>7124388
I am the OP.
Clearly you are incredibly confused.

>> No.7124395

>>7124391
Clearly. If that wasn't the source of the confusion what the fuck was?

>> No.7124398

>>7124395
No idea. All I tried to argue in the OP was that subjective experiences aren't concurrent, which you just vehemently agreed with.

>> No.7124399

>>7124395
>the confusion
I meant *your* confusion

>> No.7124402

>>7124398
Oh is that all?
well i think it's safe to do this then
/thread

>> No.7124423

>>7124020

He's explicitly refuting your central point.

>> No.7124430

>>7124423
Where? All he says is that even in the situation I described, they don't get out of sync. That's just negating my conclusion. Where's the argument?

>> No.7124546

when looking in from the outside, it's kind of funny how bitter and rude the basement-dwellers on this board can be. people calling you the r-word like you fucked their mom or like mentally ill people don't exist or some shit.
to OP's comfort, i definitely understand what you mean. we don't really know how a person's perception of time changes or doesn't change when in this kind of special relativity scenario, because no experiments have been done. however, i don't really believe peoples' consciousness would be out of sync after the trip, only during it (at least not in the sense that it would take someone 4 years to process your conversation or anything like that). once your brains are back to running at the same rate ("earth time"), there's no reason to believe that your consciousnesses would still be incompatible in any way.

>> No.7124561

>>7123984
Interstellar movie victim?

>> No.7124599

>>7124430
>All he says is that even in the situation I described, they don't get out of sync
no
what he's says is that the whole idea of conciousness having or needing some kind of "synchronisation" is false
if we are both standing in the same room, talking to each other, it doesn't matter if you have spent the 10 years priors to this meeting traveling in a time dilated state relative to the reference frame Earth or not, we are both conscious at the same time, in the same room

>> No.7124681

>We usually assume that people are conscious at the same time as us, right?
No, we usually don't assume anyone is conscious. Consciousness is an illusion.