Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 16:22:19 UTC No. 16174103

>>16174099
Sabine is just pandering to her far-right conspiracy-minded audience

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 16:23:43 UTC No. 16174104

>>16174099
Why are gen xers like this? They seem to gobble this shit up more readily than anyone else.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 16:25:04 UTC No. 16174106

>>16174103
so what you're saying is that she's /ourgirl/

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 16:26:57 UTC No. 16174109

>>16174106
Probably true

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 16:27:06 UTC No. 16174110

>>16174103
>consciousness is "far-right" now
That's a whole new way of saying you're an NPC.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 16:28:46 UTC No. 16174115

>>16174110
You just proved my point

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 16:33:38 UTC No. 16174120

>>16174099
>Determinists in shambles
Is quantum randomness awareness? Are random quantum outcomes "reasoning?, "thinking", "deciding" or just... randomness?
Awareness would have to break the laws of physics, it would have to do something unexpected by physics. One would have to "decide" against the machinery of the brain. Not just in unexpected, irreproducible fashion, each time, but also in a logical sense, not like pellet clouds being shot at a screen.
In other words, as per my view, randomness is not reasoning or deciding in a willfully way, it's just what it is: quantum randomness.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 16:33:59 UTC No. 16174122

>>16174099
prove that you could have done otherwise.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 16:50:33 UTC No. 16174135

>>16174099
Materialism is a serious mental illness.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 17:08:15 UTC No. 16174156

Everything depends on quantum mechanics at the smallest level so of course it impacts the brain. What a fucking non-statement to make.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 17:25:08 UTC No. 16174166

>>16174156
>Everything depends on quantum mechanics at the smallest level so of course it impacts the brain.
>what are emergent properties

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 17:28:15 UTC No. 16174171

>>16174156
I noticed this too, but she has to fit a concise statement in the thumbnail in order to attract more normie cattle.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 17:29:43 UTC No. 16174172

>>16174135
Depends on how materialism is defined, innit? Everything becomes material once we know it well enough. But it'll never be the cutting edge of knowledge.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 17:34:29 UTC No. 16174177

>>16174103
juden!

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 17:34:32 UTC No. 16174178

>>16174099
>brain really uses quantum effects
but everything uses quantum effects? you can't build a castle without any bricks.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 17:45:51 UTC No. 16174197

>>16174172
>Everything becomes material once we know it well enough.
No, not necessarily.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 17:52:34 UTC No. 16174206

>>16174177
nazi!

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 17:54:21 UTC No. 16174212

>omg, my brain, it feels so big!!!
>its full of so much schizo kike jargon and fancy basedence polysyllables
>oh no
>i can't hold it in any longer
>i'm…
>i'm gonna…
>i'm gonna QUANTUUUUUUUUMMMMMM!!!!!!

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 18:03:23 UTC No. 16174228

>>16174172
Scientific discoveries illustrate relational and casual ties between variables and often times undercover entirely new variables. Trying to force these discoveries into some creed of materialism is an impulse that belongs to a prior era in which scholastics and other religious intellectuals tried to pretend as though they already had total knowledge of the Universe and therefore any novel information had to be contorted such that it could fit into their worldview somehow (this is basically how Occam's Razor came to be. Since he ultimately posited a single entity, "God", as responsible for everything his explanation of any truths would ultimately be correct since it's all downstream of that single entity which to him was apparently superior to positing multiple entities). "Materialism" along with every other metaphysical theory has no place in a discourse surrounding the scientific method and its fruits. Materialism is an unfalsifiable and inexact doctrine which relies on a falsifiable and exact method. Whenever there's some new revelation regarding the fundamental particles and fields that comprise reality, materialists will simply include those under their banner of "materialism" despite the fact that they never predicted those particles or fields and that could never discover them through their impotent philosophical "studies" which just consist of baseless musings put onto paper.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 18:08:34 UTC No. 16174234

>>16174212
>schizo kike jargon
Of all the 20th physics concepts Quantum probably has the least Jews involved. Only ones I can think of are Born and Pauli. Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, Planck, de Broglie and Bell were all not Jewish

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 18:14:44 UTC No. 16174248

>>16174120
FURTHERMORE, quantum effects are discretely random, in the sense that each observation is random, but the overall group behavior of the particles isn't: it is DETERMINED by a probability wave function that can calculate and define.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 19:09:07 UTC No. 16174346

>>16174228
You're right in exactly that materialism is ultimately unfalsifiable and poorly defined. It's very questionable what the usefulness of the idea is. Either you observe or you don't. You rationalize or you don't. But does a useless model mean it's not true?

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 19:34:15 UTC No. 16174373

>>16174120
>it would have to do something unexpected
For example collapsing the wave function?

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 19:43:33 UTC No. 16174387

>>16174346
Here's my model: All animals are elephants. Under my model, the word "elephant" is defined as "organism classified in the kingdom animalia." If something is an animal, we will name it elephant. It's true by definition, but it's utterly useless and no one should ever use it for anything.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 19:52:16 UTC No. 16174396

>>16174387
Right. But what if we define everything as immaterial? Simulation, solipsistic dream, a flow on consciousness, some kind of immaterial energy. Details don't matter. We define it all immaterial. Doesn't the same problem persist?
And if it does persist, what makes a dualistic view any more reasonable than either monistic view?

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 20:00:33 UTC No. 16174406

>>16174104
gen x ers need something to live for, as their jobs suck, kids suck, skin wrinkling, less and all the psychological problems built up over the years become more permanent
in the past they would have turned to religion
now there's no religion except netflix ideology which is obviously empty money-grabbing
so seeking a new religion

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 20:01:55 UTC No. 16174409

>>16174396
>what makes a dualistic view any more reasonable than either monistic view?
It allows us to accept there may be some things we can never measure in a material way and that it may be possible for something to be greater than the sum of its material parts. Allowing there to be a category for phenomena we observe but can't explain in material terms creates more open-mindedness and can improve our willingness to study things in different ways. Materialism alone just acts as a limiter to human thought and consideration; if something can't be explained in material terms it simply can't exist and we ignore it.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 20:07:41 UTC No. 16174418

>>16174409
Okay. That's reasonable. Have a nice day. It's been a while since I was this satisfied by an answer. I've become more of a pluralist due to this conversation.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 20:24:11 UTC No. 16174443

>>16174228
>muh falsifiability
Kill yourself. Modern science like string theory has moved beyond dumb popper's falsifiability

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 20:47:24 UTC No. 16174476

>>16174443

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 21:00:44 UTC No. 16174491

>>16174476
Read some philosophy after dumb popper. It's easy to show that no scientific theory is falsifiable

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 07:01:21 UTC No. 16175147

>>16174373
>For example collapsing the wave function?
the act of observation and "collapse" is curious indeed, but we're not even sure what it means outside of the mathematics yet. There's some 13 interpretations of the phenomenon out there.
We're not even sure of what exactly can collapse the wave function. Can non-cognitive agents do it as well and it's just an illusion of our perception? Who the fuck knows.
No, it doesn't prove agency, but it is determinable through mathematics.

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 13:26:45 UTC No. 16175458

bump

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 14:04:20 UTC No. 16175501

>>16174099
wow what a fucking misleading title

let me save you all 7 minutes:

> scientists discovered photoelectric effect in certain proteins common in the brain

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 15:23:51 UTC No. 16175584

>>16174171
>she has to fit a concise statement in the thumbnail in order to attract more normie cattle.
There's a great solution for that:
>Unsubscribe
>Don't recommend this channel

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 15:51:02 UTC No. 16175620

>>16175501
That's pretty much popsci in a nutshell and why popsci was a mistake.

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 16:19:15 UTC No. 16175654

>>16175501
>>16175620
That's not what the video is even about. You're the real popscis here

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 20:24:34 UTC No. 16176014

>>16175501
false

Anonymous at Tue, 14 May 2024 21:31:30 UTC No. 16176136

>>16175501
Holy shit so OP is lying again?