🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 01:44:56 UTC No. 16296797
Does the non-physical nature of consciousness challenge physicalism?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 02:07:34 UTC No. 16296809
>>16296797
we need to refute the vitalist hypothesis so that you never make a thread again
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 02:23:39 UTC No. 16296820
>>16296809
unfair comparison
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 02:40:08 UTC No. 16296834
>>16296797
No, because consciousness is physical.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 02:53:54 UTC No. 16296848
>>16296797
Consciousness is not susceptible to /sci/ because it cannot be objectively measured; it can only be subjectively observed by each individual within themselves.
Science can only objectively measure and duplicate intelligence; consciousness on the other hand will forever be out of reach of grasping empirical paws.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 04:50:34 UTC No. 16296943
>>16296797
yes but it's philosophy not science
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 05:39:04 UTC No. 16296966
>>16296797
Science by itself does not indictate either physicalism or idealism.
Those are philosophic interpretations. Science deals with models and predictions.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 06:09:59 UTC No. 16296980
>>16296797
No more than the non-physical nature of software challenges computer science.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 06:44:38 UTC No. 16297007
>>16296797
>non-physical nature
When did /sci/ become so retarded?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 06:46:20 UTC No. 16297008
>>16296809
based
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 06:58:54 UTC No. 16297018
It's amazing how a simple fact stated by OP causes all the NPCs to expose themselves.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 07:07:22 UTC No. 16297029
>>16297018
Its amazing how retards still don't understand software versus hardware.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 07:20:01 UTC No. 16297037
>>16297029
It's amazing how midwits mistakenly believe computer analogies had any epistemological value.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 07:28:19 UTC No. 16297040
>>16297037
The software you are using to show off your retardation to the world still works perfectly fine despite being non-physical, cry harder about another retarded non-issue.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 07:32:31 UTC No. 16297043
>>16297040
>imagine being this buckbroken
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 07:34:03 UTC No. 16297044
>>16297037
You are a midwit for mistakenly believing that the actual multilayered physical encapsulation process where where software application arise from conception is an analogy rather than a direct example of how non-physical abstractions drive hard physical processes.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 07:35:59 UTC No. 16297045
>>16297043
I don't have to imagine, I get to actually watch you use non-physical software to moan about the non-physical aspects of reality that have you so anxious.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 07:39:43 UTC No. 16297047
>>16296797
Does the non-heterosexual nature of original posters challenge troll threads?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 07:41:09 UTC No. 16297048
>>16297044
>>16297045
You just made the analogy even more cringe. No amount of projecting will save you.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 07:43:43 UTC No. 16297051
>>16297048
An example is not an analogy, nitwit.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 09:56:26 UTC No. 16297118
>>16297051
If it's not an analogy it has nothing to do with consciousness. Why are you posting offtopic, dummy?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 09:59:35 UTC No. 16297122
>>16297118
It has to do with non-physical things necessarily being the driving mechanism behind physical things, of which, consciousness and software are two examples.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 10:50:01 UTC No. 16297148
>>16296834
If its immeasurable/unquantiable, how can you verify the hypothesis that consciousness is "purely physical"?
What else would constitute it being "not physical"? Quantum effects? ORCH OR? Those are physically derived qualities, they are just ones which PERMIT unknowableness so determinists hate them.
Rites of Spring at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 10:53:20 UTC No. 16297152
>>16297040
In what way is consciousness independent of the hardware it runs on?
Humans are not universal turing machines.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 11:29:33 UTC No. 16297168
>>16297152
Humans (non-NPC) are hyperturing. Free will is not computable.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 11:43:22 UTC No. 16297176
>>16297122
1. This doesn't prove shit.
2. It is immoral because it invites anti-intellectual trash like >>16297152 who doesn't even know what a Turing machine is.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 11:52:59 UTC No. 16297185
>>16297152
>In what way is consciousness independent of the hardware it runs on?
Language, you can just tell someone to run the same programs you are or just write a book with all the instruction laid out algorithmically. The point is that non-physical things are necessary to drive the physical things, hardware is generally useless and dead without software to run it.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 13:38:46 UTC No. 16297290
>>16296797
>NOOOOO NOT MY HECKIN AWESUM REDDIT SCOIENCE!!!
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 13:40:09 UTC No. 16297292
>>16296797
Does the physicalism challenge the idea that consciousness is a magical spirit living inside you?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:55:11 UTC No. 16297474
>>16297292
Is data physical?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:37:12 UTC No. 16297542
There is NO SUCH THING AS NON-PHYSICALS
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:39:47 UTC No. 16297545
>>16297542
Can you please show me morality? Where does it reside in nature?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:51:15 UTC No. 16297563
>>16297542
>write about a unicorn
>can't actually know if there are no unicorns in the universe
>therefore cannot assert it is non-physical, nor reject that is not physical
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:52:15 UTC No. 16297564
>>16297545
It resides for example on my screen as a word.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:05:11 UTC No. 16297613
>>16297148
You can measure brain activity, and you can measure the lack of brain activity. We know that brain activity is consciousness.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:07:48 UTC No. 16297616
>>16297613
Le correlation vs causation fallacy and you are already factually wrong. Most brain activity is happening subconsciously.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:14:29 UTC No. 16297622
>>16297616
>any two things that are correlated are NEVER CAUSALLY LINKED
There should be a new fallacy, what should we call it?
>most brain activity is automatic
>???
>therefore consciousness isn't physical
Very convincing, anon.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:18:21 UTC No. 16297625
>>16297622
>getting filtered by the most basic sender receiver analogy
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:20:19 UTC No. 16297627
>>16297625
Certain parts of the brain being damaged can damage certain parts of being conscious. For example, you can no longer speak but can still understand your native language.
Why would this happen if it was not physical?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:27:40 UTC No. 16297638
>>16297627
See >>16297625. I don't need to repeat myself.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:27:56 UTC No. 16297639
>>16297627
Because there is a causal relationship between the physical and non-physical. It's like you skipped centuries of discourse.
>inb4 then it's not non-physical
It's because the notion of non-physical you have in your mind is not the same as philosophers. Let go of the everyday notion when engaging with this topic and you might just come to agree.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:30:57 UTC No. 16297645
>>16297639
Why not let go of your dualism and try to see it physically? You might just come to agree.
>>16297638
So we're just totally ignoring Occam's razor? There's no evidence of a non-physical thing, but evidence of the physical, so why multiply entities beyond necessity?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:36:01 UTC No. 16297653
>>16297645
The laws of physics can't explain qualia. Therefore Occam's razor suggests the simplest hypothesis: they are something different.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:40:54 UTC No. 16297660
>>16297653
There is literally 0 evidence of the non-physical, but there is plenty of evidence of brain activity and it being directly linked with thoughts, feeling, and emotion.
Can you demonstrate how the soul interfaces with the body, and also show where it doesn't interface? can you perform any experiment that proves it?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:42:48 UTC No. 16297663
>>16297660
>Can you demonstrate how the soul interfaces with the body
Control of the gauge freedom in the quantum field.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:46:05 UTC No. 16297665
>>16297663
Ok, and can you show this is a controlled effect?
You may as well say "release photons from the sun to hit our eyes." There is still no evidence of the non-physical
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:49:04 UTC No. 16297670
>>16297666
Still better than Indian street food. I wouldn't eat anything that swam in a Chinese river though.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:51:52 UTC No. 16297673
>>16297665
The evidence is subjective. But since you are unable to see it I will have to assume it isn't present in your mind, i.e. you do not experience qualia or free will. This shows that brain activity does not necessarily cause consciousness. Hence the consciousness I am experiencing from my first person perspective cannot be reduced to physical processes.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:55:58 UTC No. 16297682
>>16297673
>ad hominem
>still no evidence
Why would brain damage be able to cause blindsight?
Are memories stored in the brain, or the soul? Explain memory loss.
Is there any reason to assume a non-physical? Let me answer for you: no. It's just religious cope.
If there is a soul, why can people go into comas and then wake up again? Were they on a groovy soul vacation?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:58:55 UTC No. 16297688
>>16297682
It's not an ad hom, it's an empirical observation. I experience something you don't. This needs to be explained. Explanations within our current physical theories are insufficient. Hence it must be something else.
For the rest of your post see >>16297625
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:02:06 UTC No. 16297693
>>16297688
>ad hominem
>and just asserting claims without evidence
Imagine getting filtered by basic physicality.
Is binary addition non-physical? The transistors are just a receiver for the binary computer addition spirit?
Is sight non physical? The eyes just perceive reality without interfacing with it in any way?
I'm sorry that physicality scares you, but there is literally no evidence to the contrary. You can believe it if you want, but you still have 0 proof. It's literally just cope for you future non-existence.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:05:00 UTC No. 16297702
>>16297693
The only religious fanatic here is you. You cannot accept that there are people who aren't NPCs.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:08:34 UTC No. 16297709
>>16297660
>how the soul interfaces with the body
The official /x/ narrative is that the soul is the default unbounded existence. Physicality, or matter as we know them, is the bounded, programmed, state of the originally infinite soul. So it's less there are two distinct entities (body and soul) interacting with one another but more the relationship between hardware (soul) and software (body).
As for how this hypothesis can be empirically demonstrated, the experiment would have to be a demonstration of psychic ability that alters the very foundation of reality as we know it.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:13:22 UTC No. 16297716
>>16297682
>blocks your path
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:14:34 UTC No. 16297718
>>16297702
>I-I HAVE A SOUL!!!!
>I WON'T DIE!!!
>I-IT'S REAL! I KNOW IT'S REAL!
And Grandpa is taking care of Fido on the farm upstate with Yahweh and Mohammad, or whatever it is you believe.
>>16297709
Now see, we could actually try to prove this. A demonstration of psychic abilities would be some proof of something, maybe you could spin it into proof of a non-physical existence.
The issue is, despite having been tested countless times, there have been no positive results. Is there a way to square this circle?
Even if it existed but wasn't tested, what would you expect to see? I'd expect to see people who somehow win the lottery more often than not, or mind control, or something like that.
What do you expect to see, anon? Is there any evidence?
Thank you for being much more civil than that other retard, by the way. He won't read this far though my post so it's OK to insult him now.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:16:43 UTC No. 16297720
>>16297718
>shifting le goalposts
I never said the soul was immortal. You are making up shit because you have no arguments.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:19:19 UTC No. 16297722
>>16297720
>You are making up shit because you have no arguments.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Why not just displace some quantum fields for me? Could you do that under an experiment in a lab?
Could we record it?
Even something that philosophers used to quibble about like "what is color" we've solved. It's just the reaction of specific wavelengths of light with specific cones in our eye.
Do you believe in the non-physical existence of color still? I bet not.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:21:41 UTC No. 16297725
>>16297474
information is physical.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:56:41 UTC No. 16297778
In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am englightened by my intelligence
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:59:11 UTC No. 16297782
>>16297778
Comma splice.
Period instead of semicolon
Starting a sentence with "but"
Comma splice
Misspelling enlightened
>In this moment I am euphoric; not because of any phony god's blessing, but because I am enlightened by my intelligence.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:05:11 UTC No. 16297795
>>16297718
>is there any evidence
I have done /x/ related practices and I have seen level of evidence for myself.
The problem scientifically however is I know for certain there is no way these evidences can be presented in an objective manner to stand scrutiny as they can always be explained away by conventional theories. The sheer frequency of occurances however have convinced me personally.
As for something mindblowing that can stand up to scrutiny, word around the schizo block is that the world is changing. Not in the socio-economic and political sense, but literally. Where once consciousness can only conjure up synchronicities that can be explained away now it's full on Matrix bullet dodge. This bold prediction is also not something in 100 years but in literal years.
So I guess we'll just have to see.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:09:15 UTC No. 16297803
>>16297795
The issue with basically every miracle claim is some combination of these things:
It wasn't recorded
It was recorded, but faked
They're assuming something means something it doesn't
For examples of each
>it happened last Tuesday, I totally predicted the numbers on my friends fortune cookie! I told you I was psychic!
>anything by Uri Geller
>I prayed to God for a sign, and after looking for literally any sign for 10 days, I found a $20 bill in the parking lot when I was $19.80 short on my electric bill!
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:10:45 UTC No. 16297808
>>16297653
>Occam's razor suggests the simplest hypothesis
So an emergent phenomena coming from physical processes, just like literally everything else? I feel like occams razor is the worst argument you could possibly make, considering the "existence of a nonphysical thing" is a massive assumption
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:11:48 UTC No. 16297810
>>16297795
Also, something I meant to add, if you admit that they're better explained by convention, and you're in a meeting place where literally every believer is trying to prove it, you'd expect at least some claims to slip through.
If it's real, really real, why hasn't anyone ever actually tried to prove it over on /x/?
I'm sure you could find enough self-claimed psychics in your city or area to join in a quick "guess the numbers in a box, use some dowsing rods, read some auras" experiment.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:13:59 UTC No. 16297814
>>16296797
There is no reason to believe that consciousness is non-physical.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:19:06 UTC No. 16297830
>>16297808
"Emergent" isn't even a meaningful word.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:21:28 UTC No. 16297834
>>16297830
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/e
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:25:40 UTC No. 16297839
>>16297834
yeah, cite the dictionary definition for a discipline specific concept
epic, simply epic
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:27:32 UTC No. 16297841
>>16297830
Do you think angels replicate cells and hold stars together, or are brains special in that regard?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:30:12 UTC No. 16297847
>>16297839
So you admit it has meaning? Do you want to make an actual point or just continue to spew nonsense?
Can you experimentally show the interface between non-physical and physical medium?
Can you explain where your soul goes when you go into a coma vs when you come out of a coma?
You only avoid direct questions and answers because you're dishonest. You can prove otherwise, but that would require answering these questions.
I'd accept an "I don't know," but I'm sure you could see why that doesn't convince me you're right.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:33:38 UTC No. 16297855
>>16297847
Can you explain where the world goes when I go to sleep? Can you prove you aren't a figment of my imagination? Can you prove you aren't a bot?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:37:33 UTC No. 16297859
>>16297855
No, which is why I have some axioms.
I assume reality is real. If I didn't, I couldn't prove it was, but that's why it's an axiom.
I assume I'm not the center of the universe, dreaming it into existence.
I assume since I am conscious, other people are too. This is so far partially confirmed, because we've measured the stuff in people's heads and they pretty much act the same as the stuff in my head.
You are incredibly dishonest. You haven't argued a single point at all. To restate my questions:
Where does the soul go in a coma patient? Why does it not control their brain like it does when they come back alive?
Can you demonstrate the interaction between a soul and matter in any verifiable way?
You are a dishonest liar.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:42:23 UTC No. 16297867
>>16297841
Why are you talking about brains? This thread is about consciousness.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:46:29 UTC No. 16297873
>>16297867
>why are you talking about the heart? this is about the circulatory system.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:46:54 UTC No. 16297875
>>16297867
>Why are you talking about stars? This thread is about light
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:50:46 UTC No. 16297879
>>16297873
>>16297875
Your examples only show the weakness of your stance. The circulatory system could work with any pump other than a heart. Photons are emitted by many objects other than stars. Consciousness is independent of the brain.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:52:43 UTC No. 16297880
>>16297879
You're right, my example is too weak.
Answer these questions >>16297859
>why are you talking about photons? this discussion is about brightness
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:55:25 UTC No. 16297881
>>16297879
>Photons are emitted by many objects other than stars
Exactly, and consciousness can be produced by things other than the brain. The brain still produces consciousness in humans
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:58:48 UTC No. 16297888
>>16297859
>I assume since I'm conscious
You are not conscious.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 20:59:57 UTC No. 16297889
>>16297881
Consciousness isn't "produced" because no physical process can produce something nonphysical.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:04:22 UTC No. 16297895
>>16297889
How does stubbing my toe (a physical process) produce the nonphysical sensation of pain?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:08:36 UTC No. 16297899
>>16297895
Prove that you experience any pain. Just saying ouch or making a painful face doesn't prove it.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:14:55 UTC No. 16297904
>>16297899
Prove that you're capable of conscious thought. Just making a retarded 4chan post isn't enough
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:21:04 UTC No. 16297909
>>16297904
>shifting le burden of proof
As expected you have no arguments. You lost.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:23:34 UTC No. 16297916
>>16297909
Then who won? A philosophical zombie can't "win", let alone comprehend the idea of winning. They merely appear to be people
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:40:16 UTC No. 16297934
>>16297909
Lost hard, consciousness once again proved physical, and you proven to have none.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:49:37 UTC No. 16297950
>>16297916
>>16297934
>a blind man celebrates his victory after proving that colors don't exist
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:49:56 UTC No. 16297952
>>16297859
The figment of my imagination says I must just assume that it isn't. It goes a step further because this assumption is the basis for all material suppositions, including those which seek to refute the axiom in the first place - ergo, the axiom contradicts itself and should be discarded.
>you haz no free will!
>you are fizzy chemicals
>this axiom is just fizzy chemicals in random coherent alignment
And somehow I am the dishonest one. Boring materialist agent.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:51:16 UTC No. 16297956
>>16297803
>>16297808
>If it's real, really real, why hasn't anyone ever actually tried to prove it over on /x/?
Prove what exactly? You do "X" and "Y" happens in a significantly high frequency to satisfy. That's pretty much the only proof anyone need. I mean do you really understand why anything work in /sci/? Or do you merely observe, adjust model, and make predictions?
And yes, due to the very unregulated nature of /x/, the amount of fakes irl is higher than /sci/.
Nonetheless, whatever does work, works.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:51:45 UTC No. 16297957
>>16297952
Wow, for an AI chatbot it you write really coherently
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 21:54:29 UTC No. 16297960
>>16297639
When I think of physical I think of physics and how physics should be able to measure or calculate consciousness somehow.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 22:03:17 UTC No. 16297971
>>16297956
>Nonetheless, whatever does work, works.
Tautology, doesn't prove anything about the current situation.
Why not get a bunch of psychics together, do some tests, see which ones fair better than chance, and have a little tournament or something.
Both parties write down 5 numbers and draw a simple picture, and then try to guess what the other person wrote and drew. It could be like an /x/ gameshow, and if it's real they'd have someone able to get like 90% accuracy.
>>16297952
>argument from consequences
Sorry reality makes you feel bad, I hope your headcanon helps you feel better :)
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 22:05:39 UTC No. 16297976
>>16297952
Can you answer any questions here? >>16297859
If you can, you will reply with answers, including "I don't know" as an acceptable answer.
If you can't, you will either not reply or post something off topic.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 22:14:30 UTC No. 16297982
>>16297971
>remote viewing
Go ask the CIA about that gameshow.
As for me, I'm not some academic here trying to prove something to fight people for a cut of funding.
Certain practices worked for me in my life and I have reaped the benefits. I will continue to do so and that is good enough for me.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 22:15:21 UTC No. 16297983
>>16297976
All of your "questions" have been answered by
>>16297625
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 22:16:26 UTC No. 16297985
>>16297982
So you have no proof? And that's why I don't believe.
>>16297983
>argument from analogy
Your analogy is flawed, you're filtered by basic arguments.
Prove me wrong, and answer my questions.
Until you do so, you're filtered.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 22:27:09 UTC No. 16297997
>>16297985
You are so fucking butthurt because you got filtered.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 22:28:13 UTC No. 16298001
>>16297997
>filtered by a basic chemistry analogy
Answer the questions. Read them and understand, then answer.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 22:28:35 UTC No. 16298002
>>16297888
You're right, but you're also not conscious. I'm the only real person ITT, and you're all figments of my imagination
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:07:00 UTC No. 16298035
>>16298001
You did not post a chemistry analogy. Stay mad.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:07:36 UTC No. 16298036
>>16298035
You did not post a sender receiver analogy.
Where is the soul of a coma patient? What is it doing? Nothing?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:08:52 UTC No. 16298038
>>16298036
Indeed, I never posted it. I merely referred to it since it is well known. Yet you still got filtered.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:10:08 UTC No. 16298040
>>16298038
And I pointed out it's simple chemistry. Filtered.
Where are memories stored? In the soul? Why does brain damage cause memory loss?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:20:18 UTC No. 16298049
>>16298040
It's so funny that you don't understand the topic at all.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:21:58 UTC No. 16298052
>>16298049
Keep dodging my questions. It only makes you look bad, and gives me the upper hand.
Can you measure the signal from a soul?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:22:52 UTC No. 16298055
>>16298040
>Why does brain damage cause memory loss?
NTA but I would guess it would be like damaging a 'receiver' irl, where the quality of the recieved signal is diminished. Certain parts of the brain correspond to sending/receiving from certain parts of the soul.
The issue with that though is if you continue that logic enough, the "soul" and the neurons in the brain are basically mapped 1-1, and at that point what's the difference between the soul and the brain creating consciousness (besides the fact that the soul can exist after death I suppose.)
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:23:39 UTC No. 16298057
>>16297029
Larper retard detected
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:24:40 UTC No. 16298059
>>16298055
Filtered by monads
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:25:37 UTC No. 16298062
>>16298055
That's why I brought up Occam's razor earlier.
If the brain can do everything the soul is supposed to, why propose a soul?
I keep asking this guy simple questions and he can answer none of them. I'd be willing to argue the receiver point, but he brought it up once and never actually tried to defend it.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:33:44 UTC No. 16298074
>>16298052
>my ignorance gives me the upper hand
Top lel, this is /sci/ 2024
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:34:47 UTC No. 16298077
>>16298062
>why propose a soul
I guess it would make some of the weirder implications of physicalism more intuitive. Like, if you were killed and were replaced by a perfect clone who shares all your thoughts/memories, a physicalist would say you're the same person (since you share the same brain/body with the clone) but OP could say you were different people w/ different souls.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:35:59 UTC No. 16298078
>>16298062
I gave you two examples of phenomena not explainable by physics. You WILL keep dishonestly ignoring them.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:41:07 UTC No. 16298082
>>16298078
You gave none.
>qualia
Perfectly explainable by "you" being brain chemistry.
Have you heard about split brain patients? Which half has the soul?
If you're going to say "they both have the same soul" why would the physical disconnect in the brain cause a disconnect in the controlling soul? Explain that.
>>16298077
If you created a perfect clone with exactly the same brain pattern and chemistry, you couldn't tell them apart.
If you were replaced in your sleep tonight, you'd have no idea that you were no longer you, would you?
I'm of a mind with Parfit here, it's just as good as regular survival.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:43:31 UTC No. 16298087
Is this thread just 2 people having the most unproductive conversation in the world?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:44:56 UTC No. 16298091
>>16298087
Basically just me and him, yeah.
Though I think it's fun to pose challenges and he thinks it's fun to cry about it.
What is productive about 4chan if not having fun?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:53:43 UTC No. 16298108
>>16298082
Go on, explain qualia.
bodhi at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:55:42 UTC No. 16298112
>>16297542
where can I touch a thought?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:55:55 UTC No. 16298114
>>16298108
You receive information from elctrochemical reactions, such as taste, sight, or sound.
These in turn produce electrochemical reactions in your brain, which fires off other reactions, etc, in a big network that gives you a memory of an experience.
The "taste" of an apple isn't a part of the apple, it's a part of the shit that fired in your head.
Your turn.
Answer the split brain question.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:57:02 UTC No. 16298117
>>16298114
That's not an explanation. You didn't answer the question. You merely repeated your assertion.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 23:57:25 UTC No. 16298119
>>16298117
Your turn.
Answer the split brain question.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 00:01:18 UTC No. 16298125
>>16298117
He explained what produces qualia, what more do you want?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 00:08:29 UTC No. 16298138
>>16298125
He didn't address the explanatory gap.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 00:09:54 UTC No. 16298140
>>16298138
Where's the gap?
Maybe it's in the split brain question. Feel free to answer that.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 00:11:31 UTC No. 16298146
shitty thread full of anime and frogs
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 00:13:18 UTC No. 16298151
>>16298140
It's on Wikipedia. Your ignorance never ceases to amuse.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 00:14:49 UTC No. 16298158
>>16298151
So about the split brain question? Got nothing there?
No answer?
It's perfectly well explained physically.
The fact you won't accept the physical explanation is a you problem, not a physicalism problem.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 00:22:15 UTC No. 16298164
>>16298158
The split brain is completely irrelevant. Only your ignorance doesn't allow you to realize why. You are blind.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 00:25:06 UTC No. 16298167
>>16298164
>i-it's irrelevant...
>i don't have any answers, b-but that doesn't matter...
>I don't care, you just don't understand...
>n-no I totally understand, I just don't want to answer...
I try not to argue with ESLs because they have a hard time putting themselves into english, so their arguments appear weaker than they actually might otherwise be.
You, on the other hand, are just an idiot who can't face facts.
You don't understand? What's there not to understand?
How do you explain magnetic fields being able to give transcendent euphoric experience? That's qualia with a direct, measurable, physical, tunable cause.
Answer the split brain question, or admit you don't know.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 00:30:00 UTC No. 16298175
>>16298167
Now you're buckbroken. And you still don't understand the hard problem of consciousness. Hilarious.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 00:34:57 UTC No. 16298184
>>16298175
He can't answer any questions about his religion, because his religion has no answers for hard questions.
I've won, simple as.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 01:22:50 UTC No. 16298236
>>16298184
Which religion?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 01:55:15 UTC No. 16298258
>>16296797
Yes because all the physics points to the idea that it is far far more likely you are a Boltzmann Brain, which is ridiculous but that's what the physics tells us.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 02:14:11 UTC No. 16298279
>>16298258
what physics points to that?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 02:44:39 UTC No. 16298316
>>16298279
The general argument is that over many billions of years, heat death is inevitable. But over an infinite amount of time, there's an infinitesimal chance that all the particles in the universe will arrange themselves such that the big bang happens and the universe is "restarted". It's way more likely for a Boltzmann brain to form than the universe though
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 03:05:25 UTC No. 16298341
>>16298279
It's the idea that perfect thermal or quantum equilibrium is impossible, and fluctuations happen even in an otherwise featureless universe. Over a very long time, it is practically certaint that there will be a random fluctuation strong enough to generate a whole conscious brain. And wouldn't it be more likely that this brain is you? (instead of a whole universe filled with life and planets and stars that seemingly formed with you)?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 03:11:59 UTC No. 16298348
>>16298341
I don't believe it would be more likely.
In one situation, you somehow have a brain totally randomly, in the other scenario you have basic laws that eventually result in a brain.
Brains are selected for, evolutionary speaking.
What are the odds that of all the brains that could have formed, its just you? It's much more likely you're one of a crowd than the one and only.
This argument holds no weight because there is no real probability being displayed.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 03:21:18 UTC No. 16298350
>>16298348
It's not totally random. Pure randomness is also impossible. All the laws of physics are the same and its easier for them to result in brains if it is a random entropic process because there is less material needed and less randomness needed to generate it.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 03:24:19 UTC No. 16298352
>>16298350
So there is a brain out there which somehow knows everything you know, thinks humans look like this and work like this, blah blah blah, basically simulates a whole universe, and that's more likely than a universe that is likely to select for life and brains?
If you bring up some retarded shit about flipping heads N many times, I'll point out 2 things.
1. Any combonation of heads and tails in a specific sequence is unlikely to come up
It's just as unlikely to get HHHTTTHHHTTT as HTHTHHHTHTHT.
2. This is still just guessing game wankery, there is no real probability involved.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 03:28:42 UTC No. 16298357
>>16298352
It is much more likely for a boltzmann brain to have formed than for the universe to have formed. Getting 10 trillion heads in a row is less likely than getting a thousand heads in a row
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 03:38:45 UTC No. 16298361
>>16298357
For every once boltzman brain possible, in a universe such as ours there are billions of possible brains.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 03:51:41 UTC No. 16298366
>>16298361
Yes, and the differences in probability are still so vast that it doesn't matter. [math] 10^{80} [/math] atoms all need to be arranged for the universe to exist, only [math] 10^{30} [/math] atoms need to be arranged for a human brain to exist, possibly fewer
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 03:55:23 UTC No. 16298371
>>16298366
I'm saying your probability is wrong. It's simply a thought experiment, and you mislead yourself. There's no reason to assume one more likely than the other, and in fact the inverse is true.
I said a billion, but it's likely not a billion
For every boltzman, there are trillions, quadrillions, perhaps more in a universe like this one.
Having 1 brain come together randomly is much less likely than in a universe where chemistry promotes the formation of billions or trillions per species, and perhaps billions of intelligent spiecies per galaxy, and billions of galaxy per every one memeber of the species.
One universe is so unaccountably vast that the likelihood of a boltzman brain compared to any 1 real brain is nearly zero.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 03:56:04 UTC No. 16298372
>>16298352
It doesn't simulate a whole universe. It simulates the exact present moment you are in right now and that's it.
And yes, this situation is far more likely than a whole universe forming with all the life and brains and various interactions of things that we know happened, it's just the theories seem to be flawed for this paradox, and it hasn't been resolved.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:00:15 UTC No. 16298376
>>16298372
It's not a paradox, it's literally just someone saying "What if it was like this."
There are no measurements, there is no reality to it. That's been my whole point.
What if a computer formed and it was a perfect computer that just happened to simulate a very very small portion of our univese every second, but since we're part of the universe we'd never even noticed it because it simulates us on the same timeframe.
Maybe ever planksecond takes what we would think of as 10^100 years.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:03:49 UTC No. 16298382
>>16298366
It's much bigger than that. It's all the individual microstates of all the atomic and particle interactions that have ever occurred and will ever occur, which added up would be bigger than Graham's number, verses a momentary blip of 10^30 atoms and their quick interactions to generate the present moment you are experiencing right now.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:04:48 UTC No. 16298383
>>16298376
>What if it was like this
That's how scientific theories work. Either our current understanding of thermodynamics is wrong or we're probably boltzmann brains. I'd prefer to believe the former
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:06:17 UTC No. 16298385
>>16298383
You are the densest person I've ever talked out outside of that one other retard I was arguing with earlier in this thread.
A scientific theory isn't just "what if it was like this," it's "considering all these things we KNOW, what best explains this."
A boltzman brain is not something we know
You fat retard.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:08:57 UTC No. 16298391
>>16298376
You clearly don't even understand what we're talking about. This comment proves it.
>What if a computer formed and it was a perfect computer that just happened to simulate a very very small portion of our univese every second, but since we're part of the universe we'd never even noticed it because it simulates us on the same timeframe.
You are an absolute moron who has no hope for actually understanding this problem.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:10:43 UTC No. 16298393
>>16298391
You are the dumbest motherfucker ever.
>it's obvious I'm just a random brain in space
>what? a computer??? You don't get it at all!
Why not? A computer is simpler than a brain, and we've programmed simulations all the time.
Really, if you think about it, it's much more likely than a boltzman brain.
If you disagree, you're clearly just misunderstanding.
Again, you have no argument, it's just nonsense drivel you chose to put your faith in.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:11:23 UTC No. 16298394
>>16298385
>considering all these things we KNOW, what best explains this
Yes, and we know almost nothing
>A boltzman brain is not something we know
Exactly, and yet according to our theory of thermodynamics it is much more likely to exist than anything we do know. That is the paradox
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:12:47 UTC No. 16298398
>>16298394
Can you even state the laws of thermodynamics without looking them up?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:13:56 UTC No. 16298402
>>16298393
Because the fucking computer is not conscious, you thick-skulled idiot.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:15:09 UTC No. 16298404
>>16298402
Oh sure, but it's simulating you, which is conscious.
So there you go.
I told you "if you didin't get it, then you simply misunderstood." And I was right.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:18:04 UTC No. 16298409
>>16298398
No. Do you understand thermodynamics better than Feynmann, or Caroll, or most cosmologists? I'm assuming they know more than you or me
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:19:29 UTC No. 16298412
>>16298404
No, you don't get it. I am conscious. The computer is not conscious and therefore irrelevant. You're setting up an idiotic strawman that has nothing to do with the actual thing we are talking about.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:22:34 UTC No. 16298417
>>16298393
You said that this computer is 'perfect'. This is a meaningless ideal computer that has no basis in reality.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:25:05 UTC No. 16298420
>>16298412
Prove that you're not just being simulated on a very simple computer which ticks away at its job very slowly.
You can't. So therefore you're most likely just a random simulation on a simple computer.
QED.
Of course you're not convinced. I doubt even you yourself think you're a boltzman brain.
You're just arguing about things with no basis in reality.
>>16298409
Caroll agrees with me. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00850
You can disagree with him, of course. But I don't. It's a pretty good argument he lays out.
>>16298417
Boltzmann Brains are equally baseless.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:30:42 UTC No. 16298425
>>16298420
I don't think I'm a Boltzmann Brain for fucks sake. Your hypothetical computer is actually MORE complex than a Boltzmann Brain because it requires more total interactions due to the fact that it must have systems that sustain the computer as well as the simulated brain.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:34:45 UTC No. 16298429
>>16298425
So BBs are more complex because they require the brain as well as every memory in the brain and every thought the brain will ever have.
Obviously, this is a stupid argument, so I'm surprised you're willing to make it.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:37:01 UTC No. 16298433
>>16298429
It only requires the memories that you happen to be having right now and doesn't involve any future thoughts beyond the present moment of experience.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:38:25 UTC No. 16298435
>>16298433
And so with a simulation of you
A brain is just a gooey simulation made of complex proteins and fats
A computer is a relatively simpler thing made of some metals
therefore you are a Boltzmann Bot
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:47:45 UTC No. 16298446
>>16298435
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't matter how simple the computer is. It is the cumulative amount of interactions that are necessary to generate a brain, and that amount seems to be less than what we observe happening in the universe. Your computer strawman is a complete misunderstanding of the paradox and even if I concede that it would take fewer interactions to generate my brain, that would actually hurt your stupid idea because it would be SIMPLER whereas the whole universe is observed as more COMPLEX.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:50:38 UTC No. 16298450
>>16298446
We're not talking about the whole universe. We're talking about you.
You're the star, and you're a slow, shitty, run down simulation on a shitty, simple computer.
Much more likely than anything remotely brain-like with organic molecules and complex fat-storage and proteins.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:51:18 UTC No. 16298452
>>16298450
I am fucking done. Holy fuck this board is full of idiots.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:52:45 UTC No. 16298456
>>16298452
No, just you.
And your shitty simulation.
Sucks this ended up being your one microsecond.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 05:16:49 UTC No. 16298485
>>16298420
The argument from cognitive instability seems self defeating to me. There are two possibilities
You are a BB: Then you can't trust the laws of thermodynamics, and you conclude that you're not a BB
You are not a BB: All of our knowledge regarding cosmology says you are almost certainly a BB though. Since we ruled out the possibility of being a BB, that means our understanding of cosmology is wrong
If either is true, then we're still left knowing nothing
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 05:20:43 UTC No. 16298490
>>16298485
It could also be that the probabilities are off, and that you are not likely to be a BB in a universe which is expanding seemingly infinitely.
The natural conclusion of the limit is that BBs are rarer and rarer every second
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 05:24:17 UTC No. 16298496
>>16298490
But that also means that the likelihood of a new universe being created is constantly decreasing as well, reducing the chances of a non-BB person existing. Unless we're the first (and maybe only) universe to exist
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 05:28:03 UTC No. 16298501
>>16298496
From what I know, I believe this is a one way ticket. It's nice to be here while I can be.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 06:53:42 UTC No. 16298586
>>16296848
So you say op is correct?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 09:25:51 UTC No. 16298684
>muh split brain
Severing the corpus callosum does not affect the pineal gland. The pineal gland has been known in Ancient Greece already as the gateway of consciousness. NPCs are simply people with calcified pineal gland from drinking too much fluoride.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 18:49:09 UTC No. 16299255
>>16296797
Yes. But empirical first-hand experiences of the divine via heroic doses of strong psychedelics and especially NDEs not just challenges it way more, but crushes and refutes it altogether, since NDEs are seriously irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us all because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00
So every atheist or materialist or agnostic would be too if they had an NDE, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:
>"The minute that I kind of woke up on that hillside in heaven I knew that that was more real than any time I've ever spent here on Earth. And I knew instantly that my time here was really but a dream. It's real to us when we're in it, but once I was there in heaven I realized that's more real, that felt more real, and it made much more sense to me than anything here. This is kind of nonsensical at times. In heaven, it's so clear, so real, so rational, so logical, but yet emotional and loving at the same time. Immediately I knew that was real and this was not. Immediately."
If NDEs were hallucinations then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would agree that they were halluinations after having them. But the opposite happens as NDEs convince every skeptic when they have a really deep NDE themselves.
So NDEs convince people who have them, and so does the extensive scholarly literature on NDEs for the people who actually reads it. The problem, however, is that so many pseudoskeptics never actually read the scholarly literature on NDEs and instead just assume, based on their materialist dogma, that since there can not be any evidence for the reality of NDEs, there is no point actually learning more about NDEs.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 18:51:57 UTC No. 16299258
>>16299255
You again? Why you keep shilling that shit?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 23:06:49 UTC No. 16299624
>>16299255
Isn't it odd how every "NDE" always confirms the person's childhood/cultural religion?
Any news from NDEs on lifelong atheists?
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 23:13:16 UTC No. 16299630
>>16298684
retarded frogposter.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 23:14:12 UTC No. 16299631
>>16299630
Ad hominem means you admit he's right.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 23:35:55 UTC No. 16299658
>>16299631
He literally doesn't understand the issues a split-brain poses for a soul.
If you have 1 soul, then it shouldn't matter that the brain is split, because 1 soul controls both sides of the brain.
But it does matter the brain is split, the two sides operate independently of eachother, which means there's not 1 controlling force in a brain.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 23:41:38 UTC No. 16299664
>>16299658
Split brain literally just means the corpus callosum is severed. Both hemispheres are still connected via the rest of the body.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 23:43:42 UTC No. 16299669
>>16299664
Perfect, so respond to what I wrote.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 00:40:56 UTC No. 16299745
>>16299658
There is no soul. That doesn't mean consciousness is physical.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 00:44:09 UTC No. 16299750
>>16299745
Ok, so why would a non-physical controlling force no longer function when the brain is split?
Does it only communicate with one half of the brain by default? Is it the talking half or the remembering your friends half?
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 08:11:55 UTC No. 16300078
>>16299750
>Ok, so why would a non-physical controlling force no longer function when the brain is split?
It does still function. Split brain patients are lacking a few executional abilities, as expected, but overall they are still conscious. The more interesting question is why it fails to work in your case. You are not split brain, but you are an NPC of the worst kind, absolutely incapable of enganging with arguments, endlessly repeating what has been refuted by multiple people in this thread already.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 08:26:25 UTC No. 16300089
>>16300078
I see you resort to insults because you again failed to understand.
Allow me to put it in terms you should get:
If you spilt a patients brain, both halves act independent of each other and don't share memories.
If they have a nonphysical conscious that can still control both sides independently, why are memories not shared? Remember, you believe in a soul, which should be an executive decision maker not bound to the limits of a brain. It should be able to, within the soul itself, communicate to itself (the soul) and make decisions for both halves of the brain with full knowledge and control of both halves.
We don't see this. Why?
The answer, to anyone smart enough to reason, is that there is not a nonphysical seat of conscious, that is to say it's purely physical.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 08:31:43 UTC No. 16300097
>>16300078
Why can't you engage with his simple question? Do you understand what he's saying yet dodge the question? Is english your second+ language so you don't comprehend what he's saying? Is english your first language but you're just a total retard?
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 08:59:15 UTC No. 16300120
>>16300089
>>16300097
Memories are stored in the brain. Qualia and free will are not stored in the brain. This distinction is too abstract for you. You will continue to ignore the point. You will repeat your refuted irrelevant non-argument. You are a dishonesty maxxer par excellence.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:02:42 UTC No. 16300123
>>16300120
Can you demonstrate that? What is a memory but not a recording of qualia? You can remember colors, shapes, sounds, smells, asd tastes.
If you're willing to grant all memory is physical, then you've granted all qualia.
Literally, you've lost.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:05:54 UTC No. 16300126
>>16300089
>consciousness = memories
So a patient with amnesia is unconscious? You sound retarded.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:08:54 UTC No. 16300129
>>16300123
Memories are the informational content of experiences. Qualia are non-informational. What cannot be communicated cannot be stored either. The explanatory gap remains unbridged.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:10:20 UTC No. 16300131
>>16300120
This doesn't answer my question. Which half has free will? If both, why do they make different choices?
Allow me to make an analogy.
We had a computer, and it did some things. When we looked inside, we say it was really two computers connected by a wire.
People wondered where the instructions come from, some people believed there was a remote wireless server, and others believed it came from the two computers themselves.
So they tried to find out who was right.
They checked for a signal, to see if anything was sent to a remote computer. There was no signal.
One day, someone cuts the wire connecting the two computers. Instead of dying, both computers continue to run, but now they both act on different and sometimes disagreeing instructions, and can hamper eachothers' progress.
If there was a remote controlling server, why would the two computers ever act AGAINST each other? The answer is because there is no remote unified server.
>>16300126
>>16300129
Are those goalposts very heavy? You seem to move them often.
Remember, at this point you accept qualia and memories are physical.
If you're seriously going to claim you can't remember what something tastes like without actually tasting it, you're a full on NPC automaton.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:10:27 UTC No. 16300132
>>16300126
He believes split brain patients are automatically unconscious. This is how dishonest he is.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:11:47 UTC No. 16300134
>>16300131
>Remember, at this point you accept qualia and memories are physical.
I literally just explained why qualia are non-physical, you dishonest and immoral person.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:14:36 UTC No. 16300137
>>16300134
So you can't remember the color of your favorite shirt without actively seeing it?
The smell of your girlfriends hair?
The feeling of love you give to your dog?
You have no memory of them, only remember having them like text on a page?
You always avoid my questions, even other anons are starting to see you're being dishonest.
Why would a single, external, unified conscious ever act against itself? Feel free to explain your model in full detail.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:16:52 UTC No. 16300139
>>16300131
Wrong computer analogy. There is a third computer taking the role of a master. You didn't detect the signal because you deny the existence of wireless. Case closed, you're retarded.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:19:36 UTC No. 16300141
>>16300139
Feel free to explain your model in full detail, respond to the question.
To repeat, why would a single unified conscious ever act against itself simply because the two things it controls can't communicate?
Does your car steering wheel mess up your gear shift or can you control them both to work together? Your model asserts a driver, but we don't see one.
Most elementary schoolers can understand the analogy, you failed to do so.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:20:39 UTC No. 16300143
>>16300137
>So you can't remember the color of your favorite shirt without actively seeing it?
I don't have a favorite shirt.
>The smell of your girlfriends hair?
I don't remember her hair having a distinct smell.
>The feeling of love you give to your dog?
I don't have a dog.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:24:51 UTC No. 16300144
>>16300143
Ok. Seems NPC to me, but I'll let other anons be the judge of your lack of qualia
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:26:19 UTC No. 16300146
>>16300143
How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast?
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:26:40 UTC No. 16300148
>>16300141
>To repeat, why would a single unified conscious ever act against itself simply because the two things it controls can't communicate?
You haven't yet provided evidence that this ever happened.
>Does your car steering wheel mess up your gear shift or can you control them both to work together?
I'm not a car mechanic.
>Your model asserts a driver, but we don't see one.
You can't physically detect something unphysical? Oh no, how unexpected.
>Most elementary schoolers can understand the analogy, you failed to do so.
Which analogy? You exposing your own ignorance is not an analogy.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:27:20 UTC No. 16300149
>>16300146
I did eat breakfast.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:27:53 UTC No. 16300150
>>16300146
I literally just ate breakfast.
>>16300144
Explain how this implies lack of qualia.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:30:55 UTC No. 16300152
>>16300148
>You haven't yet provided evidence that this ever happened.
https://youtu.be/1BfKS2dyuEg
Cute how you refused to expound on your model. Now that we've seen conflict feel free to explain it.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:32:50 UTC No. 16300154
>>16300152
I do not click links posted by malevolent strangers. But I see your post containing no argument.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:33:24 UTC No. 16300155
>>16300154
I win.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:37:04 UTC No. 16300158
>>16300155
You win the award of immaturity and dishonesty. Congratulations.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:39:08 UTC No. 16300159
>>16300158
I see your post contains only fallacy, and no argument.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 09:47:12 UTC No. 16300165
>>16300159
You will never be an online debate winner.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:01:01 UTC No. 16300210
B00T at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:10:43 UTC No. 16300219
>>16300210
This
/Thread
B00T at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:15:05 UTC No. 16300222
>>16300214
Qual only exist in those non NPCs that co-exist with NPCs.
bodhi at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:15:27 UTC No. 16300223
>>16299745
>There is no soul.
For you... I believe it. I myself possess the divine spark however. That is why I am so much smarter than all of you and am able to intuit the mechanizations of this reality through simple observation while you cant even process when it is spoonfed to you
B00T at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:27:54 UTC No. 16300229
>>16300223
bodhi, loyal knight of sci
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 12:43:16 UTC No. 16300299
>>16297185
This is obviously incorrect. There is no difference between hardware and software. Every software can be instantiated on special purpose hardware and programmable hardware is only programmable insofar as it has memory for encoding the control logic for driving the electromagnetic waveforms of electrons. Software is as physical as hardware, otherwise it would have no effect on hardware
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 17:42:11 UTC No. 16300587
>>16299750
It's not like the non-physical force is some entity specifically attached to a brain. The non-physicality is built into reality on a fundamental level. So of course it's going to act differently when you split the brain. It's going to have emergent properties just like physical stuff.
It's only the most antiquated versions of dualism that envisions non-physicality as some discreet soul.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 17:47:25 UTC No. 16300590
>>16300587
I feel like this is rationalization rather than explanation. Could you lay out your model in detail?
If you're willing to grant emergence, for example, why not physical consciousness? Genuinely curious here.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 17:57:30 UTC No. 16300603
>>16300587
Follow up question to >>16300590
If there is a nonphysical fundamental base to reality, could you name other observable effects outside of consciousness? Something predictive or falsifiable, like a scientific theory?
Again, not assuming you can't, genuinely asking because your response is more lucid than the others.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 18:49:35 UTC No. 16300676
>>16300590
>>16300603
>If you're willing to grant emergence, for example, why not physical consciousness? Genuinely curious here.
It's because of the hard problem of consciousness / the explanatory gap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expla
Essentially no matter what story you tell about complicated physical behavior, all that behavior should only result in more behavior. What we're trying to explain about qualia / phenomenal consciousness is why it feels like something to be you from the inside, which isn't a question about behavior at all, physical interactions are not going to cut it for explaining consciousness.
>If there is a nonphysical fundamental base to reality, could you name other observable effects outside of consciousness? Something predictive or falsifiable, like a scientific theory?
I'm not going to be able to name any specific thing, because I don't have any insight into how it would work exactly. This is early days of theorizing general metaphysical frameworks, there's not going to be an in depth scientific theory here, just something conceptually coherent. But if non-physical properties is at the core of physical reality, it could have all kinds of influence on all kinds of things. Forces like gravity or electromagnetism that we attribute to have purely physical causes, could have partly non-physical causes as well. It would be consistent with our scientific laws, since we can only measure the behavior of matter, not its intrinsic nature.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 19:02:47 UTC No. 16300684
>>16300676
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expl
and you're sure this isn't you just making an argument from personal incredulity? I went pretty far as to explain the qualia chain previously in the thread, it's just physical reactions built upon more physical reactions.
We didn't used to understand sight, but the discovery of photons quickly showed that sight was not a nonphysical phenomena. We have physical cones that react physically to physical photos emitted and reflected by physical objects.
Is it such a stretch to say that the color "red" in your minds eye is physical as well? A web of neurons lighting up to certain inputs from the red cones in the eye?
As for the second half of your post, this I think is patently false
>This is the early days of theorizing general metaphysical frameworks
Science itself comes way way way after nonphysical explanations, and all this time everything that we thought was nonphysical was actually physical, so far.
I don't think I can disprove a general sense of "there is something nonphysical somewhere," but specific ideas like a unified soul are directly countered by real world evidence.
As for the rest, I see literally no reason to believe it, so I remain skeptical. It seems to not have evidence.
Thank you for your very lucid reply, compared to the others.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 19:29:06 UTC No. 16300746
>>16300684
>A web of neurons lighting up to certain inputs from the red cones in the eye
So the challenge for the physicalist here is going to be explaining how any such story about neural interaction can result in the actual experience of redness. The story is coherent as long as what we're explaining is behavioral output; questions like: "why is the person saying "that's a red apple". But when we're asking why it feels like something to experience the redness at all, why the brain doesn't just run its calculations without there being a thing that is subject to an experience, then these types of explanations run into a wall. How we get from as you say "physical reactions upon more physical reactions" to an experience is the explanatory gap. It's as if we're building something with lego and I tell you there is a certain configuration of lego pieces that will result in water production, absent any water to begin with.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 19:37:15 UTC No. 16300758
>>16300746
There is, when red sensitive cones in your eye are stimulated, a set of neurons that light up as "red." Nearby pathways carry this red-signal to other parts of your brain, your language center can say "red," and your memory center colors in the object in your memory.
Working all together, this is what we would call an "experience."
The "gap" as you call it seems to be a lack of telepathy, we can't share the idea of red, but we all have an understanding of it so we put a name to the color and share the name, which then goes to light up the same part of our brain that the seeing of it wold do.
But suppose I'm wrong, suppose there is a real gap, and suppose it's not just different parts lighting up in different patterns. It still happens, but that's not where "red" the word, color, or memory is.
There would at some point be a communication between the physical and nonphysical, and then a communication back from the nonphysical to the psychical.
If everything has both physical and nonphysical fundamental natures, then there should be a way to detect it, physically. Am I misunderstanding something here?
Think of it like not being able to see another person in your home, but you notice food on the counter where you didn't leave it, doors are opened and closed when you left them the other way, etc.
You claim qualia is this detection, but I say that's a sign you should be able to build a detector. In the home example, you could install a camera and then catch your roommate in the act.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 20:43:24 UTC No. 16300869
>>16300746
On another note, I want to mention this: you're better than 99% of people on the internet for being willing to admit that you don't know everything, and so far you've been the only person in this thread to even begin proposing a model.
I suspect the other guys were Poes, but you never know.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 22:28:27 UTC No. 16300998
>>16296797
no
fundamental ontologies are fundamentally inaccessible
incoherence of p-zombies disproves dualism
all we are left with are scientific physical theories which are agnostic about fundamental ontology.
that we call these theories "physical" and we have no "non-physical" theories means physicalism wins
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 22:29:47 UTC No. 16301001
>>16300746
we cant explain it
information is strongly emergent
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 22:31:03 UTC No. 16301004
>>16300746
experience IS the physical interactions
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 22:34:03 UTC No. 16301010
>>16300998
>incoherence of p-zombies
The fact that you are a p-zombie proves the concept to be perfectly coherent.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 02:46:40 UTC No. 16301316
>>16300998
>fundamental ontologies are fundamentally inaccessible
Not quiet. We can access only one ontology. One of conscious accessible ontology. The stuff about non-conscious ontologies or conscious independent ontologies however are bit of a fiction as they have no higher value than harry potter's magical genie orbiting pluto at this point.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 03:33:18 UTC No. 16301341
Consciousness debates just boil down to whether you believe in the metaphysical or not.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 03:41:06 UTC No. 16301344
>>16301341
I didn't believe in it until realizing consciousness can't be explained physically.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 03:46:11 UTC No. 16301351
>>16301344
Why not?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 03:47:22 UTC No. 16301353
>>16301351
https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 04:05:55 UTC No. 16301365
>There is no consciousness without a brain
>The brain is a physical object
>Therefore consciousness is derived from the physical.
This doesn't seem like a hard problem at all
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 04:08:04 UTC No. 16301366
>>16301365
Premise 2 false.
Try again.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 04:18:41 UTC No. 16301388
>>16301366
Why is the brain not a physical object?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 05:01:49 UTC No. 16301431
>>16297725
How much space does one unit of information take up? How many units of information are there in the observation that "I am me" and how much space does that information necessitate?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 05:52:46 UTC No. 16301467
>>16301431
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infor
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 05:58:29 UTC No. 16301473
>>16301365
>the sender receiver analogy filters another NPC
Like clockwork
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:04:30 UTC No. 16301478
>>16297545
>>16298112
in the brain, fucking brainlets
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:06:39 UTC No. 16301481
>>16301473
Pls enlightenen me
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:11:50 UTC No. 16301483
>>16298366
No, you have never actually encountered a bolzman brain, so you can't possible "calculate" the probability of it happening again, other brains on the other hand are ubiquitous in your existence.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:14:42 UTC No. 16301486
>>16299255
>If NDEs were hallucinations then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would agree that they were halluinations after having them.
>Getting brain damage would actually cause less brain damage in the long run.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:17:54 UTC No. 16301487
>>16301467
Its okay if you can't actually understand your source well enough to use it to answer the questions, most "persons" on this board can't seem to do that either.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:21:18 UTC No. 16301490
>>16301473
The sender receiver analogy is still a physical phenomenon, you still need a physical transmitter and receiver, so its still just a matter of a brain creating experience by interacting with audio/visual, electromagnetic, pressure, olfactory, etc, signals transmitted by the signal fields in the environment.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:23:48 UTC No. 16301491
>>16300120
>Qualia and free will are not stored in the brain.
Then why does severe brain damage tend to reduce their decision making faculties and often cause loss of senses?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:26:45 UTC No. 16301492
>>16300139
>You didn't detect the signal because you deny the existence of wireless.
Nobody is doing that though, everyone agrees that air is still a physical phenomenon despite being invisible yet measurable.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:26:53 UTC No. 16301493
>>16301491
Why do you insist in getting filtered not once but multiple times by the sender receiver analogy?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:32:36 UTC No. 16301494
>>16300299
>Software is as physical as hardware
No, software is virtual, it exists as layers of logic that have to be decoded rather than actual physical phenomenon. Software doesn't have effect on hardware, it is the logical input/output of hardware just as the number 9 isn't physically 9 things on its own, it is a logical virtual linguistic representation of something that represents 9 physical things.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:34:39 UTC No. 16301495
>>16301493
Why do you insist on constantly dodging the questions when the obvious flaws in your retarded claims are revealed?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:35:24 UTC No. 16301497
>>16296834
Even in principle, the qualities of experience are irreducible to physical parameters.
Read Chalmers.
>>16296980
>>16297029
>>16297040
>>16297044
>>16301494
>non-physical nature of software
Lmao. There's nothing non-physical about software. Only people who know nothing about computer architecture spout this non-sense.
Beside just being asinine, to suggest software is non-physical and hardware is physical implies some kind of metaphysical dualism where software exists as an independent category independent of the physical universe, which is exactly the sort of metaphysics you think you are refuting.
You absolute midwit, just stop.
Anyway, computers are nothing more than complex circuity made of metal and silicon using low voltages and high frequencies, all 100% quantifiable and physical. Electromagnetism is a branch of physics. Besides, only reason computers use electromagnetism is for convenience and cost. Computers and software could in principle be made out of water pipes and pressure valves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxX
Consciousness and the qualities of experience on the other hand are not, even in principle, reducible to physical parameters such as mass, charge, spin, amplitude, frequency, etc.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:42:37 UTC No. 16301498
>>16301497
>There's nothing non-physical about software.
Wrong, the majority of the 7-layers of communication software are necessarily non physical.
What exactly do you think the physical tangible concrete component of language is?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:43:37 UTC No. 16301499
>>16301497
>Anyway, computers are nothing more than complex circuity made of metal and silicon using low voltages and high frequencies, all 100% quantifiable and physical.
That is all hardware, how is a pointer or a hexcode 100% physical?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 07:40:04 UTC No. 16301515
>>16301499
https://androidgrl.github.io/2019/0
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 07:43:50 UTC No. 16301517
>>16301515
>However, the 0’s and 1’s themselves are just abstract symbols that represent real physical states within a computer.
Thanks for the concession and admission that binary language is an encoding of abstraction rather than 100% physical in nature.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 08:23:25 UTC No. 16301527
>>16297613
>We know that brain activity is consciousness
>unconscious and sleeping people are braindead
never change /sci/
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 08:27:58 UTC No. 16301532
>>16301517
the map is not the territory
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 08:29:43 UTC No. 16301534
>>16301532
Correct, a binary memory map is not an actual physical thing, it is an abstraction, rather than the physical territory since you can use all sorts of different physical devices to represent the exact same memory mapping.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 08:34:15 UTC No. 16301539
>>16301534
so we're in alignment then
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 08:39:43 UTC No. 16301544
>>16301539
If you finally accept that binary language like all language is a non-physical virtual abstraction, a map, rather than a purely physical phenomenon, or territory, sure, you finally understand the reality of the situation.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:43:44 UTC No. 16301683
>>16301497
>Consciousness and the qualities of experience on the other hand are not, even in principle, reducible to physical parameters such as mass, charge, spin, amplitude, frequency, etc.
Yes it is: neural networks, neurons, synapses, connections, parameters, layers, feedback, etc
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 13:13:36 UTC No. 16301764
>>16301316
i agree
but i think ultimately we have nothing we can say about the ontology of consciousness
if there is nothing we can say about it
then there is nothing about it that makes it any different from any other hypothetical fundamentally inaccessible ontology
what consciousness is telling us is there is no fundamental grounding to reality. no fundamental base. at the same time i dont think we can possibly characterize such a base anyway or its distinction from anything else.
all we know is that our experiences are what it is like to be some kind of macroscopic structure in reality
structure of what? what is being organized?
there is no fact of the matter. consciousness is structure itself.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 13:21:04 UTC No. 16301774
>>16296797
the interpretation of sensory stimuli by the system is a direct result of the structure of that system. physicalism. until we determine how our neural network, dna, etc correpond to our own interpretations, we won't be able to prove what a plant "feels", if a frog orgasms, and so on.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 13:26:38 UTC No. 16301781
the question 'is a rock alive' can be reduced to 'at what level does a rock perceive', and it might be that the highest senser in that system is at the atomic level.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 14:04:38 UTC No. 16301826
How could the metaphysical affect the physical without becoming physical?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:16:01 UTC No. 16301897
>>16301365
>>16301366
Premise 1 relies upon physicalism to be true. Which cannot be given because the only means of accessing any insight, any knowledge, any discussions, any facts is through the consciousness and tool that which is consciousness itself cannot be verified to reveal extra-consciousness truths, only consciousness truths.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:16:52 UTC No. 16301899
>>16301826
Quantum mechanics
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:18:03 UTC No. 16301901
>>16301495
Which flaws? Name one.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:56:46 UTC No. 16301934
consciousness is just an expression of the fundamental forces, therefore physical by definition
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:05:51 UTC No. 16301944
>>16301826
Perhaps by manipulating electron spin or the em field using virtual photons.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:06:24 UTC No. 16301945
>>16301934
Which fundamental forces? Dark matter and dark energy?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:14:16 UTC No. 16301955
>>16301945
>what is a fundamental force
>what is the standard model
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:30:11 UTC No. 16301978
>>16301955
I don't see dark matter in that pic.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:32:22 UTC No. 16301981
>>16301978
dark matter is not a force, you said dark matter, i never said dark matter
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:39:15 UTC No. 16301984
>>16301981
What is dark matter? Can you explain it in terms of the standard model? Yeah, didn't think so.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:40:58 UTC No. 16301989
>>16301984
Why are you asking me about dark matter? It has nothing to do with the topic, besides, I belive in MOND
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:52:53 UTC No. 16302006
>>16301989
You claimed that consciousness was a result of fundamental forces. Since none of the forces of the standard model can bridge the explanatory gap, I was guessing that you are knowledgeable about physics beyond the standard model. And dark matter is certainly an easier problem than the hard problem of consciousness.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:57:16 UTC No. 16302019
>>16302006
dude you are in the wrong thread >>16300164
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:23:57 UTC No. 16302045
>define consciousness as immaterial
>refuse any explanation that shows how it works physically
>assert you won the argument by ignoring the evidence
that's how you argue like a religion.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:35:30 UTC No. 16302059
>>16302045
>refuse any explanation that shows how it works physically
There aren't any besides "trust me bro it just works somehow give science 100 years".
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:39:56 UTC No. 16302067
>>16302059
We can see, and measure, the physical nature of thought. You just reject that as not "being real consciousness, just thoughts."
Provide evidence of a nonphysical that would explain the physical aspect as well.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:41:10 UTC No. 16302072
>>16302067
>We can see, and measure, the physical nature of thought.
[citation needed]
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:47:05 UTC No. 16302079
>>16302067
>Provide evidence of a nonphysical that would explain the physical aspect as well.
Why would something nonphysical explain the physical? That's just as absurd as expecting something physical to explain the nonphysical. They are distinct and interact. None explains the other.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:48:39 UTC No. 16302082
>>16302072
https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.
You can find a free PDF just looking it up on the internet, if you don't want to pay
>>16302079
So if the physical stuff happens all on its own, why would we need any nonphysical at all?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:51:22 UTC No. 16302086
>>16302082
I should explain the link for anyone the doesn't want to read: measuring only physical pathways and activities in the brain, you can predict up to 10 seconds in advance if they will chose the left or right button
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:54:48 UTC No. 16302088
>>16302082
>So if the physical stuff happens all on its own, why would we need any nonphysical at all?
The physical stuff happens on its own when given a set of boundary conditions and no intervention. Sometimes intervention happens. Sometimes boundary conditions need to be established.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:55:43 UTC No. 16302090
>>16302082
>There has been a long controversy as to whether subjectively 'free' decisions are determined by brain activity ahead of time. We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.
How does this support your claim at all? Being able to predict actions based on a prior brain state is not measuring the physical nature of thought. You're conflating determinism / free will with the hard problem of consciousness.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:01:19 UTC No. 16302101
>>16302088
Ok, intervention happens, can you measure and demonstrate it?
>>16302090
By measuring only physical pathways, the computer predicts the choice of the person before the person makes it.
By the time you make a choice, corresponding mental pathways are already active and pushing the choice forward.
If thoughts came non physically, why would there be any physical warmup time?
If thoughts came non physically, why is there only more and more growing evidence of pure physicality?
Feel free to explain your model of nonphysical thought, and maybe with a full hypothesis we could find an experiment to suit you.
The split brain ones are still my favorite, because it asks the question of which half has the nonphysical controlling soul? Is it the half that can recognize patterns and solve puzzles, or the half that can speak?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:08:50 UTC No. 16302117
>what is an EEG
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:08:50 UTC No. 16302118
>>16302101
And how do you know these "physical" pathways don't have non-physical causes? You're think anything you can measure suddenly becomes physical, which is false. You simply cannot infer metaphysical nature from measurement. If it were the case that God through divine intervention were responsible for causing electrons to spin every time they did, it would be a non-physical cause but you would delude yourself into thinking it was physical by measuring it.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:11:38 UTC No. 16302122
>>16302118
I think you're retarded.
>christcuck
Almost definitely.
With that out of the way, let me explain:
If a nonphysical exists but can interface with the physical and chance it, you could come up with a way to measure it, and then prove the nonphysical.
So explain your model in detail, and I'll see if I can find a study that falsifies it for you.
>it's unfalsifiable
And thus, unbelievable.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:15:12 UTC No. 16302126
>>16302122
>out of arguments, start lobbing insults
There we go.
>If a nonphysical exists but can interface with the physical and chance it, you could come up with a way to measure it
But you see, you can't. It's this very idea I'm refuting in the post, and you don't even realize it. Read my post again.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:20:06 UTC No. 16302131
>>16302126
We can measure the physical
We cannot measure the nonphysical directly
The nonphysical either does or does not influence the physical
(Occam's Razor says the nonphysical doesn't exist, but we're pretending it does for the rest of this argument)
Either the nonphysical affects the physical, or it does not.
If it affects the physical, which we can measure, we can measure the effects and perhaps falsify it.
If it does non affect the physical, it has no effects for your brain or body, and thus isn't what makes you conscious.
So what's your model, explain in detail how you think it functions.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:24:40 UTC No. 16302140
>>16302131
Get back to me when you've actually read my post.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:26:57 UTC No. 16302143
>>16302140
I have, I'm pushing you for a model.
Unless you meant that
>there is literally no reason to believe in a nonphysical
In which case I agree, and simply thought you were saying
>it's unfalsifiable, so just trust me bro
Clearly you believe the former, otherwise you'd have explained your model.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:09:22 UTC No. 16302234
>>16302101
>Ok, intervention happens, can you measure and demonstrate it?
It's called collapse of the wave function.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:10:50 UTC No. 16302236
>>16302234
can you demonstrate personal control over this? For example, could you cause the double slit experiment to act as a particle using only your body, a flashlight, and a doubleslit?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:15:17 UTC No. 16302245
>>16302236
A flashlight isn't a single photon source.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:19:13 UTC No. 16302256
>>16302245
I doubt you have one at home, but you have a flashlight—even better a laser—you can peform the experiment. If you do have a single photon or electron source, feel free to use that instead.
Here's a quick video you should be able to follow and set up yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsK
You don't even need a dark room, just a laser and paper
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 23:39:48 UTC No. 16302578
People need to actually define what "physical" and "non-physical" are.
Technically all the schizo tier spirits and soul and whatnot are still "physical" in the sense they are "something". They are simply a class of matter that mainstream science do not see enough evidence of to be officially believed as actually existing.
Theoritically though they are still a type of "matter".
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 23:45:52 UTC No. 16302587
>>16302578
Why clearly define it? If you're a lazy materialist you can just win by definition. Physical things are things that exist, so if a thing is non-physical it doesn't exist. Most people will actually just buy that argument without batting an eye.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 23:53:20 UTC No. 16302595
>>16302578
>>16302587
Usually people mean not made of material energy. The fact it doesn't really exist in the sense of a nonphysical self doesn't mean it theoretically couldn't. Just since it doesn't there's no evidence of it.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 23:55:31 UTC No. 16302598
>>16302595
What would evidence of a non-physical thing look like?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 23:59:25 UTC No. 16302603
>>16302598
Gravitational lensing in the case of dark matter, which doesn't seem to be made of anything that we know of.
I wouldn't personally call it nonphysical, but I wouldn't fault the definition of "stuff that's there, but not made of material energy."
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 01:16:43 UTC No. 16302652
>>16302587
>>16302595
And what exactly is "material energy"? What then is "non-material energy"?
This is the thing, the pop-culture distinction between a rock and a ghost breaks down the moment you actually examine the concepts rigorously.
Debate around consciousness is not a new thing and the horse has been beaten for eons. The most famous and extensive, though less known in the West, were the conversations had during Gautama's time.
The "materialists" back in those days were actually what we would consider magickians today who believed observables were projection from spirits (switch "spirit" with "matter" and you have the modern version). The other side, the "non-materialists", were hardcore idealists that believed everything was consciousness and is simulated by it.
As much as it might gall present day scientists, their metaphysical philosophic position is actually fundementally no different from magicians. The only difference is one of predictive prowess resulted from a much more meticulous empirical method.
The true "non-physical" position is the best approximated by >>16297709.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 01:44:21 UTC No. 16302679
>>16302652
Material energy is what you can plug into E=mcc and convert back and forth.
Anything else is immaterial.
>people used to believe in spirit
And they believed in flat earth. So? Science is now physicalism based
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 02:08:29 UTC No. 16302708
>>16302698
This guy is dumb.
>if you can't explain literally everything then you are 100% wrong.
It's like saying gravity isn't an accurate description because we don't know the 1304th digit after the decimal point of the gravitational constant with 100% certainty.
Physicalism is just a way to say materialism anyway, and he confuses it with physics, the study of physical reality. Physics is not physicalism. Physicalism proceeds physics.
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 02:13:44 UTC No. 16302715
>Material energy is what you can plug into E=mcc and convert back and forth.
>Anything else is immaterial.
So dark energy, or any energy discovered in the future unknown today, that breaks said equation, would automatically be classified as spiritual non-material energy?
>And they believed in flat earth. So? Science is now physicalism based
The point is the popular present day distinction between "material" and "non-material" is superficial.
And in case you are not seeing your own confusion, flat earth is also physicalism based.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 02:14:06 UTC No. 16302716
>>16302708
>if you can't explain literally everything then you are 100% wrong.
If you think that's his point then you need need to work on your reading comprehension. This is not about physics being wrong, this is about physicalism (the claim that everything is physical) and what it means for something to be physical.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 02:15:33 UTC No. 16302718
>>16302679
>Material energy is what you can plug into E=mcc and convert back and forth.
>Anything else is immaterial.
So dark energy, or any energy discovered in the future unknown today, that breaks said equation, would automatically be classified as spiritual non-material energy?
>And they believed in flat earth. So? Science is now physicalism based
The point is the popular present day distinction between "material" and "non-material" is superficial.
And in case you are not seeing your own confusion, flat earth is also physicalism based.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 02:52:18 UTC No. 16302756
>>16302718
>spiritual
no.
But I would accept you calling it immaterial, though that's also unfounded right now. We don't know exactly what it is, so it could still be material.
Spiritual stuff is by definition immaterial, but also there's no evidence anything that would be classified as spiritual exists.
>flat earth is also physicalism based.
So? It was an example of stuff we moved away from with modern understanding, not stuff that's immaterial.
>The point is the popular present day distinction between "material" and "non-material" is superficial.
This is an interesting point, but it's not really accurate. Material energy is energy or matter, both of which are classified specifically.
If you mean superficial as in "arbitrary distinction," then I'd still disagree, because the "arbitrary distinction" is "everything that we know about" vs "stuff that we have no evidence for" and/or "stuff we have no idea what it is."
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 03:18:17 UTC No. 16302782
>>16296797
No one really knows what "the physical" is.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 03:25:43 UTC No. 16302788
>>16302756
>But I would accept you calling it immaterial
But I am not calling it immaterial.
Whatever new energy discovered in the future unknown today that breaks whatever known present equations, would still philosophically be "material".
The point here is, again, the popular distinction between "material" and "non-material" is superficial.
Few understand the true distinction, and what real immaterial/non-physical actually is.
>>flat earth is also physicalism based.
>So? It was an example of stuff we moved away from with modern understanding, not stuff that's immaterial.
You moved from one physicalism theory to another. You didn't move from non-physicalism to physicalism as you are insinuating here.
>arbitrary distinction
>"everything that we know about" vs "stuff that we have no evidence for" and/or "stuff we have no idea what it is."
It is arbitrary.
And also, by your own definition here for material/immaterial, which I do not agree with, you would also automatically admit the existence of the immaterial unless you are hubris enough believe we have discovered all there is to discover in existence.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 03:29:57 UTC No. 16302792
>>16302788
the and/or was included for the dark matter/energy thing.
Personally I don't include it, because we don't know what it is. I'm betting it'll turn out to be some form of material energy, but that's just a guess.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 03:33:54 UTC No. 16302796
>>16302788
>You moved from one physicalism theory to another. You didn't move from non-physicalism to physicalism as you are insinuating here.
I didn't think I should re-explain this, but let me try again.
I was simply insulting the belief in spirit as being primitive like flat earth. You didn't get that (for some reason), but hopefully this explanation helps your avatarfaggot ass understand.
You're dumber than a cat.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 05:46:56 UTC No. 16302856
>>16302796
I understood you perfectly. But did you understand me?
Belief in spirit in the traditional sense is still physicalism. It's still inherently materialism.
Do you understand that? Do you understand why?
To be in a truly non-physical position you would have to recongize consciousnesses as the only things that exist and every observable in reality an communication within and between consciousnessses.
Or in another word if a tree falls in a forest and no one was there to hear it, there was never a tree nor a forest.
People don't fully understand these concepts and take Hollywood depictions for granted think just because somebody is interacting with things not recognized by mainstream science they are now suddenly non-physicalism and non-material.
These same people also think modern science is somehow fundmentally different from, as you so eloquently put it, "avatarfaggots".
It's not, it's the same car, painted in different colors and called by different names, and more importantly driven much more carefully by the new drivers.
The difference in performance came from the drivers, but at the end of the day, it's still the same damn car.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 05:49:23 UTC No. 16302858
>>16302856
>Belief in spirit in the traditional sense is still physicalism
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 05:54:26 UTC No. 16302863
>>16302858
Yes retard.
If I believe there is an invisible alien ship hovering over my house, I still come from a physicalism position.
Or did you really think semantics is what determines what.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 06:04:00 UTC No. 16302869
>>16302863
>if I believe there is a physical thing, then I'm still a physicalist!
>therefore, if I believe in a nonphysical thing I'm also still a physicalist!
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 06:13:09 UTC No. 16302873
>>16302869
>I believe whatever I want to believe, especially if it's what I saw on Avatar and what my prof told me!
Braindead human calculators with the comprehension skill of an ant.
I'm out, hopefully at least some people with actual intelligence understood what was posted.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 06:34:29 UTC No. 16302887
>>16302873
>brings up some shitty cartoon for no reason
What is your argument exactly? That I'm wrong because I believe that physicalism means only believing in physical things?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 08:25:34 UTC No. 16302952
>>16301826
>How can language affect matter with being a material?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:34:54 UTC No. 16303002
>>16296834
If consciousness is "physical", then the word "physical" is just a synonym for the word "existent" or "real". Not a very fruitful line of thinking.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:36:15 UTC No. 16303003
>>16296980
False analogy. Software is physical; it's structures in the hardware. There are literal physical movements of molecules occurring in any computer storage medium when you move files around.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:38:08 UTC No. 16303005
>>16296797
"Physicalism" is a meaningless sophist idea because it stretches the definition of "physical" so greatly that it becomes a synonym for "real" or "existent".
bodhi at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 10:05:37 UTC No. 16303028
>>16302873
the soi boy avatar creators know about this reality than any of you halfwits on this board. Let that sink in
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 11:03:15 UTC No. 16303088
>>16302578
Physical = consistently empirically observable
Everybody can observe things falling down.
Nobody can observe other people's qualia.
Therefore gravity is physical while qualia are non-physical.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:25:12 UTC No. 16303291
phwoar imma hafta say some VERY good kittingtonshires being postes itt
yes for me
imma hafta be finkin
what we should include in our ontologies is in our best scientific theories
yes we have experience too but...
1. no objective evidence for dualism.
2. p-zombies are logically incoherent
one should conclude that experiences are juat the inherent nature of our physical ontologies
they are the same fing
panpsychism
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:28:34 UTC No. 16303296
and to add to my post
>>16303291
we can explain why consciousness is ma
mysterious and inexplicable purely by limits to the brains ability to construct knowledge. the kinds of explanations we desire for consciousness are simply not possible by any turing machine
why?
because conscious experiences ARE primitives of computation
they are pure irreducible bits of information
information is identical to physical transformations and there us no fundamental scale. there is information at all levels from very small to very big.
theae are just regularities
regularities of regularities
all the way down
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:44:17 UTC No. 16303322
Given
1. the inability of physicalism to bridge the explanatory gap
2. the subjective factuality of free will
3. the observable existence of p-zombies and
4. the quantum mechanical destruction of determinism
we have no other choice but to admit that dualism is the only tenable stance.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:46:11 UTC No. 16303326
>>16303322
incredibpe this guy seems to think no one would be able to figure out how to make this bacon dross
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:14:06 UTC No. 16303479
>>16303322
1 just assumes you're right without evidence. We have an explanation, you just don't accept it, it's just webs of neurons all activating eachother.
2 it's doubtful that you have any control over the activation of individual neurons, because one is activated by other, activated by another, etc until you get to stuff you don't control
3 meaningless, without free will everyone could be called a p-zombie
4 just means the future isn't 100% predictable from the present, but not that it's actually free for us to chose anything.
With premise 1,2, and 4 being flawed, there is no evidence of dualism.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:00:03 UTC No. 16303537
>>16303002
No.
Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 01:11:16 UTC No. 16304006
>>16303537
proof?
Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 01:16:41 UTC No. 16304013
>>16304006
Consciousness is just brain activity, which is physical in the traditional sense, which also happens to be the only sense that things exist in (there are no non-physical things). But that's not because physical means existing, it's just that everything that's existing is physical.
Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 04:52:54 UTC No. 16304215
>>16302930
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries
Okay I guess the academic definition of "physicalism" is really just Western version of monism.
Everything is made out of the same stuff, whatever that "stuff" ultimately turns out to me.
Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 05:32:14 UTC No. 16304248
>>16303003
>Software is physical;
No, it is virtual and logical.
>There are literal physical movements of molecules occurring in any computer storage medium when you move files around.
Yes and there are literal physical movements occurring when you draw 1s and 0s on paper, that doesn't make them the actual physical embodiment of the metaphysical idea of unity and nothingness, it is just a representation of the ideas for convenient communication.
Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 05:33:14 UTC No. 16304251
>>16303088
>Nobody can observe other people's qualia.
Sure they can, they just learn to study and interpret facial expressions.
Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 16:32:15 UTC No. 16304737
>>16296966
This
>>16297859
your assumptions are retarded
>>16303322
>dualism
Monism is superior
>>16303479
>just means the future isn't 100% predictable from the present
which means determinism is false
>>16304013
>Consciousness is just brain activity
>>16301527
>>16297645
>>16297653
>>16302131
You don't actually understand Occam's Razor
Not surprising, must people don't
For one it's not the "simplest" answer
The actual principle goes:
>Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Translation:
>Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.
Implication:
>The best explanation is the one which makes the fewest assumptions and explains all the data.
This means a highly complex answer may actually be the better one if an alternative, deceptively simpler answer fails on one or both counts.
Another very common mistake is to summon up the Razor in a debate in order to add weight to a particular argument. Occam's Razor is a mental guide, nothing more, and cannot by itself be used to validate or invalidate any particular theory.