Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:28:45 UTC No. 16445555

>>16445553
>If consciousness is irreducible to measurable forms of energy/matter
>>>/x/

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:30:04 UTC No. 16445558

>>16445555
I don’t believe it is and see a lot of immaterialists in here so want to hear their “scientific” opinion on it.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:37:36 UTC No. 16445562

>>16445558
It's not a matter of belief. There is no "science" about immaterial consciousness and there is no point in listening to such opinions.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:02:32 UTC No. 16445703

>>16445562
Imagine being this low IQ

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:05:37 UTC No. 16445705

>>16445703
What a worthless post you just made

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:26:15 UTC No. 16445729

>>16445705
You have a very poor concept of what "physical" is.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:29:03 UTC No. 16445734

>>16445553
>>16445558
>>16445703
If it cannot be reduced to measurable form of energy/matter then by definition it is not accessible to material science and therefore /sci/ can in no way have any opinion about it.

/x/'s opinion stems from NDE and clairvoyant experiences. True or not these are rejected by /sci/ on the ground that they are currently not reducible to measurable 5-sense physical experiences.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:37:43 UTC No. 16445742

>>16445734
>Not yet known measurement techniques means it doesn't exist

That is a hill that science will die on, and it will not come back to life

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:43:48 UTC No. 16445752

>>16445734
No you retard, they are rejected because they have been tested and found not to work.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:50:40 UTC No. 16445762

>>16445742
>Not yet known measurement techniques means it doesn't exist
Only midwit redditors subscribes to this.
/sci/'s actual opinion is more like:
>Not yet known measurement techniques means I can't know for sure and therefore have no formal opinion

/x/ is the epistemological wild west. Until somebody can develop objective measurement techniques, you'll never know if their opinion is from genuine experiences or a con from snake-oil sales man.

>>16445752
What test? What has been rejected?

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:54:22 UTC No. 16445765

>>16445762
>What test? What has been rejected?
Clairvoyance, telepath, prayer, animal sacrifices, etc. have been tested and found not to work.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:56:16 UTC No. 16445770

>>16445765
Define exactly what each one of those term means formally and link the tests.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:01:08 UTC No. 16445774

>>16445770
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer#Third_party_studies
and the links therein, for example. I will not define those terms for you because it should be obvious what they mean.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:14:08 UTC No. 16445795

>>16445774
>it should be obvious what they mean
Nothing is obvious if you want to be rigorous. Which is the exact point you are missing.
Most /x/ concepts are unscientific not because they have been proven false, but because they are either vague or unfalsifiable.
Take the prayer study you linked for example, does the ineffectiveness of that study group categorically proves all forms of prayer to not work, or just that group and their form..etc.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:15:51 UTC No. 16445798

what mathematics/computations could possibly give phenomenal experience?
if i imagine a color, there are no photons hitting my retina that cause me to see that color
>b-but muh synapses and neuronal firing
how is the subjective experience of color stored in physical states?
>neuronal ensembles
that's a fishing expedition that gives you correlations in a very narrow situation, you can find correlations for anything in neural activity
>the brain is obviously a computer
what does it compute?

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:22:37 UTC No. 16445806

>>16445795
You don't understand how science works. Many statements are vague and yet still accepted as scientific. In fact, most statements in science are vague. But their factuality, efficacy and applicability is beyond doubt despite any vagueness. What makes science reject prayer and animal sacrifice is that it has never been found to work.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:30:17 UTC No. 16445823

>>16445806
That's a rejection based on resource allocation, not a rejection based on any categorical logic.
If you haven't struck gold yet in an area it doesn't logically prove are no gold there.
With limited resources it's just more prudent to keep on digging where you did struck gold before.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:33:51 UTC No. 16445829

>>16445823
Logic cannot make statements about what the facts of reality are. You cannot prove or disprove any fact about reality using logic. You're seriously confused on a lot of things.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:36:29 UTC No. 16445832

>>16445829
I'm not making statements about facts.
I'm making statements about your misinterpretation of facts.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:40:48 UTC No. 16445839

>>16445832
You said "it doesn't logically prove are no gold there." I explained why that's nonsense because logic is not about proving facts about reality. You're really too uneducated to be discussing this.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:55:07 UTC No. 16445858

>>16445839
Not striking gold in an attempt is a fact.
There are no gold in the area is an interpretation.
My statement is that this interpretation of yours does not logically follow from the aforementioned fact.
What's not to understand here? Are you trying to be retarded on purpose or does it just come naturally when people point out the flaw in your logics?

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 16:04:53 UTC No. 16445875

>>16445858
>Not striking gold in an attempt is a fact.
Not under your braindead understanding, because you can just say that you struck gold but it instantly flew away to the banker's house or some such nonsense and claim you cant "loGIcaLly pRoVE" it didn't happen. It's amazing how stupid you are.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 16:14:27 UTC No. 16445889

>>16445553
consciousness at least physically interacts with your brain
when you tell me you're conscious, we can watch parts of your brain light up with activity on the scan
so consciousness must be either physical or a secret other thing

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 16:18:44 UTC No. 16445900

>>16445875
Alright anon, if it helps you sleep at night, you got me.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 16:20:44 UTC No. 16445903

>>16445889
Consciousness is pure quantum mechanics and not computational. There will nebertbe human like AI with a mind that we can call as our own and be self aware.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 16:24:40 UTC No. 16445911

>>16445903
>consciousness is not a computation
i agree
>there will never be conscious human-like AI
not on traditional computers, no
in theory you could implement your human-like AI on a piece of paper and do the calculations by hand
is the piece of paper conscious? obviously not
it must be implemented in analog - simulated water is not wet, same for brains

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 16:59:34 UTC No. 16445982

This whole board is just depressing death anxiety and the skepticism that inevitably follows along with it.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 19:06:38 UTC No. 16446182

>>16445982
Which post in particular disturbed you the most?

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:39:45 UTC No. 16446318

>>16446182
It's not a specific case, just a pattern I noticed. I mean the "anti-ageing" threads are way worse about this.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:53:30 UTC No. 16446346

Science doesn't work on headcanon.
>if this thing were true, what would that imply?
No one could know. It's a nonsense question.