/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12618626
Popsci bait in order to get more money for building even a bigger dead on arrival collider.

>>12618626
>deletes qualia from the dictionary

He sucks Cox

>>12618626
define consciousness

>>12618626
>Qualia
name a more potent schizo marker
if you ever see a 4chan poster using that word, dismiss the entirety of his post

>>12619321
What

>>12619567
schizo

>>12618626
Souls and consciousness aren't the same thing.

A soul implies something that exists outside of the world of physics, that can persist beyond the death of the physical body. There's no good evidence for its existence.

Consciousness is one of the things our brain does. Some people think consciousness might be able to continue after the death of the brain, but they're wrong.

Any claims of consciousness not being real are actually claims about the nature of consciousness. Usually the speaker is confusing consciousness with soul or free will.

>>12619321
Look guys, Stanford is schizo too!
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

>>12619601
What precisely "soul" implies will change depending on who you're asking. There is no universal consensus on what this word means (which is a good reason to disregard it as a wishy-washy waste of time.)

>>12620063
>stanford is a post on 4chan

>>12620077
It is now.

>>12619321
Take your meds.

He presumes that soul must interact with matter, so he reduces the term to some new kind of force, which is not how it is commonly understood.

>>12621723
The idea that there is something non-physical but it does not interact with matter is the worst idea of them all though. It would mean that nobody who argues for that very idea does it because of the non-physical stuff, but they would have done so purely because of interactions of normal matter anyway. Whether the non-physical, non-interacting soul/consciousness existed or not. It's a self-refuting idea.

>>12619601
Explain why consciousness isn't free will or you're disregarded. :)

>>12621737
>epiphenomenalists hate him

>>12618626
Oh okay well I guess Brian Cox knows everything there is to do with the world, no need to advance science any further because this faggot has the answer to everything backed only by the science of our time.
Brian Cox is a shill, he has only just stopped crying about Brexit

>>12621760
>no need to advance science any further
Yeah I don't get this attitude. Qualia's a massive neon sign saying "advance science here" but none of these popsci types are interested.

>>12618626
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30ruBtLIvJM

Reality is clearly a simulation so who gives a shit

>>12618626

>>12621745
Define free will or you're disregarded ;}

>>12618626
I don't like his eyes. Too much narcissistic uppity, too little spark, too little broken down disappointment. You cannot expect honesty or openness from people with pampered eyes like that.

He's right.

>>12619321
NPC detected.

Brian Cox is a notorious bullshitter and starting to challenge Michio Kaku in that department. Listen him on BBC inside science recently. He was going on about how science will discover the read the mind of God or something like that

>>12622116
>He was going on about how science will discover the read the mind of God or something like that
That's ancient theology. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand science or religion.

>>12618626
How can laws that describe and govern the physical world disprove something that is inherently metaphysical?

>>12622162
They can't, it's just a cope for intellectuals that can't fathom there are things sciences can't explain yet because we don't have the technology.
It's like standing 1ft away from a rocky wall and staring straight ahead and telling everyone it's just a rock, meanwhile those that are 1 mile away are straring straight ahead and can see it's Mount Everest

>>12622200
Is it wrong that I hate and resent them for this? How do I come to know they exist, and not feel disgust? The core of it is obviously the sensation that I need to change or fix the world to which they are an obstacle which must be changed as well, but this awareness does little to sate me. I truly hate these people and their loud, loud, LOUD, near omnipresent voices.

>>12622200
Well doesn’t matter how far technology gets. There are certain things that science will never be able to prove or disprove, such as the metaphysical (including a possible creator/god), since science only describes “our universe” so to speak.

>>12622205
It's why they are allowed and pushed to be the loud voices. Why would people want to strive to discover such things if these prominent intellectual scientists tell us there is nothing there, there no point, just carry on working. It's not like the average person can argue against them, we keep getting told how "much smarter than the average Joe" these people are.

the guy looks like a distant cousin of these two

>>12621760
This, stupid northern dickhead

>>12618626
>Is it true Consciousness is not a thing anymore?
No.

>>12621840
the simulator

>>12623671
you mean the Programer.

>>12622130
correct, I would add that theology was a necesary step in human history/evolution, it was just a part of evolucionary sociology nescessary to "mature", one interesting thing: science fully developed in christian europe and not in any other place, other places had remarcable advances but in no other place it produced the full roots and fruits as in europe, for example Newton was full into theology and alchemy

one possible explanation is "scholasticism"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism
>Scholasticism was a medieval school of philosophy that employed a critical method of philosophical analysis presupposed upon a Latin Catholic theistic curriculum which dominated teaching in the medieval universities in Europe from about 1100 to 1700. It originated within the Christian monastic schools that were the basis of the earliest European universities.

>Scholasticism is a method of learning, as it places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference and to resolve contradictions. Scholastic thought is also known for rigorous conceptual analysis and the careful drawing of distinctions. In the classroom and in writing, it often takes the form of explicit disputation; a topic drawn from the tradition is broached in the form of a question, oppositional responses are given, a counterproposal is argued and oppositional arguments rebutted. Because of its emphasis on rigorous dialectical method, scholasticism was eventually applied to many other fields of study

Bottled qualia!

>>12618626
In the external observable world, there is no such thing as consciousness, or Qualia. Human brains are nothing more than complex analog computers that process data. Subjective experience is something not part of the external world, it is private to your own mind, and by "your" I mean mine, because the universe from my frame of reference contains only one consciousness which is mine. There is no experiment or observation I can ever perform to detect consciousness within the physical world, for there is none to detect, not even could I locate my own consciousness for my brain is of the external world where no consciousness exists.

>>12618626
but you can't measure planck field. your speculations are not relevant mr science guy.

>>12619601
>Souls and consciousness aren't the same thing.

exactly
althought "spirit" and "soul" are technically similar, spirit means: "the breath of God that gives life", so if something is alive it has spirit/soul, animals and plants DO have spirit/soul!
on the other hand the concept of conciousness is related to what is called the "Nous" (greek: νοuς) or "Logos" (λoγος)

"the flesh is the body of the spirit and the spirit is the body of the Logos/Nous"

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dlo%2Fgos
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dno%2Fos

spirit:
> "animating or vital principle in man and animals" "inspiration; breath of life" hence "life"
>from passages in Vulgate, where the Latin translates Greek pneuma and Hebrew ruah. Distinction between "soul" and "spirit" (as "seat of emotions") became current in Christian terminology (such as Greek psykhe vs. pneuma, Latin anima vs. spiritus) but "is without significance for earlier periods" [Buck]. Latin spiritus "breath" replaces animus in the sense "spirit" in the imperial period and appears in Christian writings as the usual equivalent of Greek pneuma (air, breath)
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=spirit

soul:
>Old English sawol, animate existence; life, living being "spirit of a deceased person", attested in Old English from 971.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/Soul

>>12621840
This. The more you use VR, the more logical and realistic the simulation theory appears.

>>12619321
You started out saying it so I'm just gonna disregard whatever your point was instead of getting an aneurysm trying to figure it out

>>12618626
>Consciousness
prove "consciousness" exists

>>12618626
Why would that be true? Do you feel humans have a greater understanding about the world around them than a blade of grass does? You know, the whole ability to recognize self, learn patterns, dream and plan and invent? Cause whatever that is, it's consciousness, we've just been really shit at defining exactly what it is.
But we had to settle on a definition, and turns out our best wasn't good enough. At best it was an argument of semantics and definition, not science and reality.

>>12624542
Philosophical zombie calculates patterns no worse than a human, so consciousness isn't about patterns.

>>12624536
npc spotted

>>12626631
Better npc than unit.

>>12622212
Then what's the point about ideas that can never be proven/disproven? Wittgenstein was right and philosophy has already ended.

>>12618626
I'm not a christfag but I still think this is absolutely retarded. It's not even something you can test scientifically.

>>12619219
lol!

>>12622200
You're only proving the intellectuals right
Mount Everest isn't real, it's just a label we assign to an arbitrary collection of matter.
The dude calling it "just a rock" isn't wrong. That other people assign significance to it is irrelevant.

Qualia is an incoherent concept. The p-zombie argrument, which btw fails to disprove physicalism and only demonstrates an explanatory gap, has the odd consequence that p-zombies think they have qualia. Its fucking odd isn't it? What would reconcile this odd absurdity? maybe if its actually true that all there is to consciousness is our brains and qualia is an incoherent illusory concept produced by the brain.

>>12627903
>has the odd consequence that p-zombies think they have qualia. Its fucking odd isn't it?
What's so odd about it? You can think a lot of things about your self which will turn out to be false.

One can also write in the post "This post is conscious" and this will be plainly incorrect despite the post claiming that.

>>12627688
Assigning insignificance is just as irrelevant. Get fucked.

humans have no soul

t. eyes-tells he has no soul himself

>>12627940
No but the point is that the p-zombie is saying it is conscious for exactly the same reason you are. its not just that the p-zombie is false but that under the assumption of what being said is valid, then you would be correct about your consciousness purely by coincidence. its fundamentally absurd and beyond just a mistake especially as the zombie is doing it systematically for the same reasons you are.. only it just happens to be wrong.

so what is consciousness, how did i get in that meat and bone robot?

>>12619234
You are a colossal faggot.

>>12627903
It seems that you are saying both that qualia is impossible and that p-zombies can't exist. But if we don't have qualia aren't we just zombies?

>>12627176
I didn't pass that Mensa test to get 154 IQ for nothing.

>>12621828
Because both popsci guys and actual reputable philosophy-type guys are currently of the opinion that conscioussness does not exist. Because of that, stuff like qualia is even more of a nothingburger to them.

>>12628283
p zombies cannot exist so any arguments involving them are wrong

>>12628471
When you deny qualia it kind of leads down to denying your own experience which is also weird. I don't think I'm quite saying that, but to call your experience a thing called qualia as something separable from your brain activity doesn't really make sense. It's easier for me to appeal to a brain that cannot help but think and behave in a certain way and has inherent limits, as opposed to appealing to qualia as something in and of itself.

>>12618626
>when the physicist makes a fool out of himself by not reading ANY philosophy in his life
a classic

>>12629030
p-zombies not being possible i don't think stops you from using them as a demonstration of the hard problem of consciousness. maybe they would stop you arguing that p-zombies disprove physicalism, which i already said that in another post. even if p-zombies seem implausible you could replace it with something else. if a p-zombie says it is conscious due to it's brainstates, then the equivalent is of someone handwriting all of those relevant brainstates down onto an endless notepad, somewhere on that notepad should still be the states that read out "i am conscious". How can a notepad have phenomenal experience like that?

Religion needs a containment board. I want to go back to talking about aliens and the loch ness monster and bigfoot and other real shit.
The larp-crusade for (You)s is just fucking tiresome at this point.

>>12624542
No definition of conscioussness give it any reason to exist.
Concioussness is the total or the effect of processes that happened in the brain.
Are the processes themselves concioussness? Hardly: a computer computes things, a simple body scanner processes data, and there is a bunch of chemistry going all around nature, and you'd hardly argue that makes them concious.
You could say "conscoussness" is something that leads the object to learn about reality. Then it means conscoussness is something that allows you to interact with reality and store it into memory. But even a phone does that.
Conscioussness is a specific behavior of objects that leads to exhibition of that interaction, then.
So, is concioussness is specific behavour that leads to interaction with reality? Well, an ant has such behaviours. Even microorganisms do. An intecately programmed robot or nanobot does. Most people wouldn't say thay're concious, right? Whether they're just reacting to stimuli or exhibiting a complex behavior.
In the end, we only have very tenious indirect signs of concioussness, but once we slice it: any exclusive attributes it seems to exhibit appear to happen all the time in things which are clearly not concious, or at least not considered as such by us. As of now, consciousness seems like a meme.

>>12629117
>oh no, science can't explain the most basic common experience in the world i feel threatened

>>12619601
>There's no good evidence for its existence.
Not for you, I guess.

>>12627688
>Arguing against "step back and see the bigger picture"

>>12629104
>How can a notepad have phenomenal experience like that?
It doesn't, it merely has an extremely low fidelity recording of that state. How accurately is the experience of hunting gazelle in hunter-gather times recording by cave paintings?

>>12629394
He's not wrong in that fundamentally atheism and theism are irreconcilable outside of the total conversion of one side or the other.

>>12619219
>>12627176
>>12628985
>We did it Reddit!

>>12629730
A notepad can be as accurate as you want it to be as long as you have enough paper. I could right down all the information about everything computationally relevant going on in your brain and how it evolves over time.

>>12619321

>pop scientist

>>12618626
If one denies the existence of a soul he is soulless.

>>12629871
all me :)