/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14538886
Stop trying to use science to show metaphysical realities. It makes a mockery of the idea. Science has no relation whatsoever to metaphysics.

>>14538886
That's just blood flow. Maybe the drugs make the neurons misfire irregularly leading to an altered sense of reality while also lowering blood flow?

Nothing made me more of a materialist than taking acid when I was a teenager.

So what you're saying is that you put things into your brain, and it alters your state of consciousness, but somehow this means that your brain isn't generating your consciousness

>>14538908
The brain actively obscures reality. Dead and unconscious people view reality exactly how it truly is external from subjective images in the mind.

>>14538913
Do you understand why this isn't a problem?

>>14538918
>put weird shit into car engine
>engine starts running funny
>this means that the engine has nothing to do with the car's movement
Yeah okay

>>14538903
Why do schizos use the word "metaphysics" when they talk about their delusions? Do they think this gives them cover to spout bullshit with no evidence?

It's more like:

> engine is off
> car is speeding away faster and louder

>>14538914
Gigabased. Although I doubt the dead see anything, they just are 'it'. Just like us except we're temporarily deluded.

>>14538920
It isn't a problem, you are still viewing a duality between mind and matter. There's no divide. Consider computer interfaces, the icons represent underlying code. Brains also represent something. If you start moving around or deleting computer icons, things change. But the icons aren't the ultimate reality of the computer, they're just images representing the ultimate reality of the computer.

I can't yet make a better analogy so that will have to be a crude placeholder. But it isn't a problem whatsoever, and still won't be when you can induce any experience in any person by stimulating certain neural pathways, or even if you made a conscious being using what you call physical matter. None of this matters at all, metaphysics and science aren't compatible (even materialism as a metaphysical position). You can't run experiments to prove anything about these positions.

>>14538921
Because we have to know what that word means, as our view differs from the default. You have a metaphysical view too, it's called materialism. But you never needed to know that it was "metaphysics" because it's the norm...

>>14538886
>So, we have an immense expansion of the richness of experience
No, you're just making yourself dumb. That's what "dude open your mind" means. You're conflating high level thinking with the illusion of profundity achieved through hallucinogens. The illusion of profundity is the result of your brain being broken, not in contradiction to it.

mind-body dualists deserve to be shot in the head, which for them shouldn't be an issue.

>>14538886
Look mate, I cut you arm and you still there, I cut head you are gone. Its in the brain allright.

>>14538914
Concur. People are ideas, and ideas exist independent of consciousness. The dead inhabit the world of forms.

>>14538935
"Metaphysics" is just a way to make your religious dogma not sound like religious dogma.

>>14538937
I'd argue not necessarily, as some concepts realised on hallucinogens remain useful even after you become sober, like for instance the workings of the ego.

>>14538940
That's some kind of fallacy that I'm too drunk to name. If you kill a brain then it can't control the body any more, and so to outside observers it seems like the person is dead because we can't communicate with them any more. But we cannot know whether the person still experiences themselves. Post death existence is unscientific and can only be discussed philosophically or religiously.

>>14538937
There isn't any illusion in the fact you exist. There isn't any illusion in the fact that all appearances change yet you remain. There isn't any illusion in recognizing what you are behind all of the appearances. You already know you are conscious, but you don't totally grasp what you are and will mix that into the contents of your mind. E.g. I got drunk and my consciousness lowered. I blacked out and my consciousness disappeared. You don't even realize you are mistaking content for the backdrop. You have to see the screen the movie is appearing on, see through the movie...

It does not make any difference whether you get there with sober meditation or drug trips.

i just think we gave a misunderstanding of what goes on insude the mind of mental retards and autists.

brain damage and hallucinogenics force your brain to reeire itself.
the expierence is just a product of your brain chemicals finding different pathways.

NDE"s
Auto erotic shit
heroin
belief in god = brain damage
when does your brain release DMT?
oh yeah just before it "wakes up" or shits the bed.

>>14538886
There are some people out there who have functioned with half their brain missing. However, nobody's ever functioned without a brain. Although considering that you seem to be lacking a brain I suppose I have no choice but to believe your assertion. I suggest you donate yourself to science because it really is a medical wonder on how you get by with absolutely nothing in your skull there.

>>14538944
Because the person in question is the observer experiencing their body and ego. Others do not experience the observer, only the body and ego. Hence once the body is dead, all representation of that person is dead to them too. Not so much to the person that dies.

>>14538942
Materialism is also metaphysics, and is equally religious dogma. If you think scientific experiments prove materialism, then you don't understand these positions.

>>14538955
Right, that's what I mean. This is like the portal question. Two completely incompatible views of the same thing ensures that we will never agree.

>>14538952
Dude you shouldn't use the word "mental retards" when 90% of your post has ESL tier grammatical errors and misspellings.

>>14538944
>But we cannot know whether the person still experiences themselves
Fucking retard. If the brain is destroyed, there's no one left there to experience anything
>is unscientific
Hence nonsense.

>>14538957
I think that as a result, you never truly 'know' the other people at the deepest level, its all entirely superficial from the get-go. 2 perspectives watching 2 screens interact in a predetermined fashion.

if youre looking for metaphysical science to talk about the mind body duality.
theres alot of research about how much our biome flaura and fauna are important to mental health.
and they also talk about how serotonin is made in the gut.
and vagus nerve TRE type shit.
the same bacteria found in your gut is also on the surface of your brain.
then theres that theory that your brain and spinal cords are parasites that evolved similar to lichen.
paints a picture that we are more akin to SCOBY

>>14538962
Begging the question. Killing the brain kills the person only if the person is only in the brain, which is the whole point of the discussion.

>>14538970
There is no discussion to be had here. If you want to deny basic biology go to >>>/x/

>>14538973
One counterexample to the idea that the brain generates consciousness puts you in the camp of the denier, doesn't it?

>>14538973
I already said that the question was inherently unscientific. That doesn't mean that you get to assume facts not in evidence. Demonstrate to me that people are dead when their brains die. Like, not just that you can't talk to them, prove to me that they cannot experience anything.

>>14538973
You say this because your entire conception of "person" resides in the physical manifestation. Science does not have the means to study realms beyond the physical, yet there reside other aspects of what constitutes a human.

Why are you experiencing life the way you are? And don't give me this "photons enter my retina" bullshit. I mean, why does it work like this in the first place?

>>14538979
Athe created the universe from nothing for no reason and now we're here

>>14538886
ok then wahdabaut lobotomies

>>14538980
Why do you experience time flow? Why do thoughts "appear" in your "head"? Materialism does not explain the why of any of this, merely the how, if that.

>>14538978
>, prove to me that they cannot experience anything.
There is no "they" once they die because all the "they" is in the brain. Not hard to understand.

>>14538964
The only useful science experiment is the splitting of the brain hemispheres. Which side gets the "I"? Is a new one generated so both sides get one? Or is there always just one "I", even when one hemisphere doesn't know what the other is thinking.

If we both split our brains and put them together with each other's, whose "I" would vanish and whose continues?

>>14538986
Please, sir, I'd like some more

>>14538985
No reason. Athe simply moves as xe will. Nothing means anything. Hail Athe!

>>14538886
>So, we have an immense expansion of the richness of experience correlated with the brain essentially going to sleep.
so like dreams?
the brain is very active when asleep.

OP must be having a very vivid experience due to his utterly damaged brain.

>>14539055
Explain what you think is wrong.

>>14538886
>There is plenty of evidence that consciousness is not generated by the brain

You mean none, just your chronic lack of understanding any or all evidence? Yeah that's about right.

>So, we have an immense expansion of the richness of experience correlated with the brain essentially going to sleep. If consciousness is the result of brain activity, you would not expect this result; you would expect the opposite.

Some dipfuck claiming that does not make that true. If you knew anything about executive functioning that is obvious and to be expected, because it takes MORE ACTIVITY to FOCUS than it does to have NOISE. Your bullshit is not a materialist prediction. Your bullshit is a morons prediction.

>>14539179
Recovering my sides for a minute, because holy shit this is so stupid it's hilarious beyond belief, NEITHER thing is somehow "against materialism" because you are appealing to studying the material world with material causes to allege the equivalent of a "god of the gaps".

Even if that result were surprising? Does not evidence your stupid position. Arguments from ignorance are a fallacy. "We don't know therefore x" is not valid logic. You fucking retard.

>>14538929
Exactly, people imagine nothingness as black, but black is a visual phenomena. As true blind people say, they see what you see through your elbows.

All things are finite, all things rise and fall away. One thing never moves, that being the nothingness background. People believe their consciousness is a thing when it is literally nothingness, and that's no speculation or theory... You can watch thoughts fall back into nothingness, and we will always remain as that.

Consciousness literally = nothingness and this is I think very revealing, but hard to believe until someone experiences this literal fact. No conjecture. No theory...

>>14538886
Psilocybin creates lots of noise but your brain keeps trying to make sense of it, high pulse rate is documented to make memory work better yes the substance is known to skyrocket pulse rate, and finally "meaningful experience" is just your brain working extra hard to make sense of that much of noise

>>14539211
Exactly. The man brought up some stupid citation from narcissists like Eric Hernandez. A total fucking nobody and colossal retard. What you explained, what I explained, what is blatantly fucking obvious to everyone but the narcissist, is what Tjump explained to Eric Hernandez about that exact same study years ago.

This brainlet went and found an obscure citation used by a retard who was corrected already, and too much of a narcissist to ever admit he was wrong. Sort of like OP.

>>14538886
I have an immense expansion in the richness of experience when I drink way too much. Doesn't mean I am more conscious because of it.

>>14538978
>Demonstrate to me that people are dead when their brains die.
this is who you are arguing with, folks
keep going
real scientific discussion
many important findings here
also check out my blog timecube

>>14539220
Oh piss off I'm mocking the shit out of him. An argument implies he had anything. He doesn't. If you want better content make a fucking post worth talking about then.

>>14538943
LOL, you didn't learn anything, you just think you did.

>>14539219
>Doesn't mean I am more conscious because of it.
It unironically does, not that this proves OP's retarded point.

>>14538947
>There isn't any illusion in the fact that all appearances change yet you remain.
Wow how profound! Oh wait, this is actually just meaningless fluff. You change all the time, and sometimes you don't remain, you die. Perfect example of tricking yourself into thinking you realized something, but your brain is just broken and producing nonsense.

>Psilocybin creates lots of noise but your brain keeps trying to make sense of it, high pulse rate is documented to make memory work better yes the substance is known to skyrocket pulse rate, and finally "meaningful experience" is just your brain working extra hard to make sense of that much of noise
Why are they like this?

>>14538956
>materialism is also metaphysics
>atheism is also a religion!!!1
I don't care about your semantic games. Let me know when you have any evidence for your bullshit. Until then, the physical is the only thing that's real.

>>14538979
>Science does not have the means to study realms beyond the physical
Being the question by implying such realms exist, which you have no evidence of. Just wishful thinking. Yawn.

>I mean, why does it work like this in the first place?
Why would you think there's a reason? That implies there is some kind of intelligence behind the universe. More question begging.

>>14538978
>That doesn't mean that you get to assume facts not in evidence.
LOL, you're the only one doing that.

>Demonstrate to me that people are dead when their brains die.
That's not how burden of proof works.

>>14539518
Call me back when you can back up your materialist religion with evidence. Protip: you can't because it's unfalsifiable. LOL. Loser.

>>14538985
>Why do you experience time flow?
Things change over time and you notice them. Why wouldn't you?

>Why do thoughts "appear" in your "head"?
Because that's how the brain is set up to work. Your questions are pretty meaningless.

>Materialism does not explain the why of any of this, merely the how, if that.
You're assuming there is a reason beyond the how. Why?

>>14538993
You're assuming your identity is a real thing and not just an illusion projected over lots of complex systems interacting.

>>14539504
Your character can die. That's it. The entirety of your character is made of appearances from the inside to out. Every thought in your head and every sense perception is a mirage produced in the mind.

Consciousness is definitely, actual total literal nothing. Where can it go if it is nothing already?... You think it's something when it's nothing. This is because you are mixing awareness with its contents.

This is why people make conclusions about dementia proving the brain causes experience, or being knocked unconscious proves they can lose consciousness. Because your entire assumption is that consciousness is something you possess that is in your head and belongs to you. And not that you are something that appears in it.

>>14539518
It's not semantics. Materialism has nothing at all to do with science. It is completely and totally metaphysics. You can't test for it or prove it, there has never been evidence for it. There couldn't be.

Logically it faces an issue I think of infinite regress à la the problem of God. What made God, what made that God, ad nauseum. What is an atom made of, what is that made of, what is that made of. Eventually you have to reach a thing that just is else it's infinite regress.

Nothingness is a great candidate because it has no boundary, needs no creator, etc.

If you think you're just going to read some words on a page and be like "oh I get it", obviously fucking not. It's difficult to even find the nothingness you are that is the background of your entire life since birth.

Materialism is NOT SCIENCE. NONE OF THIS is fucking science. If you believe materialism has anything to do with science you unironically have zero clue what you're talking about. Srs.

>>14539537
>Because that's how the brain is set up to work. Your questions are pretty meaningless.
Not him but you just fully conceded his point and lost the argument.

>>14539532
>Call me back when you can back up your materialist religion with evidence
Here you go retard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

>>14539548
Nothing in there supports materialism in any capacity. Take your meds ASAP, drone.

>>14539548
You think physics proves materialism which means you don't understand what you're talking about. Literally that simple. In Idealism physics would stop working? Don't participate when you don't even understand the topic.

>>14539543
>Your character can die. That's it.
Yes, that's all "you" are. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>Consciousness is definitely, actual total literal nothing.
OK, schizo. More meaningless fluff from a broken brain.

>>14539543
>It's not semantics. Materialism has nothing at all to do with science. It is completely and totally metaphysics. You can't test for it or prove it, there has never been evidence for it. There couldn't be.

Okay, you're huffing way too much "philosophy". I'm going to try to help you for a second, so knock off the bullshit and pay attention. This is probably the only decency you're going to get, given everyone else is seems pretty fed up with you.

A precursory clarification: I assume you are using materialism / physicalism interchangeably, so I'm ignoring any differences.

Ontologically, philosophies like these are all unfalsifiable as claims of certainty. However, that is a red herring. On an ontological basis, all claims are equally beyond currently known epistemology due to the NATURE of an ontological claim. That depends on how you define these terms, but I am sticking to a very simple "ontology as a claim of certain state of what is".

When you say "You can't test or prove it", proof is mathematics, abstract ideas, you don't "prove" things about the reality you're in. That, again, would require ontological knowledge. That's circular.

Now the really important bit: You said "there's no evidence for it". That is where you're clearly fucking up, and doing so badly. Epistemology, knowledge obtainable via induction, ALL the evidence is in favor of physicalism. ALL of it.

Evidence via induction in science is accrued, put one simple way I've seen, by "novel future testable predictions". Anti-materialists never accomplish any of these. So your worldview is not only lacking evidence, it is contrary to all of the things we can call evidence. What you thought was "evidence" in the OP is just a colossal misunderstanding on your part, because you do not know how to obtain the text to read it in full. As one anon already explained to you, it does not at all imply nonphysicalism as the brain is obviously using more energy to try and make sense of itself.

An artist had this profound elated experience when smoking opium. He had the realization of realizing everything and being able to Word it as well in a perfect sentence. When he awoke from his sleep this magnificent truth always evaded him to his dismay.

One time he managed to write it down. The sentence went "the banana is big but the peel it's bigger"

>>14539558
>Epistemology, knowledge obtainable via induction, ALL the evidence is in favor of physicalism. ALL of it.
There is not a single piece of empirical evidence for your metaphysical dogma, and it's impossible for there to be any by construction. You lost. Take the L and walk away.

>>14539543
>Materialism has nothing at all to do with science.
Then please show me a single non-physical thing scientifically shown to exist.

>You can't test for it or prove it, there has never been evidence for it.
Of course every time you fail to provide evidence for your non-materialist bullshit it's a test of materialism. And it keeps passing with flying colors. Loser.

>Logically it faces an issue I think of infinite regress
There is no logical problem with infinite regress.

>Eventually you have to reach a thing that just is else it's infinite regress.
So?

>>14539572
Might want to reread that post bud. I'm an entirely different anon and what you just wrote is LITERALLY explained in the same post you clearly ignored. I told you to knock off the bullshit. Last chance.

>>14539573
>show me a single non-physical thing
Show me a single physical thing, after you define what "physical" is as a category. You can't. This board is full of legit 85 IQ retards.

>>14539547
How so?

>>14539575
Sorry about your extremely lacking intellect. It's impossible for there to be empirical evidence of your metaphysical dogma.

>>14539558
Smh... There is not any evidence for physicalism. None. There is literally zero evidence whatsoever.

What you're doing is making an assumption first, and then working off that assumption. "Look I touched this part of a patient's brain and they reported seeing an apple, that means that part of their brain causes the seeing of an apple". Etc. You are already assuming something metaphysical, particularly that you are a being with consciousness inside of you, and working from there.

It's false.

>>14539551
>the fact that every successful theory is completely materialistic does not support materialism
Delusional, your brain is broken.

Dude knock off the BS would you, and slow down to read and think about what is written. A big fuckin ask I know.

>>14539576
>>14539575
That's also kind of ridiculous. Physicalism is very well defined as the matter and energy that defines our natural world. This is just a semantics game
>>14539580
As I wrote before:
>Now the really important bit: You said "there's no evidence for it". That is where you're clearly fucking up, and doing so badly. Epistemology, knowledge obtainable via induction, ALL the evidence is in favor of physicalism. ALL of it.

So no, quite possible. There's no reliable alternative to the best epistemology, currently, meaning all the things that can be called evidence are in favor of what the inductive inference shows.
>>14539581
Testing a hypothesis. Which is confirmed, continuously, to show it is only physical. Everything you experience is a product of brains, and can be taken away by removal of parts of the brain.

By positing something in addition, the burden of proof is on you. It is not merely assumption, but again "ALL of the evidence" is in favor of these facts. Demonstrated continuously throughout the history of neuroscience, contrary to some misunderstandings of it in the OP.

>>14539584
There is no successful materialistic theory. All successful theories are completely agnostic about your irrelevant metaphysical wank.

>>14539554
>You think physics proves materialism
No, I think that materialism is the default position until you can show a successful non-materialist theory. Science doesn't "prove" things, it just creates better theories.

>In Idealism physics would stop working?
I don't know, why don't you create a theory based on idealism and test it? Oh, because it's bullshit.

>>14539589
>Physicalism is very well defined as the matter and energy that defines our natural world.

Oh shit my bad dude. Didn't realize it was this simple.

>>14539589
>Physicalism is very well defined
Then why can't you define it?

>There's no reliable alternative to the best epistemology, currently, meaning all the things that can be called evidence are in favor of what the inductive inference shows.
No epistomology supports materialism. Take your meds.

>>14539576
>Show me a single physical thing
I'll do you one better and show you a lot of physical things, while you learn what physical means at the same time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

>>14539573
You have made assumption first, "evidence" after. Watch how this happens... Your entire sensory perception right now is non-physical. And I say watch, because you're now going to say "but brains are physical and they are creating these illusions" or w.e.

You've assumed immediately that physical matter exists, that brains are physical things, and you're working off of that basis.

That's a metaphysical assumption off the bat. You won't understand it immediately. Because you are confused, how can people say physical matter doesn't exist, look, I recorded these two particles hitting each other! That proves physical matter exists!

It does not. At all. It proves something we refer to as atoms exist. It does not prove anything about substance or physicality of the things... Other common misconceptions? If everything was not physical I could choose to fly like in a dream. Or I could read minds. Or anaesthetic wouldn't knock me out for 3 hours.

>>14539593
>There is no successful materialistic theory
Delusional. Every theory in physics is compleyely materialistic. You can't show a sliver of evidence for anything non- materialistic. You have nothing but wishful thinking. You lose.

>>14539606
Show me a single physical thing, after you define what "physical" is as a category. You can't. This board is full of legit 85 IQ retards.

>>14539610
> Every theory in physics is compleyely materialistic
No materialistic theory of physics exists at all. It functions just the same and makes identical predictions regardless of materialism. Materialism doesn't figure into physical predictions at any point.

This entire anti-physicalist thread is like a bad 80s hangover anti-drug commercial titled "this is your brain on "philosophy" ". Cringe.

>>14539598
>Then why can't you define it?
>>14539589
>Physicalism is very well defined as the matter and energy that defines our natural world.

I see you've got the flat earther/antivaxxer/creationist rhetoric where you just lie about what people write. It's REALLY hard to tell you people apart from trolls.

If you want to further know what "matter and energy" are, this has been very well demonstrated through the past century of physics. That is your personal ignorance, not a refutation.

>No epistomology supports materialism. Take your meds.

All modern epistemology, the ones that people use, and clearly work (see also: The computer you're trolling on), use induction. All the evidence, all of the induction, continues to support physicalism.

>>14538886
And another matter, why do you feel the compulsion to believe this crap?

Is it to feel special? To preserve your belief in God? Because you fear dying? Narcissism making you falsely believe you know things you don't? Really, why?

>>14539609
>Your entire sensory perception right now is non-physical.
It's just the brain doing it's thing. Completely physical.

>You've assumed immediately that physical matter exists, that brains are physical things
Not assumed, "proven" as far as anything can be proven about reality by hundreds of years of physics. You on the other hand have hundreds of years of... babble proving nothing.

>Other common misconceptions?
You're telling me what you don't believe but not what you do believe. I'm waiting for you to present a successful theory. I have a feeling it will never come.

>>14539617
>Show me a single physical thing, after you define what "physical" is as a category.
See >>14539606

>>14539618
Still waiting for you to define it. Notice how you will churn out hundreds of posts trying to deflect, but never provide an answer. You lost the argument.

>>14539629
I accept your full concession. The nonhuman hordes only know how to lose. :^)

>>14539589
There is nothing "in addition". You are starting out from an assumption, I think your assumption is literally completely upside down to the truth. Brains are made of the same thing as thoughts, or feelings. None of it is physical, and none of this has anything to do with science whatsoever.

See your assumption immediately: Changing my physical brain changes experience, therefore my physical brain produces experience. You're assuming brains are physical to begin with.

There's no such thing as a physical substance. Science cannot ever be used to get at any form of metaphysics, not materialism or idealism.

>>14539594
It would be identical. Physics and science remain identical. Why? Because you're not changing how things work, only the understanding of what things are. It has no effect on: physics, neuroscience, mathematics, biology, chemistry, spacetime. If you understood the position you would understand this, but you don't. So you shouldn't even be participating.

>>14539631
Uhhh I just got here. Your paranoia is unreal. Look, I'm going to side with >>14539627 here in asking you a very simple thing. Requesting it, that is.

Present, and evidence, a successfully testable hypothesis providing grounds for inductive inference for nonphysicalism. Centuries of people have tried this for all kinds of reasons, mainly religious ones, and chronically failed.

It is a very straightforward professional request. You have a belief, the burden is on you to test it and show the belief to be true. Right now all you're doing is a flat earther dance of denials.

>>14539617
>No materialistic theory of physics exists at all.
>no physical theory is physical
LOL, the mental gymnastics.

Show me a single non-materialistic thing in any physical theory. You can't.

>>14539635
>See your assumption immediately: Changing my physical brain changes experience, therefore my physical brain produces experience. You're assuming brains are physical to begin with.

No, that's just what is demonstrated. Can you demonstrate otherwise? Google "what is the null hypothesis" and maybe mull that over for a few weeks.

>There's no such thing as a physical substance. Science cannot ever be used to get at any form of metaphysics, not materialism or idealism.

Nothing gets you to ontology that we know of. But inductive inference is perfectly fine for an epistemic claim of metaphysics.

So, again: "It is a very straightforward professional request. You have a belief, the burden is on you to test it and show the belief to be true. Right now all you're doing is a flat earther dance of denials."

>>14539636
>Present, and evidence, a successfully testable hypothesis providing grounds for inductive inference for nonphysicalism
Sure, as soon as you define "physicalism". You people have a genuinely subhuman level of intelligence.

>>14539641
You lost, incel. No amount of seething and weeping is going to salvage your nuked position. :^)

>>14539645
I have. All you did was go "nuh uh". You're just doing the flat earther denial dance, pretending to be a "skeptic". No different from the past century of young earth creationists doing the same thing.

I've no idea why you people persist in the obvious sham game doing that when it's so fucking old hat. Everyone knows it. I seriously do not get why you bother. Burden of proof is on you. I defined my terms. The physical world is defined by physics, the burden of proof showing things nonphysical is on you.

>>14539652
You lost, incel. No amount of seething and weeping is going to salvage your nuked position. :^)

>>14539661
k

>>14539634
You were given exactly what you asked for and have no response. You lose.

>>14539666
You lost, incel. No amount of blatant lying is going to save your nuked position. :^)

>>14539627
Exactly. See... ASSUMPTION first, evidence later... You have defined a brain as physical and work from there. You probably have a definition of what physical means to you, which will be something that makes it blatant why you think I'm "babbling". E.g. you might define physical as things outside of your mind that are proven to interact with each other. Say some experiment at CERN with particles we can't perceive with our minds. Bam. Result happens when particles hit each other. See, physical matter exists! That's probably how you view this, and that is why you aren't going to get what I think. Which is that there is no real substance in any direction ever... Completely independent of belief in particles interacting, gravity, etc. It is not related whatsoever.

Metaphysical positions like materialism are not science.

>>14539635
>It would be identical. Physics and science remain identical. Why? Because you're not changing how things work, only the understanding of what things are. It has no effect on: physics, neuroscience, mathematics, biology, chemistry, spacetime. If you understood the position you would understand this, but you don't. So you shouldn't even be participating.

I just saw this. He's admitting to it. He's admitting he has a completely unfalsifiable claim that could not be evidenced by dint of its changing apparently nothing. Only to "offer" supposed "understanding".

Pack it up boys he gave up the ghost.

>>14539678
You sure are mentally ill.

>>14539643
Demonstrate what, that altering a brain wouldn't alter experience? Why do you expect that I would believe that is possible?

Your belief is that physical substance exists. I don't think it does. I think everything is fundamentally nothing. All things, mirage. Brains and thoughts are made of the same thing, rocks and sights are made of the same thing, the color red and an atom are made of the same thing. That thing is not physical in nature, it doesn't have I believe a substance to it (see mathematics, would you say math is a physical substance? That is how I view all material.)... You won't understand this straight away.

Real talk, why do these absolute crackpots keep coming to this board to spout their bullshit? Is /x/ too boring for these people or something?

>>14539678
Of course it changes nothing. It's metaphysics. Like materialism which is a metaphysical belief (which lacks coherence usually because most people believe experiential phenomena are non-physical, causing a duality).

Metaphysics. Is. Not. Science.

And you don't understand what these positions mean or imply. Period.

>>14539695
Well, no. Necessarily the metaphysics of a system must have distinguishable differences in the system, otherwise they would not be different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity

Not sure who you're reading or whatever, but you're alleging you can violate the law of identity therefore... well it doesn't really matter what you think. You aren't thinking.

>Necessarily the metaphysics of a system must have distinguishable differences in the system, otherwise they would not be different.
Midwits shouldn't be taught how to read and write.

>>14539635
>Physics and science remain identical.
Then materialism is correct. There is nothing non-material in your theory. You can't even name one thing.

>Because you're not changing how things work, only the understanding of what things are.
You seem confused. Physics says matter and energy exist, not just how things work.

>>14539695
Minor addition in case you somehow don't get it, my explanation >>14539703 is not about science. This is logic so basic it is classified as part of the three laws of thought.

In other words... you have zero standing to declare anyone does not understand something when you do not even understand one of the three fundamental requirements of thought itself. Of logic itself. You aren't even at "step zero".

>>14539710
>Then materialism is correct.
The absolute mental illness of (You).

>>14539707
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity

You cannot say a metaphysic is something other than something else unless it has demonstrable differences. Otherwise all you are saying is "A is not A".

>>14539712
Shouldn't you at least finish highschool before you post here? Watching a 15 minute Philosophy for Dummies YT video doesn't make you a thinker.

>>14539716
Why aren't you capable of basic reading comprehension?

>>14539719
The sad fact is you haven't EVEN watched a 15 minute philosophy for dummies course. That's why this is so bad.

>>14539722
Why do you pretend to be an intellectual when you're incapable of 3rd grade level reading comprehension or using a dictionary? You are objectively the most idiotic poster ITT. You can't form a single sentence that isn't hilariously wrong. I'm stumped.

>>14539724
k

>>14538922
are hallucinations really faster and louder? You could argue its the opposite.

>>14539724
I agree, this guy's legit not a good thinker. Let's wait for the smarter materialist to come back.

>>14539209
>Exactly, people imagine nothingness as black, but black is a visual phenomena. As true blind people say, they see what you see through your elbows.
that doesn't make any sense. black is the absence of light lol.

>>14539733
D'awww sorry I spoiled your troll game. It's pretty hard to pretend to be this stupid when you get cornered into "literally the fundamentals of logic". You'd have to be pretty fuckin well read to attempt that.

>>14539734
I know, and people born blind don't see it. Black is a visual representation of the absence of light, and white the opposite containing the entire visible spectrum.

There is no reason black should look black and not blue. Because your mind is ultimately painting the picture.

>>14539737
Your own article on the "fundamentals of logic" says you're wrong, but you are too dumb to actually read it. Just crawl back to whaterver sad, lonely corner you came here from, incel. You will not gain any more respect here than you do in your special ed class in middle school.

>>14539648
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting materialism is correct.

>>14539689
They come to /sci/ to convince themselves their bullshit is legitimate and real instead of going to /x/ where it's understood up front you're discussing bullshit.

>>14539754
>m-m-muh metaphysical dogma is "correct"
That's nice, but your religion is not science-related.

>>14539669
See >>14539666

You can always tell apart the reddit dropouts in a thread because they keep trying to network with each other to establish some fake group consensus.

>>14539758
You lost, incel. No amount of blatant lying is going to save your nuked position. :^)

>>14538962
>Fucking retard. If the brain is destroyed, there's no one left there to experience anything
you don't know that

>>14538964
>then theres that theory that your brain and spinal cords are parasites that evolved similar to lichen.
tell me more? How do we rid ourselves of this parasite? Will ivermectin work?

>>14539541
the illusion argument is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If consciousness is a trick, who is being fooled retard?

>>14539783
This is why materialism is closer to >>14539755 "convincing themselves of bullshit".

The groundwork of being should include everything that exists. EVERYTHING should be it, in order for the proposition to be coherent. You can't have even illusions of non-physical things, and then claim the ground is physical. Every single thing must reduce to the same. Both the physical things, and the alleged illusions/non-existent phenomena. It should ALL be reducible to one single thing and that would then be coherent.

I think the education system fails to take students beyond understanding that colors are in their mind. Most people understand the red apple doesn't actually look red, but they probably think it looks black and white or some shit. They probably still imagine it as being really out there in the shape of an apple. Even though shape beyond mathematical description is also subjective. I.e. feeling round, looking round. Round can be perfectly described objectively with math. But math is not physical matter.

>that awkward moment when they can't define "physical" so they simply post the wikishills article

>>14539532
the easiest way to identify a schizo is if they use the term "LOL" in all-caps.

I have no idea why this is the case. But I've seen dozens of schizos and they always use type lol like this. It's weird because no one normal talks like that.

>>14539827
Do you have evidence for your materialistic religion, though? L-O-L!

brains are the only things that appear to be conscious. rocks, liquids, office supplies... none of that appears to be conscious

>>14539831
>brains are the only things that appear to be conscious
So?

>>14538932
You are on the right track with the icon analogy, but I dislike it because it still conjures some dualist image, just with one end of it appearing of lesser to no importance for the underlying reality. Such a separation does not even exist in reality. Mind and body truly are a unity; the mind is just an internal representation of sufficiently complex system. This is incompatible with materialism i.e. neo-dualism, as they claim that the mind somehow magically is produced from no first principles whatsoever from the watery meat.
Unfortunately I also don't know a good analogy that isn't also immediately misunderstood by materialists.

Those who speak do not know. OP is a faggot and he's every bit as retarded as the "materialists" he rails against.

>>14539518
Some particles have no physical properties.
Are they not real?

>>14538903
Couldn't science show a situation where science doesn't explain why things are happening? This particular science isn't trying to explain how metaphysics works, only trying to show the presence of something outside its realm of determination.

>>14538886
>https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1119598109
The study only talks about turning off certain brain regions, namely ones that belong to the default mode network, which is responsible for maintaining your sense of self (episodic memory of your experiences, temporal/spatial/emotional relation of yourself to things and people etc). It does NOT talk about a global decrease in brain activity.

>>14539673
>See... ASSUMPTION first, evidence later
What assumption?

>You have defined a brain as physical
It's an observed physical thing. What do you mean by "brain?"

>Which is that there is no real substance in any direction ever
That hypothethesis doesn't predict anything and is worthless.

>Metaphysical positions like materialism are not science.
Materialism is just following what current science says, without assuming bullshit that has no evidence. You haven't refuted this, you just keep repeating your dogma over and over even though it's clearly disproven by the perfect correlation between materialism and science. You're incorrectly projecting your own inability to find any evidence for your belief onto materialism.

>>14539713
There is nothing non-material in your theory. You can't even name one thing.

>>14539756
>Physics is not related to physical things
Amazing mental gymnastics.

>>14539762
See >>14539758

>>14540023
>>14540027
You concllost the argument when you deflected 20 times instead of defining "physical", incel.

>>14539783
>If consciousness is a trick
Are you illiterate? I said identity, not consciousness.

>>14539813
Physical just means pertaining to physics, illiterate moron.

>>14540044
How do I know whether or not something "pertains to physics"? You will deflect again. You lost the argument. :^)

>>14538914
>The brain actively obscures reality
Taking certain psychedelics allows you to experience reality with greater vividness and clarity in imagery. If you think about it, images in this reality are made up of individual point signals from many discrete cone and rod cells either triggered by photons interacting with rhodopsin with a potential for false positives and false negatives. This means images are pixelated and if there aren't any photons there you don't get an image. Also images are blurry closer to the periphery of the field of view. In certain psychedelic states however the imagery appears vivid and somehow not blurry at all. Like that's the real reality and this material world is a crude simulation. And you can still "see" even if it's dark unlike in the material world similar to how you can see perfectly fine in dreams when it's dark without a light source.

>>14538914
>unconscious people view reality
unconscious people can't see

>>14540062
Holy pseud.

>>14539518
Atheism isn't the same as materialism

brain is used by the soul (consciousness) to interact with the body

>>14539947
I'm a determinist lol. I don't think randomness could prove anything.

>>14539999
The assumption is that the nature of things you observe, such as the mentioned brain, is physical... A brain, atom, mountain, animal, photon... None of these things are necessarily "made of" a physical substance. I think things are ultimately and fundamentally not "made of" anything at all. I think reality is ultimately made of nothing whatsoever. If you keep drilling down, as we have with microscopes etc, I think you will reach a sort of bottom which could never explain its own existence except with the insistence "it exists because it just does". Material reality and God propositions create an infinite regress issue for the most part where every single layer causes a "okay and what is that made from?" that can go on forever.

You have already decided certain things are made from physical substances and you're working from that assumption forward. OBVIOUSLY if you decide to say something physical is two objects outside of your mental activity interacting, then you are going to feel how you do.

There is not really any way to give substance to anything without resorting to a form of perception. Does an apple rot even if you the person aren't aware of it? Yes. This to you, because of how you choose to define "materialism", proves it accurate. But what is the apple that is actually out there in the world?

Consider middle school, science class. What is the apple not? Well, we know there's a visible spectrum of light for a human. The light reflects off of the apple, enters your eye, and your brain generates an image to represent the apple. Do not forget that these REPRESENTATIONAL IMAGES is what you are seeing all around you. Never the thing itself.

So the color of it. Green apple? The experienced phenomena of "green" is being painted onto the object by your mind. The apple isn't actually out there "looking" green.

Let me continue.

>I'm a determinist lol

>>14540068
benis is used by the soul to interact with another body

>>14539924
>Some particles have no physical properties.
Source?

>>14538903
>Science has no relation whatsoever to metaphysics.
perhaps,
but humans do science,
can you name one scientist who has earnestly divorced their physics from their metaphysics?

Reminder that dualism, or even some form of pluralism, are the only coherent position on this. It's really not that big of a deal I don't know why this gets people so angry

I have read the entire thread and I still don't understand what the point of this whole thing is. You're intensely arguing that there is something that nobody can detect and changes nothing if it could be detected. So like, what is even the point? What is this belief based on if there is no way to know it exists? Man why would you waste your time like this

>>14540086
Cont.

There isn't any concrete reason why a wavelength of light should "look like" a specific color. The colors are totally mind generated. And in fact many animals and some colorblind humans will not see the same green you see. Their mind will paint it another color and you will both call it green if taught to associate the word with it.

That is where most science classes stop. But the color isn't the only thing your mind is generating. The shape... Round apple, yeah? When you imagine what round is, you are picturing literally a circular object floating around. That is blatantly impossible: The way round looks and feels is also a qualitative element added by your brain. This is why people born blind don't have the same concept of round where they are picturing a sphere floating around in space. Because this is a visual perception.

You can describe shape perfectly with mathematics. You can also describe systems with mathematics, and interactions with mathematics, etc. Problem is that mathematics isn't made of a physical substance.

There isn't a world that is like anything outside of you. The world looks how blind creatures see it, sounds like how deaf people hear it, etc. etc. The world outside of you can only be "like" nothing. And I think that is what it is...

Obviously it took me a long time to understand. I don't think there is any such thing as an "external world". And immediately ofc you will be like "but water boils when I leave the room! So it must be external to me!" and these are the same misunderstandings I had and could explain easily if genuinely desired.

>>14540113
Schrödinger?

>>14540116
This. Dualism is highly likely despite having no evidence and actually being highly unlikely given all observation and empirical data.

>>14540122
It can be detected in it's effects, in that it makes reality non-deterministic and impossible to understand through purely mechanistic material means.

>>14540129
This is wrong. There is only evidence for dualism and the will manifesting in the non-deterministic motion of fundamental particles.
There is no evidence whatsoever for a purely monostic ontology.

>>14540130
Elaborate

>>14540139
https://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf

>>14539802
if materialism is everything then the immaterial is material. So we are back at square one. Might as well call it "everythingism". But thats not what materialsm is. Materialism is the stubborn notion that everything that exists can be measured with our monkey tools or can be deduced with out monkey maths.

>>14539831
there is no way of knowing what is and isn't conscious. So many cases of people being in vegetative states, doctors say they are brain dead, only to recover later and remember everything.

>>14539924
>Some particles have no physical properties.
wat

>>14540098
The desire for free will is when an ego wants to exert control over the unfolding of existence. If you let go, you will see that what you actually are is the passive observer of the unfolding of reality...

You chose between cereal and toast for breakfast. A decision entered your mind. There isn't a point where you choose the choice, or choose the choice of the choice, etc. It is just thoughts unfolding which you observe. "Do I want cereal or toast?" "Cereal tastes better." "I'll have cereal". There is no point between the thoughts where you decided that specific thought should appear.

>>14540141
How do you know this is the absolute truth

>>14540154
Determinism is unfalsifiable metaphysical dogma, and an expression of your slave fetish.

>>14540155
All empirical evidence as well as mathematical formalism say so

>>14540154
if there wasn't free will, there wouldn't be a need to trick us into surviving with all these gay wishes, urges, feelings and thoughts. We definitely have free will, otherwise the universe wouldn't be basically a salesmen trying to trick us into surviving.

>>14540129
Dualism is what people believe when they have some sort of heavy "mystical" experience and are coming from deeply materialist skeptic roots.

This leads to ideas like panpsychism.

You have to turn everything completely and 100% topsy turvy, and that is not easy to do. Once you complete the inversion, you will see that both thought and matter are "made of" the same thing.

>>14540160
That's true I get what you mean... I don't really think that is what is happening though. I imagine some kind of thought pattern Darwinism taking place... e.g. the animals whose thought patterns tend to cause the desire to run from a fox reproduce.

I don't think there is an entity choosing the desire. I know the desires arise. And I feel like I'm controlling my thoughts and words now, it feels like I am willing them into existence... In lucid dreams I feel like I am in control... But when really examined closely, there is a genesis point to each thought or desire, and an end. Before the genesis point, I did not decide that it should come to be. The thought and desire arise simultaneously.

>>14540162
Not necessarily. It's not even panpsychism but full dualism, because not all matter has will. Only spin (1,1,0) particles have will. This also immediately separates matter dualistically, into matter that has will and matter that doesn't, so the will itself is not material either.
Thus dualism is very easily understandable; both matter and will exist, some matter has will, and will is not reducible to matter. Done.

>>14540033
I gave you an entire article explaining what physical means. And you can't even name one non-material thing in your theory. You lose.

>>14540049
>How do I know whether or not something "pertains to physics"?
Look up what physics says and compare it to what you're talking about. Same way you know whether anything pertains to anything else. Moron.

>>14540191
nta but I've already shown that dualism is true

>>14540194
How do I know whether or not something "pertains to physics"? "Look it up" is not an answer.

>>14540066
I didn't say it was. That's called an analogy.

>>14540196
>How do I understand physics without understanding physics?
>No, telling me to understand physics is not an answer
That's how retarded you are. Nta btw.

>>14540202
Sure, but it's a bad one

>>14540210
I didn't ask you to explain to me all of physics (which, by the way, I almost certainly know better than you ever will). I asked you how to know if something falls under the purview of physics at all. "Look it up" is not an answer.

>>14540219
>which, by the way, I almost certainly know better than you ever will
Go on, say something smart then

>>14540086
>The assumption is that the nature of things you observe, such as the mentioned brain, is physical
Not an assumption, it's proven by hundreds of years of empirical science.

>I think things are ultimately and fundamentally not "made of" anything at all.
That hypothethesis doesn't predict anything and is worthless.

>I think you will reach a sort of bottom which could never explain its own existence except with the insistence "it exists because it just does".
This is only a problem if you assume there must be an intelligent reason behind fundamental reality. There is no logical issue with an infinite regress of explanations or things just existing as they are. There is only an intuitive issue created by your assumptions.

>You have already decided certain things are made from physical substances
No, that's what we've determined from hundreds of years of empirical science. That's what every successful model says.

>>14540116
>Reminder that dualism, or even some form of pluralism, are the only coherent position on this.
Why?

>>14540235
Because if not, then my feefees will be hurt :(

>>14540130
>in that it makes reality non-deterministic and impossible to understand through purely mechanistic material means.
Doesn't follow. Quantum mechanics is non-deterministic and physicalist.

>>14540226
I asked you how to know if something falls under the purview of physics at all. "Look it up" is not an answer. You will deflect for the 15th time because you lost the argument.

>>14540251
I'm not interested in that, I'd rather see you demonstrate your so called knowledge of physics.

>>14540235
Because of the free will theorem
>>14540243
>Doesn't follow
Yes it does

>>14540123
>There isn't any concrete reason why a wavelength of light should "look like" a specific color.
The concrete reason is that's how brains developed. Too bad if that doesn't satisfy you, it's the truth.

>Problem is that mathematics isn't made of a physical substance
Of course it is, the physical substrates are the brains of mathematicians, paper and ink, electrons in a computer, etc. You're talking about an abstraction as if it exists in some realm outside the physical. It doesn't.

>There isn't a world that is like anything outside of you.
Too bad physics says you're wrong. Let me know when you get any evidence for your belief. Until then, sit down because the adults are working.

>Obviously it took me a long time to understand.
You think you understand but you're just making flawed assumptions with no justification.

>>14540240
You have no argument here anon, please stop taking up post space with your posts.
Dualism has been shown to be true.

>>14540259
>i'm not interested in defining my faith-based terminology
Yep, you definitely lost the argument.

>>14540133
Proof? What successful theory requires it?

>>14540270
>"i don't actually know any physics"
Yep, you definitely got outed as a pseud.

>>14540274
You lost the argument, highschool dropout. I like how your education is so poor you can't even come up with something to quiz me on and instead have to resort to shit like >uhhh... j-j-j-just say something smart and physics-sounding!

>>14540261
>free will theorem
Refresh my memory. What was it about again? And why is relevant here

>>14540272
The theory that you are defending directly implies the free will theorem, so if you disagree then you're saying your own theory isn't true, in which case I don't know what you're talking about.

>>14540162
>Once you complete the inversion, you will see that both thought and matter are "made of" the same thing.
Only sensible solution is pansychism.

>>14540278
It proves dualism as true, and gives us a mechanism for even delineating particles/matter dualistically between those that the will can influence and those that are pure matter.

>>14540282
No it doesn't. Looks like you don't know what it's about

>>14540174
ask yourself, why you even need a wish or urge to do anything? Why is it that people need to be tricked into things? Obviously what we want or dont want matters. It could have arisen coincidentally, fact is we are getting sold to basically, which means we have some kind of agency.

>>14540285
Yes it does. It states that if the setup of the experimenters is free, then all spin(1,1,0) particles are free. This allows us to derive free will fundamentally, and the result is directly implied by all empirical results in relativity and QM

>>14540230
If you think any data ever has proven things are physical, then we aren't talking about the same thing so the discussion is moot. Interesting but moot.

What you assume proves material is really out there is all the experiments with particles etc. Discovery of atoms... Neurology probably? None of this is relevant or shows that these things are ultimately made of physical "stuff".

I don't think there is an infinite regress of Gods or matter. I don't think substances exist in the most absolute sense. Meaning not the relative sense of hitting my head with a rock and feeling pain. Beyond my character. Beyond my life and death...

Dualism isn't coherent. Materialism is usually dualism, because there is something (namely, illusions of phenomenal experience) which in and of themselves are not reducible to it... All things are manifestations of just sheer nothingness.

I'm right now walking by the beach. My beach is not a bat's beach. The bat and I can both agree that the beach is here, but my beach is made of yellow sand, sounds of waves, and a scent of... salt? I think salt, lol... The bat's beach is made of sonar, w.e. the fuck that is like.

>>14540276
I was making fun of you by making a game of thrones reference which clearly went over your head, but ok let's start with something simple. What is the spin of an elementary particle?

>>14540293
>spin(1, 1, 0)
No such thing schizo

>>14540303
>>spin(1, 1, 0)
>No such thing schizo
You are literally retarded if you don't understand what that means. It means all particles of spin 1 will be a permutation of (1,1,0). This is true btw so you are making no sense, schizo

>>14540308
>all particles of spin 1 will be a permutation of (1,1,0)
You're making no sense and should take your meds.

>>14540312
Everything I'm saying is empirically demonstrable and is accepted qm

>>14540263
You don't understand it and we aren't talking about the same thing. Nothing you've said has anything to do with the reality of material or the reality of an external world.

That is why I said for you, the fact particles interact when you don't see them etc proves it is there. Because you are operating from the framework of your character which is relative to the world around it. I'm here, you're somewhere overseas. We are both appearing in existence, and like thoughts we begin and end. I know the way you're thinking and it has nothing at all to do with what I am trying to convey.

>>14540319
>schizo just saw the word free will in some paper and immediately thought it supported his retarded metaphysical position
Quite pathetic

>>14540330
Conway and Kochen specifically proved the theorem in order to derive libertarian free will from fundamental physics.
Or more specifically, they did so in a way that you can not reject free will by deferring to physics as we understand it, or physicalism in general. This is inarguable. I'm sorry this makes you upset.

>>14540335
Blah blah, I'm not interested in what you read about it in some popsci article when you don't even know what spin-1 means and make retarded statements like
>all particles of spin 1 will be a permutation of (1,1,0)

>>14540341
blah blah blah I'm not interested in you arguing about proven and accepted mathematical results because it hurts your fee fees

>>14539543
>Where can it go if it is nothing already?
couldn't it simply change to a non perception state?

>>14540342
As of today, /sci/ reached a new low
>"uhhhhhh spin-1, (1, 1, 0) permutation.... therefore dualism!"

>>14540195
Where?

>>14540348
today anon has a mental breakdown as he has been shown that he can not defer to physics in order to argue against dualism
I'm sorry that this hurts your feelings but it will never change just because you don't like dualism.

>>14540196
How do you know anything pertains to anything? Ask a vague question, get a vague answer.

>>14540349
Read the thread

>>14540212
How so?

>>14540350
Tell me more about these "(1, 1, 0) permutations"

>>14540359
Read the paper that I already linked

>>14540261
>Because of the free will theorem
Which is? How does it prove dualism?

>Yes it does
It doesn't, since QM is non-deterministic but physicalist. You're conflating determinism with materialism.

>>14540362
I want to it hear directly from the schizo's mouth

>>14540368
See >>14540350
"physicalist" has no meaning here and can't be used to argue against dualism via the free will theorem.

>>14540279
>The theory that you are defending directly implies the free will theorem
Which is?

>are you literally denying physicalism, chud?!

>>14540371
Quantum mechanics and special relativity.

You anons lose, btw. This is it. You've been pushed into a corner now where you have to play stupid.

>>14540368
>>14540370
See also >>14540335

>>14540281
Panpsychism is not sensible.

>>14540375
You don't need to reject physicalism.
It's just that it has been proven (as in, you can't argue against it) that you can't use physicalism to argue against libertarian free will.

>>14540389
Oh do please link this magical proof.

>You don't need to reject physicalism.
>In fact, you must accept physicalism because the Big Book of Science says it's true

>>14540392
I already did, schizo.
>>14540141

>>14540344
No it couldn't. Consider how perception works... Look at your hand. Is your hand looking at you, or are you looking at your hand? Watch your thoughts. Are your thoughts watching you or are you watching them? Everything that is anything, is something you are observing.

Nothingness is not in a perceptive or non-perceptive state. The "non-perceptive" state is just the absence of all things (the limited forms you observe). Nothingness can't be in any particular state. It can't be created, or destroyed, it can't begin or end. It can't itself be any quality or state... All of these things come about by way of "things". That nothingness does not ever change at all.

>>14538886
>the dumbest 58% of stoners are infallible
Kek, this is total schizo retardation. Can you even find a worse argument?

>>14540398
BAHAHAHAHA OH MY FUCKIN GOD! NO! You absolute moron! That is a PHYSICS DEFINITION related to other things like "superdeterminism". The terms "determinism" or "free will" and similar jargon in physics and certain other fields has **nothing at fucking all** to do with philosophical free will or determinism.

>Some readers may object to our use of the term “free will” to describe the indeterminism of particle responses.

Oh my God you're retarded this is the funniest shit ever. This is not a proof of your stupid philosophical idea.

>>14540437
See >>14540335
You are having a breakdown right now anon. The point is that it is proven that assuming a monostic ontology, like you are doing, does not actually derive from physics - That is, free will or dualism materialism or monism do not have any special privilege over each other given our understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics.
You can not use physicalism as we understand it to argue that monism is more sensible than dualism.

>>14540448
I mean you can not use physics* as we understand it, sorry.

>>14540448
You really are a special brand of braindead retard.
> It asserts, roughly, that if indeed we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity.

"If"

>More precisely, if the experimenter can freely choose the directions in which to orient his apparatus in a certain measurement, then the particle’s response (to be pedantic—the universe’s response near the particle) is not determined by the entire previous history of the universe.

"If"

I guess just assume things to be true and that's totally fine with you

>>14540466
I'm not assuming anything that you aren't. Which is the point. You do not require fewer assumptions than I do to argue for monism, you have no reason to believe one over the other based on our understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity. This is proven via the free will theorem, and isn't a matter of philosophy, but physics and mathematics.
You've lost.

>>14540448
What mental illness makes you be so sure about things you clearly don't understand?

>>14540472
I am not misunderstanding anything. You're just having a mental breakdown for some reason.

>>14540476
Yes you are, you think "spin 1 particles are permutations of (1, 1, 0)" is a meaningful statement.

A scientist falls asleep. He has a dream of a magnificent castle. He observes the castle and notices the stone blocks it is made from... He wakes up in bed: "Oh, the castle wasn't really made of stone... It was made of brain matter."

Well wakey wakey sucka. Wait until you realize what brain matter is really made of.

>>14540481
Brevity is not a sign of ignorance, and you continuing to say this shows that you have no real argument.
The free will theorem stands, anon. This is the end of it, you have no argument against the free will theorem. Until you raise one, I don't care about your mental breakdown.

>>14540471
Nnnnnope. "Proof" in the axiomatic "assume your conclusion" sense here is not evidence. You're a retard.

Also, retard, induction is ALL the evidence against you. ALL epistemic evidence is against you. That simple. You're just a shitty troll.

>>14540491
Nope. retard, all 3 "axioms" that they assume are already accepted in quantum mechanics and general relativity. They are not assuming anything that isn't already accepted physics, which is why the free will theorem follows directly from understood physics.
There is, quite humorously, no inductive or empirical evidence against what I am saying. All evidence supports what I am saying. It is that simple, you are having a mental breakdown, and nothing Ive said is a troll.

>>14540490
>Brevity is not a sign of ignorance
Lol, sure buddy. Are spin 1/2 particles permutations of (1, 0)?

>>14540495
>Nope. retard, all 3 "axioms" that they assume are already accepted in quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Nope. You really are just retarded. The things assumed using jargon definitions of common words you are misunderstanding are not what you think they are.

You're retarded and refuse to learn, so, fuck off retard.

>>14540496
OMG ARE WE REALLY GOING TO REACH BUMP LIMIT WITH THIS FUCKING FREE WILL BULLSHIT?

It's not even on topic. Jesus.

>>14540501
>Nope. You really are just retarded. The things assumed using jargon definitions of common words you are misunderstanding are not what you think they are.
This is literally not true, and you are not saying anything relevant. You are having a mental breakdown.
The free will theorem is not a misunderstanding of physics, there is no flaw in the proof. It's that simple. You have no argument against it.

>>14540505
Explained why you're a retard, quoted why you're a retard, retard refuses to learn. Go away buddy, nobody's buyin your bullshit but you.

>>14540503
You brought it up schizo (unless you're someone else in which case you had no reason to quote me)

>>14540507
You didn't explain anything, and my "bullshit" is an accepted theorem in physics. I didn't prove the free will theorem, Conway and Kochen did.
You are having a mental breakdown. Point out a flaw in the FREE WILL THEOREM, not in this thread or debate. You can't, because the proof is correct.
You are a retard with no actual argument. Conway and Kochen were not misunderstanding physics nor the philosophical idea of free will or monism when they wrote the proof.
Stop being a retard. No one cares about your mental breakdown

>>14540516
What is accepted in physics is not your misunderstanding. You've been informed of this, and you persist in being retarded. Go away retard. Literal physicists you could check on fucking youtube even would inform you better, you choose to be stupid.

>>14540516
>Conway and Kochen were not misunderstanding physics nor the philosophical idea of free will or monism when they wrote the proof.
You're in no position to claim that since you don't even know what a spin 1 particle is, so there's no way for you to have understood the proof.

>>14540525
Anon I'm not interested in your constant shifting of this conversation.
Conway and Kochen have proven that you can't use physics as we understand it to argue for or against monism or dualism/free will. That's the point, and this remains the case. That's what this is about, it's that simple. You have no argument against this. Stop having a mental breakdown.

>>14540531
Already explained your retarded take was wrong. You don't understand your own source. Fuck off retard.

>>14540511
I don't even know which of you is which. But it's a ridic topic. What is this dude on about, particles with free will... Fucking hell.

>>14540535
>Already explained your retarded take was wrong
No you didn't. You spewed a mental breakdown post (all posts where the writer writes out things like "hahahaha" to show them laughing etc., are just mental breakdowns) and you have yet to show a flaw in the proof.
I am not misunderstanding the proof. Conway and Kochen were not misunderstanding physics or philosophy when they wrote the proof.
It's that simple. Fuck off retard, your posts are nothing but a mental breakdown.

>>14540538
Yep, it is ridiculous. He fundamentally does not understand, refuses to understand, the analogy made has nothing to do with his bullshit. Told him this. He refuses to learn or go find that out, so fuck 'im.

>>14540540
Already explained it, you refuse to learn. Fuck off retard.

>>14540541
>Already explained it, you refuse to learn. Fuck off retard.
You explained something that is not relevant to this conversation.
Nothing in >>14540437 is relevant whatsoever. This is not a matter of me misunderstanding what you're saying. It's a matter of you having a mental breakdown.

Not sure what kinda rastafarian high science you're using but as a general rule, things like anxiety and depression show an increase in metabolic demand with a consequent increase in cerebral blood flow. The anecdotal evidence is probably because of its apparent therapeutic effect on those parameters. Stop deluding yourself, God is as real as a good politician

Conway himself explains himself here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftIllWczf5w
The video is painful in that he goes on a shitload of tangents and displays a general boomer difficulty with technology etc., but the point is that he and kochen were most certainly not misunderstanding qm nor relativity nor philosophical notions of free will when they wrote the theorem.
This is the end of it. Stop having mental breakdowns.

>>14540554
Oh no the issue is with you. You're retarded. You don't know what the words mean and mistakenly think they mean what you want them to mean. Already told you this. You refuse to learn. Fuck off retard.

>>14538953
https://bigthink.com/life/the-medical-mystery-of-a-man-living-with-90-of-his-brain-missing/

>>14540557
No, I understand what the word means.
"free will" in this case means that the state of the spin particle is not defined by the previous state. The free will theorem shows that with this, it is not possible to argue for or against free will, dualism, or monism. It's quite simple.

>>14540298
>If you think any data ever has proven things are physical
Every time the most successful theories are physical, and zero successful theories are nonphysical, that confirms things are physical. You have no argument.

>None of this is relevant or shows that these things are ultimately made of physical "stuff".
It's highly relevant. It's how we know what's real.

>I don't think
Doesn't matter what you think. You have no evidence or justification, just wishful thinking.

>Materialism is usually dualism, because there is something (namely, illusions of phenomenal experience) which in and of themselves are not reducible to it
It's just the brain doing it's thing. Nothing immaterial about it.

>I'm right now walking by the beach. My beach is not a bat's beach.
So? You keep repeating this like it's a problem for materialism. It's not. Different brains view reality differently.

>>14540335
>Conway and Kochen specifically proved the theorem in order to derive libertarian free will from fundamental physics.
Huh? They did the opposite: derived indeterminism from free will. And what they call free will...
>if we have a free will in the sense that our choices are not a function of the past
That's actually hard indeterminism. So assuming indeterminism, they conclude nature is indeterministic. What this has to do with dualism?

>Every time the most successful theories are physical, and zero successful theories are nonphysical, that confirms things are physical.
Why are they like this? How did they become so profoundly retarded? I get that midwits were never smart in the first place, but this is quite a bit below average intelligence...

>>14540560
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/12/does-superdeterminism-save-quantum.html

You have it fucking backward as I already told you. The whole thing starts with "if". Bell was wrong. Also these two idiots are probably wrong.

>>14540563
He doesn't understand indeterminism and thinks it allows inference to his philosophy.

>>14540327
I understand what you're arguing perfectly, you're simply wrong.

>Nothing you've said has anything to do with the reality of material or the reality of an external world.
I know you need to believe that to preserve your worldview, but physics says you're wrong. Get over it.

>That is why I said for you, the fact particles interact when you don't see them etc proves it is there.
It doesn't, the fact that successful models treat particles as there is what proves it. Your beliefs don't even predict anything.

>>14540563
They show that if our choice is not a function of the past, then neither is the state of a particles. Thus free will can be something that exists in certain fundamental particles.
Will, in this case, means that there is a non-physical non-material will that the particle has, which it chooses to move in a way that is inherently non-deterministic and can not be explained physically.
"indeterminism" is actually just the will making a decision in which way to move matter.

>>14540572
> It asserts, roughly, that if indeed we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity.
>if

You're retarded.

>>14540357
I've read the entire thread, nowhere was dualism shown to be true. You're probably conflating dualism with something else, like indeterminism.

>>14540572
>Will, in this case, means that there is a non-physical non-material will that the particle has, which it chooses to move in a way that is inherently non-deterministic and can not be explained physically.
Lmao. And this thing which cannot be explained physically was proved using a theorem of physics?

>>14540561
Smh... NO experiment shows things are physical. There has been ZERO experiments showing physical stuff exists, ZERO evidence ever. It's an ontological assumption.

Do you even understand the difference between what I am proposing to you? Wtf do you think I'm saying? That I'm trying to invalidate newtonian laws or that I go off to heaven to meet God, or that a shotgun to my brain won't kill me? Like come on......

>>14540585
It's called induction. All experiments on everything ever performed always for all time so far have been physical. Inductively, all the evidence is for physicalism.

You have nothing to the contrary. All you have is "deny induction". You're a flat earther.

>>14540568
>Bell was wrong
Into the trash it goes.
>>14540574
The point is there is 0 physical reason (as in, you can not defer to any physics or empirical evidence) to take either the statement or it's inverse as true.
You do not have epistemological privilege assuming that the "if" is not true, any moreso than you can have assuming the "if" is true. You simply say the if to not be true, without any reason, no different than someone who says it is.
You do not have a solid philosophical nor scientific argument against the position.

>>14540575
No, because only certain particles behave this way. Thus dualism is derived simply by delineating the particles based on those with will and those without.

>>14540583
Yes. That is not a contradiction

>>14540571
No. You don't. You definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely don't.

"Physics" is irrelevant to whether or not things are made of physical "stuff". Jesus. What does it mean to treat a particle as if it were "physical"?

Do you know what ontology is? Jesus Christ.

>>14540589
No one is denying induction. You are having a mental breakdown.

>>14540591
>Into the trash it goes.

Willfully ignorant. You're given correction, and you ignore it. Fuck off retard.

>>14540591
>>Bell was wrong
>Into the trash it goes.
In that case, you must believe the deterministic pilot wave theory
>Bell was a proponent of pilot wave theory.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell

>>14540370
>>14540382
That doesn't really explain anything I asked about. I looked it up and the free will theorem says that if experimenters are free to make choices then the outcome of their measurement is not deterministic. The premise is false in a deterministic universe and the conclusion is trivially true in a non-deterministic universe. What does this have to do with dualism? You seem to be conflating dualism with in-determinism.

>>14540599
Then you accept induction and that 100% of all evidence of everything always has been in support of physicalism. The only evidence that exists is for physicalism.

You either deny induction, or you accept all evidence is against your bullshit. Fuck off retard.

>>14540601
Bell's inequality was violated and there is no determinism. The next state of the universe is not defined by the current state.
>>14540602
The other anon is the one who is arguing for determinism.

>>14540607
Gave you a link. Too retarded to read? You illiterate too, fuckwit?

>>14540599
Dude this guy's slow as shit. Go on YouTube and watch actual neuroscientists discuss materialism and the hard problem etc... This guy doesn't even understand experiments don't show things are physical in nature. What a waste of time.

>>14540377
>Quantum mechanics and special relativity.
Both are completely physical and monist.

>>14538886
consciousness is holographic

>>14540605
Nope, because of the free will theorem.
You have literally called John Stewart Bell, John Conway, and Simon Kochen "idiots". This is an insane level of disrespect caused by your mental breakdown.

>>14540607
>The next state of the universe is not defined by the current state.
False. See schrodinger's equation.

>>14538886
>If consciousness is the result of brain activity, you would not expect this result; you would expect the opposite.
Your hidden assumption is that you associate psilocybin use with increased consciousness when it is essentially doing the opposite.
In fact, ego death is all about consciousness dying and resurrecting.

>>14540610
You're a sniveling dogshit moron, with no argument, who has literally called some of the greatest physicists, mathematicians, and computer scientists "idiots" because you are having a mental breakdown.

Your deterministic, mechanistic, monist view of reality, is not true. It is false. I am sorry this makes you sad. But it doesn't matter.

>>14540605
You're legit stupid dude... Lol. Please go on YouTube and watch qualified scientists discuss these things so you at least understand what these propositions entail.

Induction has nothing to do with materialism. Physics has nothing to do with materialism. Neuroscience has nothing to do with materialism.

If you don't understand that, you are legit stupid, not even joking lol.

>>14540485
>"Oh, the castle wasn't really made of stone... It was made of brain matter."
No, the dream was made of brain matter. The castle is an abstraction that doesn't exist. Moron.

>Wait until you realize what brain matter is really made of.
Cells.

>>14540623
No, I called you stupid and if they believed your stupidity they'd be stupid too. They don't. You're just retarded and refuse to read. Gave you a link. Fuck off literate retard.

>>14540572
>They show that if our choice is not a function of the past, then neither is the state of a particles.
In QM future state is a function of the past state. S(t)=U(t)S(0), where U is evolution operator.
>Will, in this case, means that there is a non-physical non-material will that the particle has
What they call free will is mere indeterminism. Yes, if we assume indeterminism, then particles are indeterministic, this is noncontrovercial, but it has nothing to do with free will.

>>14540567
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting everything is physical.

>>14540625
>The castle is an abstraction that doesn't exist.

Abstractions exist. Illusions exist. Phenomenal experiences exist............... Smh.

>>14540630
You're now spoonfeeding him what Sabine Hossenfelder explains, but I guarantee he's willfully illiterate either way. He won't read the blog, and I doubt he'll pay attention to you either. Everyone has tried correcting him for multiple days.

>>14540630
>In QM future state is a function of the past state. S(t)=U(t)S(0), where U is evolution operator.
You can not derive the future state from the past state. You can formalize a wavefunction. This is not the same thing.
>What they call free will is mere indeterminism. Yes, if we assume indeterminism, then particles are indeterministic, this is noncontrovercial, but it has nothing to do with free will.
No, they're not talking about indeterminism in general. They're specifically talking about a will that would apply to only certain particles and not others. Of course this would be indeterministic, but it would not be random/unwilled.

>>14540643
>No, they're not talking about indeterminism in general. They're specifically talking about a will that would apply to only certain particles and not others. Of course this would be indeterministic, but it would not be random/unwilled.

You are literally describing hidden variable theory now. You're arguing superdeterminism instead of what your paper argues. Holy shit.

>>14540643
>You can formalize a wavefunction. This is not the same thing.
Wtf is this retard saying?

>>14540585
>Smh... NO experiment shows things are physical.
Literally every single one has. Where is the experiment showing anything non-physical?

>There has been ZERO experiments showing physical stuff exists
Delusional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

>Do you even understand the difference between what I am proposing to you?
I understand that you're very confused and don't understand what physical means. It just means pertaining to physics.

>>14540647
No, superdeterminism argues that the next state of the universe is entirely defined by the previous state.
I am saying that if a particle chooses to go one way or the other, this is not determined by any deterministic mechanism.

>>14540648
I am saying that the next state of the universe is not defined by the previous state. The evolutionary operator is a formalism that does not actually give you the next state of the universe.

There are actually stupid people here. It's not even funny. If you watch serious people with phds etc discuss these matters, they don't ever come out with the bullshit these actual dumb people do... There is some idiot on here who defines physical as "something that exists", srs. I can't believe this is meant to be a board for smart people.

>>14540648
He uses words he doesn't understand to make himself sound smarter.

>>14540654
>I am saying that if a particle chooses to go one way or the other, this is not determined by any deterministic mechanism.

Are those choices determined or random? If they're random, they're not choices. If they're determined by the reasons, they're determined.

You have put zero thought into this at all.

>>14540660
>Are those choices determined or random? If they're random, they're not choices. If they're determined by the reasons, they're determined.
No, retard. Lack of determinism does not imply randomness, it just implies that it is not deterministic. You not understanding this very clear difference is your own fault.
The particles does not randomly go one way or the other, nor is it deterministically forced to go one way or the other. It wills itself and chooses to go one way or the other. There is no contradiction here.

>>14539518
cringe and reddit-pilled. Materialism is absolutely metaphysics.

>>14540593
>"Physics" is irrelevant to whether or not things are made of physical "stuff".
That's exactly what I knew you would say, and it's batshit insane.

>What does it mean to treat a particle as if it were "physical"?
Where do you see that phrase? I said "treat particles as there." Particles are a physical theory.

>>14540658
>The evolutionary operator is a formalism that does not actually give you the next state of the universe.
Then what does it give you you fucking retard?

>>14540653
Legit baka... So this entire fucking time you've not had a clue that materialism is an ontological position and that is has nothing to do with physics.

And we've been discussing things on the basis that it means something pertaining to physics.

Unfuckingbelievable. Waste of time.

>>14540659
They are having mental breakdowns.

>>14540665
>Lack of determinism does not imply randomness, it just implies that it is not deterministic.

If they are not determined by something, they are random. That's a true dichotomy. You're violating the law of excluded middle. "Not deterministic" literally means "random".

>>14540674
A mathematical formalism that does not deterministically describe observed phenomena.

>>14540637
>Abstractions exist.
No, they're abstract.

>Illusions exist.
Yes. You're confusing what an illusion *is of* with what *it is.* An illusion of a castle is a physical brain state. The castle itself is an abstraction and doesn't exist.

>>14540678
"law of the excluded middle" is not actually a law that is necessary. The entire field of constructive mathematics and computer science are built without the law of the excluded middle.
You don't even understand mathematics or logic dude holy shit.

>>14540643
>You can formalize a wavefunction. This is not the same thing.
Wavefunction contains all information about the system. That's literally state.
>They're specifically talking about a will that would apply to only certain particles and not others.
Doesn't it mean nonrandom particles will violate the Schrodinger equation?

>>14540688
>Wavefunction contains all information about the system. That's literally state.
And it can't be used to predict the next state of the system.
>Doesn't it mean nonrandom particles will violate the Schrodinger equation?
Something being non-deterministic does not mean it is random.

>>14540680
Why don't you have a nobel prize for violating the schrodinger equation then?

>>14540686
>"law of the excluded middle" is not actually a law that is necessary.

Confirmed retarded.

>The entire field of constructive mathematics and computer science are built without the law of the excluded middle.

Pants on head retarded. Holy fucking shit this is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

>>14540670
See >>14539518

>>14540685
You've wasted people's time. I'm sorry but you have. Go on YouTube, find qualified scientists with phds, and watch them discuss the hard problem etc.

They disagree with me, but they at least understand. Please just watch them.

>>14540697
You literally do not know anything about mathematics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)

Rejecting the law of the excluded middle does not matter for mathematics or computer science, and is not used in, for example, algebraic geometry. You don't know what you're talking about.

>>14540680
That's inconsistent with experiments due to basis invariance.

>>14540692
I am not violating the schrodinger equation.

>>14540675
>So this entire fucking time you've not had a clue that materialism is an ontological position and that is has nothing to do with physics.
It has everything to do with physics, since physics confirms materialism is true over and over again. Let me know when you get evidence of anything non-physical. Until then, shut the fuck up.

>And we've been discussing things on the basis that it means something pertaining to physics.
>There has been ZERO experiments showing physical stuff exists
So you're literally arguing physicists don't show physics is real. It's what the do every day. You're delusional.

>>14540691
>And it can't be used to predict the next state of the system.
The Schrodinger equation does exactly that, predicts the next state from the past state.
>Something being non-deterministic does not mean it is random.
So it is nonrandom, nonrandom behavior violates the Schrodinger equation (or Born rule), right?

>>14540705
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>>14540729
>The Schrodinger equation does exactly that, predicts the next state from the past state.
No, it gives a probability distribution for finding the particle in some location.
>So it is nonrandom, nonrandom behavior violates the Schrodinger equation (or Born rule), right?
Determinism, indeterminism, and randomness are all different things.

>>14540735
You literally do not even know mathematics dude. You proved this with your lack of understanding of constructivism.

>>14540722
Dude how old are you? Please watch intelligent people discuss this matter. You're wasting everyone's time, you don't understand these positions at all.

You can go on YouTube right now and find some great neuroscientists discuss this issue. Physicists too. I mean whatever floats your boat. But rn you actually don't understand any of these positions and are just wasting people's time.

>>14540735
Yeah legit, if physics works it means matter is physical in nature. You're really clever bro. Keep doing you.

>>14540709
Pure projection considering it's necessary for both, and so fundamental it is one of the three laws of thought. You're just retarded. Literally your own cited page explains this, and your own cited page clearly explains a paradox is not proof of the contrary in spite of EQUALLY retarded claims.

fuck off retard

>>14540761
You literally do not know what you're talking about. I actually have a degree in mathematics and theoretical computer science.
The law of the excluded middle is not required for proving most theorems in mathematics, it is not used in any constructivist theory. This is literally not controversial
You don't know what you're talking about dipshit.

>>14540737
>No, it gives a probability distribution for finding the particle in some location.
That's not what state is. The state of the system is not defined in terms finding. The state exists on its own without any finding necessary.
>>So it is nonrandom, nonrandom behavior violates the Schrodinger equation (or Born rule), right?
>Determinism, indeterminism, and randomness are all different things.
You don't contradict me. Them being different means their difference is measurable, thus nonrandom measurably diverge from laws of physics.

>>14540774
>That's not what state is. The state of the system is not defined in terms finding. The state exists on its own without any finding necessary.
Not a real thing. Find where the particle is and tell me before running the experiment, or you can not predict the next state of the system.

>>14540742
>You literally do not even know mathematics dude.
??? What mathematics were we even discussing BRO? You can't even keep track of who you're arguing with BRUH.

>>14540781
The fact that that retard made a claim that either determinism or randomness must be true because of "the law of the excluded middle" despite LEM not being a real law

>>14540744
See >>14540735

>>14540756
Yes, that's literally the only way we can determine what's real. Keep living in your delusions.

>>14540795
You've been disproven multiple times ITT dave

>>14540769
WHAT A COINKIDINK! SO AM I!

Note how on the pages you linked it includes particular mention of theorems and refutations, regarding paradoxes, and inability to prove things, like I fucking said?

FUCK OFF retard

>>14540776
All such experiments will suggest that state exists in a definite form described by the Schrodinger equation without any observation necessary, and observation is consistent with the Schrodinger equation. The way to check objectivity of the state is to do different observations on the same state - their results are determined by the whole wavefunction and not by anything else, this means that behavior of the system in any circumstances is determined by wavefunction. This means wavefunction is objective state of the system, that exists on its own with and without observation in the same way.

>>14540784
Not me. Read the chain of replies before replying. If you want to talk about determinism, respond to >>14540604

>>14540804
Maybe you should actually learn mathematics you absolute moron. Almost every proof has a constructivist conversion that does not require LEM. The few proofs that do (like every vector space having a basis) are simply not considered construtively valid.
LEM is not required to do mathematics and you can not defer to it in this philosophical conversation about determinism vs randomness vs indeterminism.
You are really bad at this btw

>>14540809
It IS required to prove things without paradoxes, and as noted ON THE SAME PAGE paradoxes do not imply a third option either. You are philosophically, mathematically, retarded.

>>14540604
The point is that you have to assume that the experimenter is deterministically forced into making a choice without evidence. I've explained this already.
The point of the theorem is that you can not defer to our understanding of physics to rule against free will or for it, thus you do not have any scientifically privileged position to argue for or against determinism, free will, etc.
You saying "reality is deterministic and there is no free will" is just as much a matter of faith and unprovable opinion as saying "reality is non-deterministic and there is free will".

>>14540812
Go learn math you genuine fucking moron. Constructivist mathematics is a well formed branch of mathematics. You literally do not know what you're talking about.

>>14540818
You know so little about what you're talking about you are contradicted by your own (frankly fucking ridiculous) use of wikipedia.

>>14540819
Anon, you literally have never done math.
I actually have had to work through constructist classes where I had to prove things without relying on contradiction or the LEM.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't understand math, you don't understand logic, you don't understand physics. You are most likely a philosopher student who hasn't actually had to do these things.

>>14540591
>No, because only certain particles behave this way. Thus dualism is derived simply by delineating the particles based on those with will and those without.
It's not will, you retard, it's indeterminism. As I already said, this theorem shows nothing Bell didn't already prove.

https://www.ams.org/notices/201011/rtx101101451p.pdf

And it shows nothing about dualism. You're conflating indeterminism with dualism. QM is physical.

>>14540801
Where?

>inb4 he never actually shows a single example

>>14540830
Here >>14540817

>>14540825
"indeterminism" is will. You have to artificially decide that it isn't, which requires just as many assumptions as artificially deciding it is.
This is the whole point of this you dogshit morons. You deciding that it is "indeterministic and not willed" is just as much an assumption as it being "indeterministic and willed", which is what Conway and Kochen were trying to do.
You can't hide behind notions of indeterminism or physics to argue for or against free will. THAT is what the theorem proves. This entire thread is you anons frothing at the mouth about this despite not disproving it.

>>14540817
>The point of the theorem is that you can not defer to our understanding of physics to rule against free will or for it
That's not what the theorem proves. Systems with and without free will will behave differently, so physics would differentiate between them.

>>14540849
Which is decided via spin-1 particles being those with will/those in which the will influences, and other particles not having will. That's the dualism, as again I have already explained in this thread.

>>14540817
>The point is that you have to assume that the experimenter is deterministically forced into making a choice without evidence.
No I don't. Either the universe is deterministic or the conclusion is trivially true since QM is not deterministic. This is just the same thing that Bell's theorem says. It's old hat and doesn't say a thing about dualism.

>The point of the theorem is that you can not defer to our understanding of physics to rule against free will or for it
No, it says if you assume "free will," which means experimenter independence, then there are indeterministic particles. QM already said that and is completely physical.

>You saying "reality is deterministic and there is no free will"
I didn't say that, I said the premise is false in a deterministic universe. In a non-deterministic universe, the premise is trivially true. Neither site anything nonphysical exists or say anything about dualism.

>>14540839
>which is what Conway and Kochen were trying to do
They only derive indterminism from assumption of indeterminism, it's literally formulation of the theorem.

>>14540833
Wrong and doesn't even argue against what I said. See >>14540865

Try again. Also, I like how you had to link to a post that only existed after you made the claim I was disproved multiple times. LOL.

>>14540865
>>14540869
The dualism is derived by them showing which particles are willed and which arent. Thus we have a dualism, there is unwilled matter and there is willed matter, whatever the will is can not be reduced to the matter or vice versa as they are not in one to one correspondence.

>>14540856
But since physics differentiates between them, then physics can tell if systems have free will or not. And if physics tells systems have no libertarian free will, then systems have no libertarian free will. Physics decides.

>>14540876
Us humans differentiating between things using our models of what we call physics doesn't mean that some entity called "physics" is deciding anything.

>>14540875
Nature doesn't work that way, physics proves it.

>>14540893
Except it's the exact opposite, sorry you're wrong

>>14540873
He obviously replied to the wrong person. Fucking hell. Fucking special ed tier board.

>>14540839
>"indeterminism" is will.
No. If your actions were random then that wouldn't be will, since you have no conscious control over them, but they would be indeterministic. Just like particles emitting radiation randomly. They don't will the emmission. Free will in this context just means that there is no causal relation between past and present. That describes a random process. You're literally arguing based on faulty semantics.

>This entire thread is you anons frothing at the mouth about this despite not disproving it.
Nothing in this thread has anything to do with free will until you started posting your nonsense. Moron.

>>14540894
It doesn't, you can't make nature work your way by merely assuming dualism. You confuse your fantasy with reality.

>>14540900
Randomness =/= indetermism as has already been explained multiple times.
The motion is indeterministic, not random. It is willed, and can not be derived from material mechanistic principles, because it is not material or physical.
I have explained all of this multiple times.
>Nothing in this thread has anything to do with free will until you started posting your nonsense. Moron.
Yes it does, I have very clearly explained everything. You morons are just mad that monism is provably false.

>>14540901
It does, you are not understanding what is being explained.

>>14540907
WTF? You don't know how theorems work? What is being explained? The theorem doesn't prove free will, free will there is precondition of the theorem, not conclusion.

>>14540875
>The dualism is derived by them showing which particles are willed and which arent.
QM says certain processes are random. That's what the "free will" theorem refers to, not will. Your nonsense was just conflation of terms from the beginning.

>>14540918
The theorem derives a differentiation between the particles that would have will and that wouldn't. This is not the same as randomness, as all the particles are random, but only some have will.
>>14540921
Nope, this has been explained already. Randomness is not the same as indeterminism.

>>14540924
And that differentiation doesn't exist in nature due to absence of libertarian free will.

>>14540937
Nope. Sorry, but you simply saying there is no libertarian free will doesn't work, as has already been explained.

Monism has literally been irrevocably beaten the fuck out in this thread holy shit, never thought I'd see it

>>14540899
>replied to the wrong person
>then referred to a post replying to the same wrong person, made after the claim that the the right person was disproved, that doesn't show the wrong person was disproved
Sure, retard.

>>14540962
It was answered here >>14540875

>>14540904
>Randomness =/= indetermism as has already been explained multiple times.
Where?

QM days nothing about "will," is just probabilistic.

>The motion is indeterministic, not random.
What motion?

>>14540924
>Nope, this has been explained already.
Where?

>Randomness is not the same as indeterminism.
It is in QM.

>>14540959
Where?

>>14541026
What do you mean "where"? I have explained it multiple times, something being non-deterministic does not mean it is random, it just means it does not derive from a mechanistic material causal chain.
Why do you keep playing stupid like asking "where" or "when" when all of this is very easily found in this thread and I have already explained it all multiple times?
>QM days nothing about "will," is just probabilistic.
Yes it does, via the free will theorem. Spin 1 particles are not random, they are willed - thus they are non-determinstic under a material metaphysics (what we would call the laws of quantum mechanics) but they are not random. All other particles are random, neither willed nor deterministic. This is where the dualism is derived. There exists a thing called "will" that is not material or mechanistic, that moves spin-1 particles, but not any other particle. Thus the will is not in one-to-one correspondence with matter, and neither matter nor will are derivable from each other. Therefore, there is a dualism (the dualism of will and matter).

>>14541046
>It is in QM.
No it isn't, via the free will theorem.

>>14540966
What was answered? The wrong person?

See >>14540921

>>14541104
See >>14541049

>>14541049
>What do you mean "where"? I have explained it multiple times, something being non-deterministic does not mean it is random, it just means it does not derive from a mechanistic material causal chain.
In QM it means random. What specifically is nondeterministic and nonrandom?

>Why do you keep playing stupid like asking "where" or "when" when all of this is very easily found in this thread
I've read the entire thread, all you do is assert this with no explanation.

>Spin 1 particles are not random, they are willed
That's not what the theorem says. It says nondeterministic, which in QM means random. The free will theorem says nothing different from Bell's theorem. You're just confused because you think "free will" is about will when it's actually just about the independence of measurements. It's just jargon.

>>14541052
>No it isn't, via the free will theorem.
The free will theorem doesn't say anything about will. It's just Bell's theorem written in a different way.

>>14541112
See >>14541115

>>14541115
>I've read the entire thread, all you do is assert this with no explanation.
He can't explain. Every time he cites some other bogus reference he's wrong about, people call him out. As a result, he has to lie about the contents, pretend it says something other than what it says, etc.

I am 100% convinced this is a troll. If he's genuinely this stupid he's too narcissistic to understand he doesn't understand anything he's talking about.

>>14541115
>In QM it means random. What specifically is nondeterministic and nonrandom?
Indeterminism is not deterministic but is not random. It is not the case that there is only determinism or randomness with no in-between (this is what that other anon got angry about, not realizing that LEM is not a valid law of logic)
>I've read the entire thread, all you do is assert this with no explanation.
I have given explanation multiple times.
>That's not what the theorem says. It says nondeterministic, which in QM means random. The free will theorem says nothing different from Bell's theorem. You're just confused because you think "free will" is about will when it's actually just about the independence of measurements. It's just jargon.
No, in this case random does not mean non-deterministic. That's the point of the theorem and what separates it from bells theorem. They are drawing a separation between which particles have will and which are entirely random.

>>14541121
This is not what is happening, stop having a mental breakdown. I have explained it, very clearly, multiple times.
You are genuinely retarded btw, it's very clear from your posts

For you anons that don't understand the difference between randomness and indeterminism, and thing that there can ONLY be either determinism or randomness because of the LEM, literally just learn algebraic geometry, or synthetic differential geometry. Synthetic differently geometry literally proves the negation of LEM, and topos theory does not accept LEM.
The LEM is not the same as the law of non contradiction. Law of non-contradiction states that A and Not A can not both be true. This is constructively valid. LEM says that either A or not A is true. This is not constructively valid. It is not the case that either A or not A must be true. Sometimes neither are true. This is rejection of LEM, and is entirely valid mathematically and logically.

>>14541123
>Indeterminism is not deterministic but is not random.
You keep repeating this with no explanation or even one example. I can only conclude that you have no clue what you're talking about. Here, educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

>I have given explanation multiple times.
Then it should be trivial to link to any of them. But for some reason you refuse.

>That's the point of the theorem and what separates it from bells theorem.
It's not. Can you find any of the authors stating this?

The theorem doesn't even apply to non- deterministic systems and says nothing that Bell's theorem didn't already say about deterministic systems: https://www.ams.org/notices/201011/rtx101101451p.pdf

>>14541144
>there can ONLY be either determinism or randomness because of the LEM
There can only be determinism or randomness because randomness follows directly from indeterminism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

>>14541153
The point is that you saying quantum indeterminacy is "just random" is not privileged over saying that the indeterminacy is willed in the case of spin-1 particles. You do not have any scientifically privileged position to say this via the free will theorem.
I have said this multiple times now. The rest of your post is irrelevant due to this.

>>14541165
>The point is that you saying quantum indeterminacy is "just random" is not privileged over saying that the indeterminacy is willed in the case of spin-1 particles.
It's privileged by the fact that there is no such thing as "willed particles" in the conclusion of the free will theorem or QM in general. The conclusion simply states that measurements of some particles are indeterminate. You just made up the concept of "willed particless" by conflating independent measurements with will. I think we're done here.

>>14541170
>It's privileged by the fact that there is no such thing as "willed particles" in the conclusion of the free will theorem
Yes there is. That is the point of the free will theorem.
I didn't make up the concept, it's what Conway and Kochen are specifically arguing for when they wrote the theorem. I already linked to a video up thread of Conway explicitly stating this.

>>14541170
>>14541174
It's very simple
You state
>they are indeterminate but not willed
Conway states
>they are indeterminate and willed
Neither of you have any scientific evidence to support one conclusion over the other.
It is that simple. Stop having an aneurysm about this. You can not hide behind physics to argue against free will or for determinism.

https://youtu.be/UWWjaGOqKhg?t=732
Literally right out of the horses mouth:
>"The free decisions taken by particles can not be explained by random numbers".
Now you can say that he doesn't understand his own argument or reasoning, but I don't see why you would think that.

>>14541164
Wrong.
Quantum Indeterminacy does not imply true randomness and no-will

>>14540620

it associated with increased awareness and richness, to the point that majority of those studied put the experience as a top 5 most memorable of their lives.

Consciousness does not "die" with ego death. An aspect of your awareness does dissipate -- the idea of the self and identity that continues through time.

However, what it is like to be does not 'die', which you state.

>>14541174
>That is the point of the free will theorem
The free will theorem says nothing about "willed particles." You must made them up.

>it's what Conway and Kochen are specifically arguing for when they wrote the theorem
Where?

>>14541214
>>"The free decisions taken by particles can not be explained by random numbers".
He's talking about converting a stochastic model into a deterministic one in order to make the free will theorem apply to stochastic models. That argument was shown to be false: https://www.ams.org/notices/201011/rtx101101451p.pdf

Anything else? I think we're done here.