/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5175139
The term "consciousness" is meaningless to science. It refers to a metaphysical entity, which cannot be tested or observed.

>>5175147
Don't say that. I'm a neuroscientist. 'Consciousness' isn't a meaningless term to us.

>>5175208
You are clearly not a serious neuroscientist. Serious neuroscientists avoid metaphysical vocabulary. If you are one of those who mix up untestable philosophy with scientific research and make up unjustified and arbitrary conclusions, then you are the cancer of neuroscience. Those religion and philosophy fags abusing neuroscience are the reason why the field has a bad reputation.

>>5175139 scientific theories or at least a hypothesis which place consciousness outside the physical realm.

Science by its very definition does not deal with anything non-physical. There are no scientific theories about non-physical minds or anything else and there never can be.

>>5175147
I'm pretty sure whether someone is awake or asleep is within the scope of science.

>>5175208
>>5175208

I was thinking of getting into this field, would a split major of psychology and biology be my best choice? (im from canada, our university system is a bit different)

If you're talking about the brains... well... self-assessment systems, then that's not only firmly within the realm of the physical, we also have a basic understanding of it.

If you're talking about the subjective experience of having a perspective, well, I don't know. I don't even know a good way to construct the question, never mind try to find the answer.

>>5175213
No, science by its very definition deals only with testable claims. If you have a testable claim about a non-physical thing, then we can do science on it.

"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!" - Girl Genius Webcomics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

>>5175223
If something is testable it is physical.

>>5175217
Except that's called "sleep" and has nothing to do with OP's question.

>>5175230
Then your claim that "science only works on physical stuff" is tautological and useless in context.

>>5175139
how does the Holographic principle have anything to do with consciousness?

>>5175211
Haha. Joking, man. Don't be mad. I work on 'neuromechanics' research, that personality stuff isn't my thing. But I've saw people working on something like that before.

>>5175218
I'm not sure about that. At least in my country, we have the 'neuroscience grade'. You do 3 years of Science and Technology (Math, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, and more) then you start the neuroscience course, for 1 year. But, befor that, people used to do medicine, then neurology here.

>>5175236
It doesn't. OP is an obvious troll.

>>5175233
Can you give me an example of something scientifically testable that is non-physical?

>>5175244
No, because you defined physical to be equivalent to "testable", thus your claim is tautological.

In psychology, consciousness is a level of awareness towards the environment. A surgeon is highly conscious when he operates, you are midly conscious when you walk home from work or have your head in the clouds, and are low conscious when in coma or sleeping.

>>5175257
Which is still entirely meaningless because not testable. Serious psychological research deals with observable behaviour.

>>5175262
Protip: self reported feedback is observable.

So is the various tests for stuff like synethesia.

>>5175262
Not testable yet. Think about anything...

I'm pretty sure you are 'hearing a voice very similar to your own voice'. But from whom is that voice?

You can't test something like that, but you can't deny that there is.

>>5175262
EEGs give testable results. IRMf give testable results. Self-reported data too. There still a long way to go, but we are able to observe some activites of the brain

>>5175272
He's not denying it, he's saying it's unscientific, two entirely different terms. I disagree that it is untestable though, just difficult and inaccurate.

Consciousness is to be dealt with philosophically, not physically/scientifically.

>>5175266
Self reported feedback doesn't prove the existence of metaphysical phenomena.

>>5175272
I'm alone in my room and I'm not talking, so I'm not hearing any voices right now.

>>5175281
Do you even know what we're talking about? No physical methods can prove the existence of unobservable metaphysics.

>>5175208
There's a difference between brain functions and consciousness. Consciousness is a philosophical topic; brain functions are a scientific topic.

>>5175262

Psychology progressed beyond that point after everyone started ignoring behaviorists in the 1960's.

Neuroscience has recently opened a lot of doors when it comes to stuff that can't be observed in psychology, like emotion and dreams.

Here is a question then, can a universe exist without an observer?

>>5175306

What would you call unobservable metaphysics?

>>5175313
Bullshit. Pseudoscientists, spiritualists, religionfags and wannabe philosophers abuse the fuck out of neuroscience. None of their arbitrary intepretations is scientifically justified.

>>5175322
The term is self-explanatory.

>>5175328

I would like to know what you think neuroscientists study, in that case.

>The term is self-explanatory.

No, it isn't. It could cover anything, depending on who was saying it. I mean give us an example of something in psychology, which you believe is metaphysical pseudoscience, and which is not commonly believed (at least by researchers) to be metaphysical pseudoscience.

>>5175306
Consciousness in psychology isn't a metaphysical concept. It is the level of awareness, which can be observable, of a person towards his environment. If you want to give it a metaphysical definition, fine, but don't use your definition and substitute it to others.

Do you even know what physical is? Quantum mechanic's understanding of "physical" is very much "un"physical if you compare it to classical mechanics understanding of physical and ofcourse the general public's understanding of physical. The feeling and the seeing of physical is nothing more than an illusion created by the electrical forces and light waves.

>>5175334

>metaphysical pseudoscience

This was the term as I recalled it from memory. The term you actually used was "unobservable metaphysics," and I would like to post this correction for the sake of avoiding arguments over semantics.

Is the universe self contained, meaning all information and function of the universe exists within the universe?

Or is this information contained outside of the universe?

For example imagine a 3d game, the user experiences the 3d world but does not see the code that runs this game, The user can take measurements and create theories to figure out how the world works, and they might get very close to understanding some fundamental principles. But no matter what they do, they will not be able to fully know the exact source code of the game. Unless they go beyond the game, possibly find the original author or a way to de-compile the game.

So physics exist within the reailty of this universe as a consequence of the engine, the code or formulas are located outside. I think science is the best method to get a somewhat accurate understanding but we will never really know unless it's possible to view this system from outside, but that appears to be impossible.

Nope.

The scientific method only applies to shit that has observable results and can be repeated by other scientists.

>>5175348
In other words you're asking if we can code a code inside a game which analyzes the game itself? The answer is probably yes.

>>5175353
But what do you mean by observable results?

Observable to the physical eye or understandable by the mind?

>>5175354
Not if the game is limited, so it depends how complex the original game is and how much space you have.

>>5175353
So scientific method is basically esoteric? Only scientists can do it? I knew science was becoming more and more religious like, just didnt have any one openly admiting it.

>>5175236
It places all matter outside the initial containment of the universe, including consciousness.

>>5175362
What if the game is limited to only 2 states, 0 and 1? Can we even make something so complex that can be used to simulate the reality? Ofcourse it can. No amount of simplicity can limit complex behaviors. Even only 1 state or 0 state have potential make complex things. Read up on set theory

>>5175368
Your assuming each game is unlimited in space, if you have 2 states and and 2 bits of data. What can you make?

>>5175388
Unlimited is relative. There are unlimited numbers between 0-1 as well as one between 0-infinity.

>>5175401
you just defined 2 states, there are no other states in between or anything only 2, on and off.

With 2 bits of data you can do.

00
01
11
10

4 possible positions.

nothing else, good luck trying to figure out how the system works. Not only can you not make anything but an observer cannot even exist in such a simple system only outside.

>>5175334
>I would like to know what you think neuroscientists study, in that case.
The brain and its functions.

>>5175336
>which can be observable
Obviously not.