/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11435370]

Is consciousness an inwardly projected "hologram" by a specific configuration of atoms unique to each being?

[Anonymous No.11435373]

>>11435370
No

[Anonymous No.11435379]

>>11435370
back to /r/holofractal

[Anonymous No.11435380]

>>11435370
There is no way to work out how consciousness arises from atoms or matter. Matter arises in consciousness, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.11435387]

>>11435370
At the moment I think the most cynical but likely answer is that it's a side effect of having such a powerful brain.

[Anonymous No.11435389]

>>11435380
>hurr durr me special, me philosophy is so smort, my thoughts create particles, hurr durr

[Anonymous No.11435411]

>>11435370
what does that mean you dumbass nigger? if you thought about it for 2 seconds you would realize that what you're saying makes absofruitly no sense.

[Anonymous No.11435417]

>>11435370
>Is consciousness an inwardly projected "hologram" by a specific configuration of atoms unique to each being?
define "consciousness"

[Anonymous No.11435421]

>>11435411
>nigger
Why the racism?

[Anonymous No.11435433]

>>11435417
Not that anon, but where qualia is experienced

[Anonymous No.11435435]

>>11435421
i see no racism

[Anonymous No.11435439]

>>11435433
>where qualia is experienced
the electrical signals passing through neurons in a hot soup of chemicals

[Anonymous No.11435474]

>>11435389
Why did this post trigger you so much?

[Anonymous No.11435480]

>>11435474
did it?

[Anonymous No.11435486]

>>11435421
there's no racism.
why the retardism?
get out newfagism

[Anonymous No.11435496]

>>11435486
why the ismism?

[Anonymous No.11435498]

>>11435411
>you're saying
But my mouth is not moving and I'm not saying anything. Take your meds, anon.

[Anonymous No.11435499]

>>11435421
NIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGER

[Anonymous No.11435505]

>>11435370
No. That line of faulty thinking is called Cartesian theater (pic related). It's wrong because it tries to explain "I'm watching stuff" for example in terms of some inner viewing party watching what you're watching, which leads to an infinite regress of explaining what makes that viewer able to watch something and what makes that viewer's inner viewer able to watch something etc.
Real explanation is that the *belief* you're "experiencing" something is a useful fiction that gets you behaving in ways you wouldn't have otherwise e.g. people with blindsight (cortical blindness) have working eyes but don't have this extra layer of behaving around the concept of an "experience" for what they're seeing. So they'll avoid an obstacle you put in their path like a garbage can or a basketball but they won't know why they moved out of the way and won't be able to do more complicated higher level visual tasks like working as an air traffic controller.

[Anonymous No.11435510]

>>11435505
this is interesting but wreaks of philosophy..,
>>>/his/ is that way

[Anonymous No.11435520]

>>11435505
there is literally nothing wrong with the cartesian theater or an infinite regress, that's basically just saying that consciousness is an infinite loop.

[Anonymous No.11435534]

>>11435505
I don't believe in the Cartesian theater or find it to be an insufficient explanation for a complex system or systems. What I meant was either a metaprocess that is the sum of all its parts, or a series of subroutines manifesting as what we call consciousness yet technically being an illusion, i.e. it does not exist.

[Anonymous No.11435542]

>>11435520
>>11435534
can we stop with the jargon circle-jerk and just agree that "consciousness" is just what happens when DNA manages to arrange a bunch of other particles into an elaborate structure evolved to process sensory information?

TLDR: consciousness, a complex structure, arises from genetics just like other complex structures in biological systems do

[Anonymous No.11435555]

>>11435505
>the *belief* you're "experiencing" something
personally i am experiencing something, and it doesn't work to say i only think i am experiencing something because that delusion would in itself create what you're believing. so you've created a logical paradox by attempting to compartmentalize the fact that consciousness is a real thing that exists.

[Anonymous No.11435556]

>>11435542
>can we stop with the jargon circle-jerk and just agree that "consciousness" is just what happens when DNA
no

[Anonymous No.11435558]

>>11435556
tell me then, are cats (domestic felines) conscious?

[Anonymous No.11435561]

>>11435558
i assume animals are. but there's a chance it's just me.

[Anonymous No.11435565]

>>11435561
great logic there anon. either a bunch of animals are conscious or you are the only person in the universe with consciousness. totally a great conclusion to draw from your ebin philosophy course

[Anonymous No.11435570]

>>11435565
then say whats wrong or what else we can logically conclude instead of writing a whining comment
>GrEaTT LugIIIIGCk UGH! so dum!
oh you didn't actually have anything to say, i see

[Anonymous No.11435571]

>>11435565
>totally a great conclusion to draw from your ebin philosophy course
Philosophy courses focus on less pseudoscientific topics than "consciousness".

[Anonymous No.11435573]

>>11435570
what i have to say is that if solipsism is true, then you can safely disregard what i have to say. and your philosophy professor too. and all your favorite solipsistic philosophers too. so then you can just think whatever you want since you’re the only conscious person ever. in other words, schizophrenia is good.

my counter argument is that you should stop being a selfish cunt and start respecting that objective truths exist. math and science stand as objective examples

[Anonymous No.11435574]

>>11435558
Why wouldn’t they be? Just because they don’t have philosophy classes doesn’t mean they don’t have consciousness

[Anonymous No.11435575]

Can we all just admit that “consciousness” is just pseud speak for a hypothetically scientifically verifiable soul?

[Anonymous No.11435581]

>>11435575
Based /his/ Chad

[Anonymous No.11435585]

>>11435520
What's wrong with it is it tries to explain something in terms of itself, like saying "an apple is an apple because it has apple-ness."
>>11435542
>just agree that "consciousness" is just what happens when
I don't think there's a literal "consciousness" thing that appears to people, which is what this epiphenomenon argument is ultimately predicated on. The explanation that makes sense as far as I'm concerned is that we believe an "experience" occurs even though it's a false belief because it's a false belief that ties to real world things like light hitting the eyes or sound moving the ears and provides a handy reference point object (the "experience") we can behave around.
>>11435555
>personally i am experiencing something,
You have no way of knowing the difference between literally having an "experience" vs. just being under the influence of a false belief that such an "experience" exists. If an artificial organism were constructed to behave in accordance with propositions that different "experiences" were happening whenever its camera eyes or receiver ears were picking up the relevant sorts of stimuli it was set up to have responsiveness to it could also insist "personally I am experiencing something."
Really comes down to which is more plausible?:
A) The universe is fundamentally structured around some extra-physical "experience" force that exists beyond what can be accounted for objectively or
B) There isn't a limitation preventing the brain from working with false but useful beliefs
Personally I will pick B every time and it's not even close.

[Anonymous No.11435591]

>>11435585
>What's wrong with it is it tries to explain something in terms of itself, like saying "an apple is an apple because it has apple-ness."
nothing wrong with recursive definitions

[Anonymous No.11435596]

>>11435573
if you read my post, you utter retard. then you'd see the very first thing i wrote was "i assume animals are [conscious]"

also you're not really making coherent sense here or answering directly and you're making a hell of a lot of assumptions. please just stop replying to me, emotional brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11435603]

>>11435596
you said this:
> i assume animals are. but there's a chance it's just me.
you see how your second sentence is a reference to solipsism? that’s why i addressed that

if you are willing to hop on the slippery slope of “animals are conscious” then you quickly lose. if animals are conscious, then why aren’t bacteria or viruses or molecules or atoms or elementary particles? clearly the answer is that none of them have any fundamental consciousness and that consciousness is an emergent property that only arises in large organized systems of the fundamental constituents. so it is not a fundamental thing.

i am sure you cannot follow but feel free to try to clarify, maybe we will get there

[Anonymous No.11435611]

>>11435585
>You have no way of knowing the difference between literally having an "experience" vs. just being under the influence of a false belief that such an "experience" exists.
It is the same thing. Unless you're talking about a computer or "chinese room". What you're talking about is a paradox as I wrote in my previous post.
Have you considered your own experience of the world? Or are you an NPC? More likely intellectually inferior and rationalizing/compartmentalizing something you don't understand.

[Anonymous No.11435614]

>>11435603
>if animals are conscious, then why aren’t bacteria or viruses or molecules or atoms or elementary particles?
First of all there’s a world of middle ground between “animals are conscious” and “particles are conscious”

Second of all, how do we know they’re not?

[Anonymous No.11435620]

>>11435614
>there’s a world of middle ground between “animals are conscious” and “particles are conscious”
the problem here is that finding a middle ground is impossible, and finding even a dividing line is likewise impossible

>Second of all, how do we know they’re not?
if elementary particles were conscious then it would violate quantum theory. quantum particles are fundamentally “indistinguishable” in a deep sense that you should look up. the idea of Bose-Einstein statistics and the idea of Fermi-Dirac statistics are grounded in the principle of indistinguishability of fundamental particles and these ideas are confirmed rigorously using experiments

[Anonymous No.11435631]

>>11435603
>you see how your second sentence is a reference to solipsism?
you don't say.
>that’s why i addressed that
on a 100% emotional level, overriding what i was really saying. complete drivel.

>i am sure you cannot follow but feel free to try to clarify, maybe we will get there
ok, i read your previous sentence which wasn't bad, i was about to reply, but then i read this. heh. just go die.

[Anonymous No.11435645]

>>11435631
did you just jump back a few posts? i thought i was talking to only one anon. are there two now?

i’d prefer to only talk to one anon at a time

[Anonymous No.11435680]

since the anons bashing science here have withered and fallen apart, let me just post a reference on something i said earlier:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin%E2%80%93statistics_theorem

[Anonymous No.11435685]

>>11435439
You're describing the where in space this is supposed to happen with no explanation

Qualia doesn't exist at a location in space. You can't show me where the color red happens. It's in a new reality.

[Anonymous No.11435686]

>>11435591
>nothing wrong with recursive definitions
Recursion only works if you have a base case.
e.g. If you defined an operator "addition" with:
A) addition(x,0) = x
B) addition(x,S(y)) = S(addition(x,y))
Where S is the successor function that returns the smallest integer greater than its integer input (e.g. S(4) = 5)
Then that works fine since:
1. addition(7,3)
2. = S(addition(7,2))
3. = S(S(addition(7,1)))
4. = S(S(S(addition(7,0))))
5. = S(S(S(7)))
6. =S(S(8))
7. =S(9)
8. =10
But if you were to get rid of rule A and tried to define addition as only:
addition(x,S(y)) = S(addition(x,y))
Then you wouldn't get to go from step 4 to step 5 above and would have no way of resolving to an actual answer.

[Anonymous No.11435694]

>>11435685
no, it's in brains. the color red corresponds to stimuli from "cone" cells in the retina which have specific neural pathways into the frontal cortex. nothing about "red" is any different from any other sensory information entering the brain, analogous to simpler sensory stimuli like "fart smell active" vs. "fart smell inactive" (these correspond to olfactory nerve stimulation due to olfactory sensory cells)

[Anonymous No.11435700]

>>11435505
Why is a loop required?

>some inner viewing party watching what you're watching

But this isn't right, "you" are just an audience to your own qualia. There's only one "you" in the model.

[Anonymous No.11435707]

>>11435694
>no, it's in brains. the color red corresponds to stimuli from "cone" cells in the retina which have specific neural pathways into the frontal cortex.

You can say things like "corresponds", or "effected by" but not "is".

>nothing about "red" is any different from any other sensory information entering the brain

Except the information of "red" in indescribable, whereas describing the sensory path is very easy to describe

[Anonymous No.11435710]

>>11435685
Not that anon, but:
>You can't show me where the color red happens.
It doesn't ever actually need to literally happen. It's enough that the person who "experiences" the color red is responsive to light stimuli of the relevant range of wavelength, believes they're "experiencing" something in response to it, and behaves in useful higher level ways in response to that abstract story about sensory related behavior as though it were tied to some extra non-objective "experience" object.
Like having a robot that behaves around the virtual object "room" in response to its camera eyes taking in stimuli from the room its in. It wouldn't literally "see" a room. It would just get information from the stimuli to the camera which would map in higher level / generalized ways to its "room" reference point object that would give it a secondary meta-level set of stimuli to bounce off of and behave around.

[Anonymous No.11435713]

>>11435700
>"you" are just an audience to your own qualia. There's only one "you" in the model.
"You" is really what you're trying to explain to begin with. Saying "you" have the "experience" doesn't explain anything because it's just another way of saying "the experience is experienced."

[Anonymous No.11435715]

>>11435686
void beConscious() {
beConsciou()
}

Literally nothing wrong with that

[Anonymous No.11435729]

>>11435715
What's wrong with it is you don't have any meaning at all there. Same as if you defined addition without the base case like I already explained. You would never get to a real answer if you never have a way to end up with something other than the thing you're trying to explain. What's wrong with it is it's completely devoid of meaning. Like asking to solve for ?%@!(x) where ?=%@ and @=!?.

[Anonymous No.11435732]

What's wrong with it is you don't have any meaning at all there. Same as if you defined addition without the base case like I already explained. You would never get to a real answer if you never have a way to end up with something other than the thing you're trying to explain. Like asking to solve for ?%@!(x) where ?=%@ and @=!?.

[Anonymous No.11435736]

>>11435715
>>11435732
Also what do you think would happen if you actually programmed that? beConscious(x) would take x and pass it to beConscious, which would take x as its argument and pass it to beConscious, which would take x as its argument and pass it to beConscious, ad infinitum, without ever reaching any real functionality other than passing the input to another instance of itself.

[Anonymous No.11435743]

>>11435710
>Like having a robot that behaves around the virtual object "room" in response to its camera eyes taking in stimuli from the room its in. It wouldn't literally "see" a room. It would just get information from the stimuli to the camera

You can imitate the use of qualia with non-sentient classical computers, and get desirable behavior and effects for organisms. But nature doesn't prefer this and didn't do things this way.

That's the most puzzling thing about it. We don't "need" to see red. There doesn't need to be real self-awareness. There's no real need for pain and pleasure. We just need to process information and act. But that isn't how it be like.

[Anonymous No.11435752]

>>11435713
>it's just another way of saying "the experience is experienced."

by? That verb has to have a subject.

It's not difficult. If something doesn't experience qualia, it's no one. If it does, it is a "you".

[Anonymous No.11435755]

>>11435743
>You can imitate the use of qualia with non-sentient classical computers, and get desirable behavior and effects for organisms.
I'm saying we ARE the machines "imitating qualia." Except it's not really imitation because "it" never was a literal real thing to begin with.
>That's the most puzzling thing about it. We don't "need" to see red.
There's a reason why having an abstract reference point to behave around is more useful than merely having a set of automatic responses to stimuli. That reason is seen in those cases where people *lack* this benefit e.g. with blindsight where the subject's eyes work just fine and they will exhibit primitive visual responses like avoiding obstacles but will deny being able to see anything and won't be able to do more complicated visual tasks involving back and forth work with the visual object notion they have no access to e.g. they probably won't have any capacity for drawing anatomy pictures, or disarming a bomb.

[Anonymous No.11435758]

>>11435370
>a specific configuration of atoms unique to each being?
Are you trying to define identity?

[Anonymous No.11435759]

>>11435715
This really made me understand how consciousness might be recursive and I'm kind of terrified

My experience is receeding into an infinite series of me so long as nothing interrupts it

[Anonymous No.11435773]

>>11435755
>I'm saying we ARE the machines "imitating qualia." Except it's not really imitation because "it" never was a literal real thing to begin with.

define real

Also if I slowly pulled your intestines out with a winch would you be imitating pain?

>e.g. with blindsight where the subject's eyes work just fine and they will exhibit primitive visual responses like avoiding obstacles but will deny being able to see anything

That's a subconscious process and there's no qualia associated with it. Actually, that is an example of a classical system receiving information and acting, which assists the sentient non-classical system.

I don't know what you mean by "abstract reference point" and you keep trying to handwave conscious processes with qualia as some kind of self-deception that doesn't require self.

[Anonymous No.11435774]

>>11435685
>qualia
Your post isn't even worth looking up brainletjack.jpg

[Anonymous No.11435776]

>>11435752
The point is that doesn't explain anything at all. Which is why I said "you" is really what you're trying to explain here, not an explanation of something else. Saying "you experienced something" doesn't communicate what that "you" or that "experiencing" is. The idea of "you" as an explanation is really just a placeholder of convenience we tend to make use of in talking about regularly occurring events where we don't care about the underlying mechanisms for how they're working so much as what they're doing at the moment with easier to parse topics e.g. "I saw that new movie last night" says nothing about how vision works, and the "I" doing it isn't really the responsible party for making vision work (no reasonable definition for "I" involves being the little electrochemical impulses that are making eye / stimuli / brain activity interact and produce outputs). "I" is like the practice of using gods to stand in for unexplained natural phenomena e.g. there is lightning outside because Zeus is throwing lightning is equivalent to there are visuals appearing because I am seeing visuals.

[Anonymous No.11435779]

How can you assert that you are being "tricked" into "believing" that you are "experiencing" something, without realizing that you need to exist prior to this in order to be "tricked" in the first place?
This line of thought doesn't make sense to me, it is contradictory. If you try to regress it, all you get is "the molecules that make up your brain are being 'tricked' into 'believing' that they are 'experiencing' something" in which case all you've done is pushed consciousness down to being something inside every molecule. You still haven't shown it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.11435787]

>>11435776
I see your point, in that only an entity that already knows what "you" and "experiencing" is would understand the statement.

But this shouldn't be a problem in a conversation with two humans because "you" and "experience" are the only things you directly parse. When someone talks about consciousnesses they are talking about those two concepts. What is the problem? Unless NPCs are real there shouldn't be any anons in this thread that don't understand those terms.

[Anonymous No.11435791]

>>11435779
The line for this is "if it's just a trick, who is being fooled?"

[Anonymous No.11435793]

>>11435380
unironicaly based and idealism/open individualism-pilled

[Anonymous No.11435798]

>>11435791
>The line for this is "if it's just a trick, who is being fooled?"
Exactly.
The "argument" is LITERALLY: "you aren't actually experiencing the thing, you are just experiencing a trick into believing that you are experiencing the thing! in reality you aren't experiencing anything, but at the same time you are experiencing being tricked!"
It's genuinely fucking retarded and I don't believe that anyone actually believes this. It's straight up, obviously, wrong and fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.11435799]

>>11435774
would it beep if I press this button?

[Anonymous No.11435801]

>>11435798
>>11435791
yes anons, mainstream thought is btfo'd. Dan Dennett can suck a cock. OI is the answer

[Anonymous No.11435803]

>>11435801
Daniel Dennet isn't the mainstream position

[Anonymous No.11435806]

>>11435773
>define real
The agreement between multiple independent parties (e.g. you, me, and a hundred other people), non-biological diagnostic systems (e.g. an audio recording device), abstract mathematical models, etc. There is no consensus reality when it comes to the notion of a literal "experience" object. What the consensus reality is there is that someone *reports* having an "experience," or someone demonstrates a *belief* in an "experience," and it's important to always remind yourself that's what we really have with all this. Even when I look at the computer screen and 100% believe I'm "seeing something," that doesn't mean I ever went beyond the point where it's a belief.
>I don't know what you mean by "abstract reference point"
It's a situation where have behaviors around the notion of something that doesn't really exist, so that the outline formed by our behaviors makes a neat kind of phantom object through reference alone. Your center of gravity or the notion of the US dollar (the currency, not the paper used to represent it) are both examples of that sort of thing. There isn't actual any such object as a "center of gravity," but we can abstract out how physics works with gravity and a given body to get this useful pretend reference point to work with. And there isn't any such object in the real world as a US dollar, but our behavior of trading goods or services based on that reference point gives it pseudo-existence.
>you keep trying to handwave conscious processes with qualia as some kind of self-deception that doesn't require self.
"Self" is part of the "deception" you're talking about. It might be clearer if instead of "deception" though you used a phrase like "not literally true." A barcode scanner can operate under a not literally true proposition without possessing any "self" simply by scanning a distorted barcode and behaving as though the object it scanned were a different object. Behavior as though an untrue proposition is true.

[Anonymous No.11435809]

>>11435798
Half the posts in hard problem of consciousness threads are people playing devil's advocate, that it doesn't exist and they get a lot of mileage because it's unprovable. They think they are being unique and creative for doing it. It's kind of like how flat earth trolling started except way easier and more boring.

[Anonymous No.11435814]

>>11435798
>The "argument" is LITERALLY: "you aren't actually experiencing the thing, you are just experiencing a trick into believing that you are experiencing the thing!
No. There's no literal "experience" at all is the argument. You're so stuck on assuming there definitely is a literal "experience" appearing that you project it onto people arguing against it. You don't need to have an actual "redness" phantom appear in order to behave in the way people behave in response to "red." Part of this behavior is the belief "I'm seeing red." Behaving as though there's such a thing as "redness" and "experience" of it is another way of describing this act of believing. It's not the same thing as saying "you don't see red, you just hallucinate red" or whatever you're interpreting this as. The explanation doesn't fall back on more "experience." It doesn't accept "experience" as actually happening to begin with beyond our belief and behavior around the notion of such a thing existing and appearing.

[Anonymous No.11435821]

>>11435806
>The agreement between multiple independent parties (e.g. you, me, and a hundred other people), non-biological diagnostic systems (e.g. an audio recording device), abstract mathematical models, etc. There is no consensus reality when it comes to the notion of a literal "experience" object.

This is an incredibly flawed definition of real.

Something isn't disqualified from being real because only one party witnessed it. Something isn't even disqualified from being real because no parties witnessed it. There's the non -observable universe, potentially other universes, reality before/resulting in the big bang, potentially other forms of reality. You're confusing objective for real. Full stop.

[Anonymous No.11435822]

>>11435809
I'm not playing devil's advocate. I definitely don't buy that "qualia" / "experience" are actual things that happen beyond how the concept of them gets us believing and behaving (physiology's a part of it too obviously e.g. "pain" stimuli can cause elevated blood pressure which most people wouldn't consider a behavior).

[Anonymous No.11435823]

>>11435821
>Something isn't disqualified from being real because only one party witnessed it.
It is. Wittgenstein addressed this with his private language argument. It's incoherent to talk about something unless it can interact with the outside world.

[Anonymous No.11435826]

>>11435814
>You're so stuck on assuming there definitely is a literal "experience" appearing that you project it onto people arguing against it.

This, just accept that some humans are NPCs and they'll never get it

[Anonymous No.11435829]

>>11435803
tru, i guess, he's crazy popular in my university. I predict hes gonna get more famous tho. The absolute state of academia

[Anonymous No.11435831]

>>11435809
>"it's unprovable"
NPCs be like, what is this mysterious consciousness thing, where can I find it?

[Anonymous No.11435834]

>>11435826
When I look at a computer screen I believe I'm "seeing it" in a strong and involuntary / automatic way on one level. But on a less automatic level where I'm actually analyzing what this means I can accept this belief doesn't need to be indicative of any literally true "experience" phenomenon existing. That I'm compelled to believe and behave in the ways you or I believe and behave in response to sensory organ stimulation is enough for it to work without there needing to be an extra step of an "experience" object being literally manifested on top. False but useful belief makes more sense than literally true happenstance in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.11435835]

>>11435823
>It's incoherent to talk about something unless it can interact with the outside world.

Why does that make it not real? Is something not real because we can't coherently talk about it? That's equally stupid as all the other reasons. Most of reality probably can't be understood by humans in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11435839]

>>11435834
>I believe I'm

huh? what?

Go on, you were explaining how those terms you're using make no sense.

[Anonymous No.11435840]

>>11435835
If you can't corroborate it through ANY means at all then you have nothing really aside from your behavior of insisting you have something.

[Anonymous No.11435841]

>>11435822
"qualia/experience" are the ONLY actual things that you have access to. You believe in physical things, but only have access to them through qualia. I don't need to prove qualia to anyone, they are the only thing you can experience. You never experience the world as it actually is.

[Anonymous No.11435845]

>>11435839
They make sense. If it helps though, a more rigorous formulation of "belief" in this context would be "behaving as though a proposition were true."
And even a simple household appliance can behave as though a proposition were true e.g. a thermometer can behave as though it's detecting X temperature.

[Anonymous No.11435846]

>>11435840
>then you have nothing

Reality has nothing to do with "what I have". You're confusing proof with reality.

[Anonymous No.11435850]

>>11435834
Imagine programming yourself down into an NPC

Could you do this while being tortured? Could you analyze it away? Does conceiving it as an illusion change anything?

[Anonymous No.11435853]

>>11435841
You're assuming just because our sensory organs are how we access information to the world that this means we have more reliable information about our own processes than we do about the details of the world we're picking up through those processes.
Does an MRI have better access to information about its own processes that allow it to scan, or about what it's scanning?
We don't "know" anything about our processes for taking in information about the world in any deeper or more legitimate way than we "know" about consensus reality. In fact it's the reverse, where the more we can corroborate some concept through more than just our own take the more reason we have for believing something exists in the objective reality we're living in and not just as an artifact of our own sensory scanning processes.

[Anonymous No.11435857]

>>11435846
It's not just that you don't have proof. It's that you don't have anything beyond a belief. And it makes a lot more sense when you leave the situation right there instead of taking the extra step and assuming there must be a literal truth underlying that belief.

[Anonymous No.11435864]

>>11435389
Actually our thoughts do not create particles that is the Demiurge.

[Anonymous No.11435870]

>>11435857
cogito ergo sum

Imagine scoffing at the belief that you see red as just a belief. I can't reduce you any more than you've reduced yourself.

[Anonymous No.11435876]

>>11435841
It's funny because qualia is the purest form of direct observation

For example, "The instrument reads this measurement" is more precise and less abstracted than "The EM cavity resonator produced thrust" because there's less assumptions and room for errors. Saying "I see red there touching black there" would be even more precise. And just "I see red" and so on.

Mostly everyone reports experiencing qualia. Which is the reproduction of results that science requires.

Reproduced direction observation = good fucking evidence

If you can't trust someone to see red you can forget accepting any other scientific claim ever.

[Anonymous No.11435896]

>>11435853
no you dense fucking retard. That's not my point. My point is even with the MRI scans, the MRI scans ultimately are in "your" experience. You have never seen a "physical thing" only experiences exist from your point of view

[Anonymous No.11435899]

>>11435876
thanks fren, you get it. Open Individualism-pilled

[Anonymous No.11437126]

>>11435814
beliefs are experiences.

[Anonymous No.11437221]

>>11435417
define "define"

[Anonymous No.11437223]

>>11437126
>>11435845

[Anonymous No.11437228]

>>11435380
Thinking "out of the box" again timmy?

[Anonymous No.11437308]

>>11435370
Is weed bad for your mental health?

[Anonymous No.11437405]

>>11435370
Specific configuration of atoms...

Well...

It must be really hard to be that kind of avare of stuff going on in body...

I think no.

[Anonymous No.11437409]

>>11435379
Not published does not mean censored.

I think there's a huge divergence between being censored and not published because you sound totally crazy...

The biggest problem is that it was really hard to pay for the recieving