/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16057696

>>15455295
>Qualia doesn't explain anything and is not a scientific hypothesis
You don't have a hypothesis to epistemically justify that qualia exist. Hit yourself on the head with a hammer. That pain you get is a qualia (quality of consciousness). Qualia are (should be, unless you are an NPC bot) the one thing that the observer (you in this case) can be certain exist. You can doubt the SOURCE of the pain, ie is it a piece of meat, the brain, that some how beams in the mental experience to the experiencer, or is it coming from a mind server in a consciousness based Massively multiplayer online virtual role-playing game, but the QUALIA of pain itself can not be doubted.

It is TRUE though that it can't be studied in the way that objective physical things can be, since YOUR subjective qualia can not be studied via MY experiencial data stream of the 'physical' world, and vice versa. This is why the hyped up recent headlines about 'mind reading' always say in the fine print of the actual studies that they need the subjects cooperation in, supposedly, decoding objectively observable neural correlates of subjective consciousness content. If it was REAL mind reading, there would be no need of the subjects participation.

>>15424068
>What exactly is color
It's a quality of consciousness
>where is it?
In minds. The same place as all experience, including the experience of brains and all other physical things.

>>15292277
>Consciousness is an emergent property
No, it isn't. You have it backwards , as planck already knew a century ago, see pic. Matter is emergent in minds, OBVIOUSLY. You nor anyone else have never experienced mind independent matter. There is no way to verify mind independent matter either. Experiments are conducted by minds in the medium of minds. Verifications are conducted by minds. And measurements/observations, be they simply opening your eyes or measurements made by experiments conducted by humans have shown that the act of measurement are what cause the rendering of observable values.
>Quantum contextuality is a feature of the phenomenology of quantum mechanics whereby measurements of quantum observables cannot simply be thought of as revealing pre-existing values. Any attempt to do so in a realistic hidden-variable theory leads to values that are dependent upon the choice of the other (compatible) observables which are simultaneously measured (the measurement context). More formally, the measurement result (assumed pre-existing) of a quantum observable is dependent upon which other commuting observables are within the same measurement set.
And so consciousness can not 'emerge' from something that doesn't even have stand alone observer independent existence prior to measurements, ie matter, ie brains.

>>15277916
Materialism is an ontological claim idiot. You are making seem like substance monistic materialism is a fact and to disprove it some kind of new predictions need to be made and confirmed. All observed data can be explained in an idealistic frame work. And all of this observed physical data will be observed as MENTAL objects rended in MINDS. At no point is matter EVER observed as anything OTHER that as mental content.

>>15256197
The OP is about PHYSICAL infinitude, namely past finiteness.There doesn't have to be a correspondent physical time cycle or refresh or data update or finite state transition or planck time unit to every asserted natural number in a one to one basis. In other
words, the cardinality of the set of all natural numbers is IRRELEVANT to the past finiteness physical world, see post here
>>15256406
You, and the likes of you conflate physical finitism with mathematical finitism, likely because the most prominent maths finitists are also physical finitists or digital physics enjoyers. You can acknowledge the the computational/informational/finitudinal/digital/finite elemental nature of the physics while at the same time still having the cantorian paridise. It's comfy, trust me. Infinity is grounded in the NON PHYSICAL. 'Physicality' which is actually the set of all physical experiences of the set of all physical data streams rendered in the set of all minds/observers, is a SUB SET of a larger reality. It's 'in' (locations are not real/fundamental, they are virtual) the nature of the larger consciousness system super set that your infinitude is nested, not in the physical data stream.

>>15238909
Mind is the origin of everything.

>>15211754
>The brain can make fake memories and lie.
Observer independent matter based brains don't produce consciousness in the first place, but if they did, you would have a problem then anyways with your physicalist world view because it's within this dubious mental data stream that you assert that brains create that your very knowledge of the brain derives from in the first place. Brains, like all matter, are only every observed as mental objects in minds.

>>15161723
>Then the model is presented
Go on. How is the model presented? Where in the brain is the model presented? See picrel here
>>15161867
Specifically here
>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information.
The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry.
What you want to say is in the brain has been falsified. It doesn't exist. You have no clue what you are talking about and this is why you think there is no hard problem. In a way you are right. Not for the reson you think though. There is no hard problem because the problem isn't just hard, it's impossible. The brain can never account for consciousness.It's the other way around. Brains, like all matter, are only ever observed as mental objects in minds.

>>15121164
Here
>>15121240
> The immersion is as such that game play can be altered up to and including the death of the (virtual) body (logging off) on to a new avatar)
Should be
> The immersion is as such that game play can be altered up to and including the death of the (virtual) body (logging off) NOW on to a new avatar)
When you die (log off from a particular experiencial data stream associated with a particular body (avatar) the constraints associated with that avatar are lifted. So if you drool because of a stroke, that constraint gets left with that avatar and associated experience packet of the particular avatar. The consciousness, the 'I', the real FUNDAMENTAL 'you' with identity over time, that was you when you were 3 years old and is you when you are 80, even though the physical (virtual) avatar is totally different in size and substance, is not damaged at all. It's was only constrained through interface with algo. Consciousness is fundamental, as plato knew centuries ago, as planck and Gödel, Schrödinger (nearly all of the founding fathers of QM were idealists (BECAUSE THEY PEERED THE DEEPEST INTO PHYSICAL REALITY OF ANY ONE AND WERE HONEST ABOUT THEIR CONCLUSIONS INSTEAD OF COMING UP WITH MATERIALIST COPES LIKE MANY WORLDS AND BOHMIAN MECHANICS OR OBJECTIVE COLLAPSE ETC) knew, as anyone with any depth of thought figures out eventually. Matter is derivative/ emergent from/in MIND.

>>15050127
Idealism doesn't deny physics. Physics describe the behavior a subset of mental content. Physics is mental from top to bottom. Physics is knowledge gained from minds describing and quantifying virtual/informational data streams which we call physical and which are rendered in minds. The model that this stuff had an objective, observer independent defined values in an objective spacetime reality was only ever a model that got falsified fully starting last century and culminating in bell's theorem and the experimental verification thereof and the closing of all of the loopholes that can be tested.

>>15028618
This
>>15045377
by the way, is where bostrom gets it wrong. He believes that brains create consciousness, and since brains are simulated, then consciousness must also be virtual and simulated as well. This is a physicalist type of simulated reality as opposed to a consciousness based simulated reality. Consciousness is not created by brains. Brains, like all matter, are only rendered upon measurement/observation, at which point they are rendered according to what would be probable to be there. So of the CONTENTS of our consciousness, namely physicality, ARE simulated. But the freewill awareness unit itself, the entity interfacing with physicality is NOT a virtual/emergent thing, it's the fundamental thing. So planck had it right, see picrel.

>>14980749
>the brain, is not able yet to deal with the sense of god, exploding in it's neurons, for all the previous time the weight of reason of everything existed externally, in heaven, but now it has relocated in a tiny space of the scull
The brain is not dealing with anything. It evoles unrendered as just internal calculations unless measured/observed. Your brain will not likely even have to be rendered in space time during your lifetime. The brain has no defined values in space and time until observed/measured, at which point a calculation will be made and values will be defined and rendered according to what would be probable to be there. The brain is no different that a photon in a double slit experiment. Before it is observed, it 'exists' only as a function of possible future outcomes of measurement. You can idealize this as superposed quantum information. This info does not have classically defined values and it can be proven through bell's theorem and the experimental verification thereof that if you attempt to do this you get a violation of bell's inequality. Decent book on this in picrel. And so then, if this be the case, then brains can not be the seat of consciousness. They are just, if observed/measured, spatially organized computational objects, data constructs, which are objectively observably quantitatively correlated with qualitative features of subjective consciousness. This is a feature of immersion, a VR concept. This physical reality is HIGHLY immersive to the consciousnesses/observers which are logged on.There is UTILITY in this level of immersion regard to the relationship of the virtual (physical) brain and consciousness, and neurology certainly has utility, but this should not be mistaken for the virtual brain being the seat of the fundamental (real) consciousness. This is a rookie mistake. See picrel for an example of a non-rookie and a physics and philosophy master who figured this out before human constructed VRs were even a thing.

>>14762853
You don't need dualism. Idealist monism can explain the situation. see here
>>14762886
The physical world becomes mental objects rendered in minds. We never see the outside world except in the medium of mind. The physical world is a data stream of processed, organized and structured data (information) which gets rendered in minds. And so idealist monism or some might say idealist dual aspect monism or even informational monism with the virtual physical world as quantitative information and consciousness as qualitative information.

>>14761818
>You take any and all inability for neuroscience to lay the exact mechanism at your feet
You still don't understand. it's not that they can't, it's that no such location for encoding such a phenomenon even exists in the brain. The area has been mapped. And that is just one of a particular group of problems for the physicalist model.
>There are no problems for someone making that claim
Yes there are. Even the article on neural correlates says that the provide no theory of mind or solution to the hard problem of consciousness. You simply are in denial. Maybe start researching the subject and develop even the first clue of how to argue for your (untenable) position. You will be trying to do the equivalent of trying to derive the consciousness of the person playing a video game from the virtual brain in the virtual head of the avatar he is controlling on the screen. It doesn't world. The consciousness controlling the body is not in the virtual space that the avatar is in. It is non-local to it. Where all causation is located. Where the computation takes place. You, like I was once, are confused by the fact that you are rendered the vantage point of being in a head and looking out eyeholes onto the outside world. Naive realism of sorts. This is false. It's just immersion. The physical world is a data stream that gets processed by consciousness and rendered to an observer as processed, organized and structured data (information(virtual) in a mind. The consciousness does the computation. The consciousness is NOT the computation output, ie the physical world. Since it processes the physical world as a data stream, it can not be IN the physical world. The computer can not be IN that which it outputs. It must be non-local, outside of spacetime. Matter is derivative of mind, not the other way around. So brains of matter do not create consciousness. Simulated correlation between the two is at times part of the ruleset though.

>>14730050
Here is a quote that I found from somebody talking about this exact thing. They put it very well.
>However, if the simulation hypothesis, or any number of simulism positions are true, then it follows that the brain is virtual information in a video game—just like everything else. The brain that we all assume to be carrying around in our bodies is just our avatar’s body’s virtual “brain.” It’s not really real. What about brain damage or damage to the body? Well there are rules to the video game—If you loose a chunk of brain, your data-stream is modified to reflect that. If you lose an arm, your data-stream is modified to reflect that too.
https://archive.ieet.org/articles/Edge20161030.html

So damage to the virtual brain assigned to the consciousness (player/observer) WOULD correlate to new constrains on consciousness while interfacing with this reality. These constraints are caused by CONSCIOUSNESS by CONSCIOUSNESS. They are NOT caused by some observer independent brain made of matter in an objective material universe. This takes care of the mind-body problem and the interaction problem and the hard problem of consciousness. Matter then becomes something rendered in minds/consciousnesses. And so the physical world becomes informational (virtual) objects of mentation. To interact with the physical world and effect it is an act of a subjective consciousness observer effecting semi objective (objective information, objective in the sense that it is a multi-player game and the data streams of the physical world of the various players will correspond to a certain degree) mental objects. So it's mentation effecting mental objects. Mind acting on mind. No mind body problem of how does mind effect matter and the other way around. No problem of how mind emerges from matter either. It doesn't. It's the other way around as stated in picrel.

>>14699360
>If everything we ever knew is a simulation then its not a simulation for us by definition. It's a reality.
It's a virtual reality. So the idea is that it is not a reality of matter with stand alone existence. That is the point. It is an information based computed reality which was seemingly designed to simulate a reality of matter with stand alone existence. And then some players/consciousnesses interfacing with it started to find clues that it was not an objective reality with stand alone existence and that there was a relative and subjective element to physical reality. This started about a little over 100 years ago. And there has been an attempt to hide the fact and keep the idea of an observer independent objective physical reality ever since which includes things such as the many worlds interpretation and bohmian mechanics.
>But if you imply that we are, like in the matrix, just lying somewhere connected to the "simulation" machine and there's the exact same real world outside and we're just sleeping in it, that probably can happen.
There wouldn't need to be a model system. That is to say, there would not need to be some system which is a matter based system with observer independent existence of which our system is a simulation of. And there wouldn't need to be a 'real' you some where that is plugged into something. The 'real you' would be the non-physical, non-virtual, consciousness. The simulation could just be rendered 'inside' your consciousness as a data stream. You would be an individuated unit of consciousness receiving a data stream from 'the larger consciousness' server. Matter and the material world would then be derivative of minds. Matter would ONLY be something which only ever emerges in minds as an output. Max planck already had this figured

>>14633798
>therefore reality is matrix
The reality is the consciousness interfacing with the physical world, The experience of the player who's consciousness is outside of space time and who is rendered a spacetime screen data stream (a calculated, virtual reality) in a mind and given a 3rd person shooter point of view to interface with through immersion. So consciousness is fundamental, not matter. As planck already knew 100 years ago. The matrix has a base model material world with stand alone observer independent status. such a world does not exist and could not exist. Consciousness is the real, non-simulated substrate in my (potentially our), if you are not simulated human software (bot NPC). No offence if you are a non-simulated ACTUAL other mind and not a simulated one. Your post reeks of NPC though. Or maybe just plebbit. Very similar views held by both.The physical world is rendered only when which way data becomes available in such experiments as wave particle duality experiments or in every day rendering to consciousnesses who are uncertainty resolvers (information creators). Qualitative information by the way.

This is different than the matrix. The matrix still had a matter based world with stand alone existence as the model system. There is no such world. This is how it works. This will tell you why there is wave particle duality. Comes down to compression and optimization and processing limitation. This is why the dis-continuity of the collapse postulate.

On testing the simulation theory
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf

'

>>14592760
Upon measurement, you will be rendered a brain based upon what would be probable to be the case based on your avatar's specs (genetics, etc). That localised object called brain need never be rendered at any other time though besides when being observed/measured. Otherwise, it only 'exists' as evolving probability in potentia, just as all matter does and it's not causing anything. It's an output. Just as in a video game, you can smash an enemies head open and a brain may ooze out. But prior to smashing the the head the brain of the enemy did not have to be rendered. The enemy's brain also was not the causitor of the enemys behavior. The causation comes from calculations/processing and it comes from OUTSIDE (non-local) to the reality. The question is more about causation and ontology. The question is not about whether things called brains as localized objects exist upon measurement. They do. Brains and scans of brains corresponding to particular consciousnesses (in this case you) will be rendered in the minds of observers (the drs and anyone else who observed the data of the scan, including you) upon measurement, of course. Those brains will be made processed, organized and structured data (information) in the minds of observers. Physical objects (matter) including brains, are processed, organized and structured data which emerge in the minds of observers. They are virtual things and they do not cause anything. Causation must come from outside the reality (non-locally) and this causation, by the way, can include faster than light correlations such as those seen in entanglement. Why? Because all points in virtual space are equadistant from the processor. It's an IF-THEN situation, not material event causal causation. It's processing causation and it comes from outside (non-local) to the thing being processed.

>>14528266
>When you get up and start walking why are you not walking in Brazil and Japan and Australia right now?
Why would I be?
>Andor are you suggesting brain in a vat simulation theory?
The brain would also be rendered only upon measurement/observation, according to what would be probable, given the specs of the observer who is interfacing with a physical body/avatar to which the brain is assigned, just as all physical reality is only rendered upon measurement as described by the collapse postulate. So the brain in the vat is a scenario that still retains the idea that matter has stand alone/observer independent and objective existence. If this is not the case, as QM seems to show, then consciousness can not reside in matter, being that matter is not even defined apart from a superposition of possible outcomes prior to measurement. It (the brain in the vat)maintains the idea that consciousness is the output of a physical brain as well. I believe this is backwards. The brain would be the output in a probabilistic, simulatory way, and the consciousness would be the computer. The physical world, including brains, would be a stream of processed, organized and structured data rendered by consciousness in a mind. So matter, then, would be emergent from mind as opposed to mind emerging from matter.

>>12250706
Consciousness is The Fundamental and the Ineffable. The ultimate reality if you will.

>>11810084
There is no real solidity*

>>11786509
Consciousness.