@space_comrade - eviltoast

space_comrade [he/him]

  • 1 Post
  • 151 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: November 11th, 2020

help-circle

  • How can you prove B exists if it’s not measurable?

    Because I’ve felt it, I’ve felt how understanding feels, because ultimately understanding is a conscious experience within a mind, you cannot define understanding without referencing conscious experience, you cannot possibly define it only in terms of behavior or function. So either you have to concede that every floating point multiplication in a digital chip “feels like something” at some level or you show what specific kind of floating point multiplication does.













  • Damn you’re a complete grating asshole, I’m not reading all of that shit but I do know at least this is wrong:

    You’re not going to find anyone actually employed in quantum theory or research espousing it.

    Eugene Wigner, John von Neumann, Roger Penrose, Brian Josephson, Henry Stapp, Erwin Schrödinger (debatable, but he was questioning physicalism).


  • I do not have to provide you with definitions so that your stupid ideas make sense.

    Damn you’re a feisty one.

    In fact you do have to provide definitions, an “observation” in the context of quantum mechanics does not have a consensus definition and the definition heavily relies on your particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. One of these interpretations also includes consciousness, and if you want to be completely certain this particular interpretation is false you need your own coherent definition of consciousness that doesn’t call upon quantum mechanics. You don’t have such a thing, nobody does.

    You’re locked in a belief system and you don’t even realize it.


  • No, you dumb fuck,

    Thanks comrade, very nice of you.

    You have to define it

    No, everybody has to define it actually since it clearly exists and nobody really knows what it is. If you believe with certainty it doesn’t have anything to do with quantum collapse then you also must have a good idea what it actually is, and you just plain don’t.

    Personally I’m agnostic about the whole thing and I don’t think any particular idea needs to be dismissed a priori because of entrenched beliefs.


  • So, by your definition, mystical stuff is just things we can’t explain right now.

    My entire fucking point is that nobody can explain it properly and you grasping so tightly onto only one of the possible explanations is you having a strong belief system, same as religious people, not you doing a heckin good science think.



  • So either you give a real answer to their question of what you think consciousness is or you start listing the things you think are conscious until smarter minds can work out what connects the dots.

    You haven’t given a real answer either though and neither has anybody else in the history of science, which is what I’m trying to say, nobody has a coherent answer but you’re pretending as if you do. You’re literally just asserting your claims without backing anything up.


  • We can easily explain how a physical system produces consciousness.

    We literally can’t do that at all though, not even close.

    Because that’s literally a basic requirment of science.

    How? Science is based on making models from empirical observations about the world and yourself, one of these empirical observations is the observation that your phenomenal consciousness actually exists, seemingly in opposition to the physical world, maybe we should perhaps include that fact in our models?

    Also, you call it reductive. I don’t think it’s reductive.

    It’s literally how that category of metaphysical thought is called, it’s an actual philosophical term.