I'm a big believer in the block universe and determinism. But the conscious experience of moving through time seems inconsistent with that reality.
One of the most comforting thoughts to me throughout my adult life has been that when you die, your consciousness simply stops existing. Forever.
But the more I think about it, the more I wonder why it would. Why did I experience consciousness at all? And having done so, why wouldn't it happen again? Some interpret Nietzsche's concept of eternal return to mean that we literally relive our same lives over and over again. That's a terrifying thought to me.
Are there any scientific insights on this (particularly in connection with the block universe)? Or is this sort of inquiry entirely within the realm of philosophy and/or the paranormal?
It does get a little fricky if you accept relativity and its implications.
It would mean that you could die, but I could take my spaceship on the other side of the galaxy in a different spacial direction and reality would agree that you haven't died yet, so who are you? Are you the corpse on earth or the living being relative to the alien?
Strong intuition tells us that a human life has a metabolic genesis and collapse. I would trust largely in that model and chalk any conjecture up to our inability to perceive the real workings.
>but I could take my spaceship on the other side of the galaxy in a different spacial direction and reality would agree that you haven't died yet, so who are you? Are you the corpse on earth or the living being relative to the alien?
What? No, that's not what relativity means. Once you die, you die, relativity just states that the information of your death is constrained by your corpse's lightcone. An outside observer will perceive you as alive until your light one catches up with them, after which their information gets updated. There is no "alive and dead at the same time" crap, causality and thus perception is constrained by the speed of light.
I understand that. In my local bubble, I am dead and stay dead.
I think what OP was getting at is that is if the alien, were he able to break causality in some way, could know I was dead, but locally for him I'm considered alive. In his book of facts about the other side of the galaxy, it would be correct to say so. He would have to break causality to know I have died locally. I too have a mental model of reality "catching up" outward from the event.
I believe this is what prohibits teleportation and time travel.
>He would have to break causality to know I have died locally
Well yes, but that's a very vacuous statement. It's equivalent to just saying that simultaneous events are never in each other's lightcones. Nothing strictly prohibits teleportation, just that when you teleport it cant be instantaneous, it would have to be below the speed of light, or at the speed of light if you encode information in light.
>it would have to be below the speed of light
That's some limp teleportation. I'll just drive.
>that's a very vacuous statement
Sir, all I make are vacuous statements.
When you look up, down, horizontally, or inside you you have to look through trillions of dead organisms. Quintilions on top of quintilions of additional organisms that came before you and died on this rock. This rock is also dying and is trapped orbiting a star that is also dying.
The real question is, why do you care so much about entropy?
God is real.
If you constantly shed cells and cells are filled with subatomic particles, who is to say which you is the you that you experience forever? Which amalgamation of subatomic particles is the you you will be forever?
>No, that's not what relativity means.
He's talking about trying to define the 'present' in a relativistic universe across vast differences.
In Relativity the 'slice' of the block you take to find the present changes depending on your relative velocity. So if you go in one direction you would say the 'present' of distant galaxy is different than the 'present' of the same distant galaxy when you turn around and walk the other way.
Of course, we don't perceive this at all because we only perceive information coming to our senses, not reality as it presently is. But in any case, the notion of an objective 'now' is dashed.
moron alert
Strong intuition tells me that I have an immortal soul.
A math teacher of mine used to have the phrase: "Pure maths, impure thoughts" scrolled across the bottom of his webpage. "Platonic realism, it's a matter of faith."
It is a matter of faith. Just like my belief in the consistency of external reality, my own existence, etc.
That's not what intuition means. Like it or not arational belief underpins every facet of human existence. You cannot have physics without math and you can't have math without arational belief in causality and certain indescribable laws of reason, none of which can be proved to exist beyond faith and intuition.
>You cannot have physics without math and you can't have math without arational belief in causality and certain indescribable laws of reason, none of which can be proved to exist beyond faith and intuition.
Maths is testable and verifiable in reality, and the process of reason we use for it evolved... in reality. At no point is there some "reason loop".
You're just denying induction and I bet it's to preserve some stupid idea you want to believe.
>At no point is there some "reason loop".
From the point of view of an individual -- the only one we can ever really have -- there is.
And strong intuition tells me I should be rich.
Huh, looks like intuition isn't a reliable epistemology. How about that.
First you have to realize that terms like
>consciousness
>existing
etc. are just words used for poetic and non-scientific purposes so you cannot pretend that just because they have been very useful in poem-writing, they would also have to be relevant and important in scientific discussions
>just words used for poetic and non-scientific purposes
That's not true at all. Consciousness has been the subject of a lot of scientific inquiry and discussion in the last few decades.
Just Google "Science of Consciousness" and it will bring up innumerable hits, including from the University of Arizona, Cambridge, Scientific American, and Nature.
Consciousness is just equivalent to the principle of least action. While physical systems automatically follow the most optimal path, biological systems require trial and error to form the optimal brain, and the result of those optimizations is consciousness.
>pseud babble that uses words to say nothing substantive
>I don't understand this level of language: The Post
How does that support the original claim?
>consciousness isn't a real thing that science could care for
>evolution eventually figured out how to produce this phenomenon
Like... theres a real thing happening here thats quite profoundly strange and worth investigating.
>Just Google "Science of Consciousness" and it will bring up innumerable hits
They would be talking about something like neuroscience and certainly wouldn't be treating it as some independent thing which can stand in contrast to actual scientific theories.
NTA, but they study neural correlates of consciousness, and if they're doing legitimate science without slapping npc metaphysical dogma on top of it, they usually state it in exactly those terms. They will neither claim to study consciousness directly, nor try to make some literal bot points about how consciousness isn't real because it can't be directly studied.
>They will neither claim to study consciousness directly, nor try to make some literal bot points about how consciousness isn't real because it can't be directly studied.
I have lots of problems with almost every part of this sentence but I don't feel like arguing right now so I'll let it go. You kids have fun.
>i'm a drone
>i can't actually defend my point of view
>i am programmed to reply anyway
I think he's more referring to the philosophy of consciousness.
Everybody in this field agrees (well, mostly) on the material explanations and the success of neuroscience. Where the philosophy takes over is the implications of a material mind.
Are you familiar with things like the Swampman argument? Its basically the teleportation problem. This is what philosophy wants to know; What does it mean to have a mind arisen from material processes in a possibly infinite setting?
>Everybody in this field agrees (well, mostly) on the material explanations and the success of neuroscience
Nobody in the field has any material explanation, or claims to have one, except for a handful of obvious cranks whose "studies" you have to painstaikingly cherrypick.
>Nobody in the field has any material explanation
lol, yes we do. Philosophers of mind, even champions of the hard problem like Chalmers, aren't pretending to be ignorant of the implications of neuroscience. They strive to know where things like attention and self-reflectivity fit in.
You're not going to find a lot of classical dualists anymore, except in the booby hatch.
You can keep lying to defend your metaphysical NPC dogma, but most neuroscientists readily admit that their understanding of the brain is very limited even in terms of its more mundane function; no one has a testable hypothesis for how qualia come to be.
>metaphysical NPC dogma
See, this tells me you're agenda-driven. That's not how you want to approach these questions.
Nobody even has a grasp on if qualia is something worth separating from phenomenal experience, but even qualia realists have to concede its somewhere in the meat.
Its interesting that its like something to think. Its like something to perceive this data, but it doesn't segue to metaphysical woo-woo as much as some would like.
>See, this tells me you're agenda-driven
The projection is so blatant it's not even funny. You're talking here from the position of trying to find "scientific" evidence for your preconceived NPC notions and finding some cherrypicked dross. I am talking from the position of someone who has tried on many occasions to find adequate neurological explanations for much more specific and less baffling functions of the brain, only to discover that basically no one has a thorough answer. According to you, I'm supposed to believe the people who barely know how memory works have figured out how conscousness arises from matter. You're a fricking clown and you need to frick off with your corporate agenda.
>You're a fricking clown and you need to frick off with your corporate agenda.
Okay, I'll go back to my masters and tell them I've failed.
PepsiCo pays me a lot of money to talk to morons on the internet.
Notice how you just got BTFO and can't respond, so you sperg off against some irrelevant strawman.
There aren't a lot of responses to spaghetti spillage of such magnitude.
Would you like me to articulate with bullet points how you're begging an answer and will agree with whomever can get furthest from material explanations of consciousness?
Notice how you just got BTFO and can't respond, so you sperg off against some irrelevant strawman. Your rancid pseudointellectualism and lack of honesty is really showing.
You can't refute someone who claims that there is no material explanation for the hard problem, if there even is a hard problem, based on how little we understand yet about the brain.
You would do well to stand back and stay open to possibility rather than sperg-out about "well I can't find the evidence, it must not be there!"
Because that's all you've said and most people are just lurking to see how you'll flip out next.
>more pathetic pilpul
I'm asking you again: why am I supposed to believe that neurologists know how consciousness arises from matter, when they can't tell me how the brain learns, how memory works, why schizophrenia happens, how to cure depression, how neuroplasticity works, how language works etc. They basically don't know anything.
I wouldn't know where to begin.
The effectiveness of chemical intervention, the outward effects of damage on the personality, the 1:1 correlation with brain damage and memory disruption, take your pick.
Does it say everything? No, but its indicative of a strong correlation.
Go drink twenty beers and tell me what you consider "values" have not shifted a bit.
>I wouldn't know where to begin.
Because your position is untenable.
>The effectiveness of chemical intervention
Laughably low.
>he outward effects of damage on the personality, the 1:1 correlation with brain damage and memory disruption, take your pick.
Now you're just having a psychotic episode, because this is completely incongruent with what I asked you.
>because this is completely incongruent with what I asked you.
Did you not want to know why I believe that consciousness is largely explained by neural processes?
>Did you not want to know why I believe that consciousness is largely explained by neural processes?
No. I have zero interest in your beliefs. Here's what I actually asked you:
>why am I supposed to believe that neurologists know how consciousness arises from matter, when they can't tell me how the brain learns, how memory works, why schizophrenia happens, how to cure depression, how neuroplasticity works, how language works etc.
NTA but you seem to be underestimating what we know about the brain. It's true, we don't have many fundamental principles or laws, but it just might be that those don't exist for what is essentially just a complex biological organ.
We do know more or less how attention, memory, navigation, time perception, movement, decision-making and so on work. Just because we can't decode memories or explain consciousness (yet?), it doesn't mean we don't know anything.
Why do you people keep lying? What is it about neurology that makes you think you can get away with lying so blatantly? Neurologists barely understand anything about the brain and this is apparent in every study they pump out. The list of unsolved problems in neurology includes every basic function of the mind.
I'm not going to spoonfeed you when you can simply search up any of those keywords on pubmed and read the state of the art. You can start with the Kavli Institute's grid cells which got the Nobel prize a few years ago.
You maintain a position that we're completely in the dark about the brain, when that's simply not true. I've only ever seen that hard position from casual neuroscience consumers of the kind who got impressed with Musk's Neuralink demonstration, when movement decoding of the same kind was achieved many years ago.
Once again: the list of unsolved problems in neurology includes almost every basic function of the brain. On what basis should I believe that they know how consciouenss arises from matter, if they can't answer even basic questions?
I can't help you if I already answered your question and you keep repeating the same thing.
You didn't answer anything. You sharted out some tangential "educate yourself" reaction. How come anyone who shares your opinion is a clinical subhuman devoid of basic human decency, let alone intelligence?
I don't know what you want me to tell you. Do you want me to write an essay explaining each of the cognitive functions in one paragraph? We know how everything you mentioned works at several different levels, from cells to neurotransmitters to local circuits to brain-wide networks. We even use that knowledge to install electrodes and cure certain illnesses (Parkinson's and epilepsy, for example). We do not know how consciousness arises, yes, and we don't have the brain entirely figured out, yes, but what you said about those cognitive functions is simply false, I don't know what else to tell you.
And yes, literally educate yourself. It's impossible to have this discussion if you don't do so.
>Do you want me to write an essay explaining each of the cognitive functions in one paragraph?
You are a truly vile and subhuman rat pretending to know the answers neurologists openly admit not having answers to. Trash like you should simply be shot. There is no discussion to be had anymore with your whole sociopoligical clade.
So are you denying the known neural correlates outright?
>So are you denying the known neural correlates outright?
>I am a neurologist, but that's beside the matter. You keep repeating that we can't answer "basic questions" about memory, language and so on when we in fact have an insane amount of literature about it
I'm supposed to believe that these vile rats are actually human? They literally cannot write a single post without some form of lie or intellectual dishonesty.
I am a neurologist, but that's beside the matter. You keep repeating that we can't answer "basic questions" about memory, language and so on when we in fact have an insane amount of literature about it and use that knowledge every day on actual people.
What exact "basic questions" are you referring to? Give me one specific example (ie: "how memory works" is not an actual question).
its b8, but its entertaining, people like him do exist
>t.
You had me going for like a second. What I want to know is, why waste our time?
One day your brand of politics and social values will lead to you and all your likes getting the rope, and the "neurologists know how consciousness arises from matter" camp will myteriously become silent and underrepresented.
I know you don't believe in the neural correlates, but please do take the anti-psychotics your doctor prescribed to you anon.
>I know you don't believe in the neural correlates
LOL. These subhuman rats literally cannot write a single post without lying. They just can't help themselves.
why would any of those neural firings FEEL like something? why would the physical processes in the brain feel like anything at all?
there is absolutely nothing you can know about how the neurons are structured that would give you even the slightest bit of assistance in answering this question.
>the list of unsolved problems in neurology includes almost every basic function of the brain
I mean, we're trying to tell you that simply isn't so. You can repeat it again, but at some point you're going to have to demonstrate this utter cluelessness of neuroscience in matters of consciousness.
>I mean, we're trying to tell you that simply isn't so.
So you subhuman rats are just going to keep lying blatantly? That settles this whole discussion. You literally cannot participate in it without lying through your teeth repeatedly because your position is that unsubstantiated.
We're sort just guiding your breakdown for entertainment value.
You're sort of a nonhuman alternating between generic NPC rhetoric and plain lying. Meanwhile my point stands unchallenged: neuroscience can't answer basic questions about memory, learning, language processing, perception, or even broad empirical questions like about the extent of neurogenesis throughout humanlife.
Not the guy you're replying to, but he's right that you're being an idiot. You're the one coming into this with assumptions about what is and what isn't "scientific" and having already settled your beliefs on the matter in question.
The degree to which you're wrong is kind of impressive. Do a little reflection.
this. Remember, when people used leeches and believed germs were bad smells, they thought they had everything figured out.
Angry their might be someone that knows what you don't know you don't know
And if you post Kastrup's book I'll slap you
Closest thing is the Integrated Information Theory, but it's controversial, to say the least,
>Swampman argument
That argument works the same way for all ontologies of mind. Double standards fallacy.
In context of the response I was using swampman as an example of how even a reductive physicalist can be left with questions of personal identity over time.
Yeah, but questions have answers.
>material
>physicalist
Nice spook.
>i am not sentient
Just because the nature of consciousness was excluded from the philosophy of the scientific method in its inception, doesn't mean it's woowoo. It would require a different philosophy of inquiry to study and to call the secrets of consciousness indefinitely unknowable is to lack imagination which is the mark of a midwit
>I'm a big believer in the block universe and determinism.
How can you talk about the past determining the future in a context where there's just one eternal and unchanging thing?
>One of the most comforting thoughts to me throughout my adult life has been that when you die, your consciousness simply stops existing. Forever.
>But the more I think about it, the more I wonder why it would.
Because all the things that make it "your" consciousness cease to be. Consciousness doesn't go anywhere. It still finds expression in all the other forms that you don't consider to be you.
That’s not what determinism is, that’s literally the opposite
watch this movie
https://www2.123moviesh.to/movie/mr-nobody-18192
make sure you have ad blocker turned on
I don't understand what the deal is with determinism. If it's true, why would you believe it? It wouldn't make any difference. Shouldn't you just put your faith in some other model (god, unicorns, whatever) existing even if there was a one in gorillion chance?
Consciousness is outside of reach of science. Consciousness does not exist in the external world (the realm of science), consciousness only exists within your own mind which is beyond any observation.
MRI?
No, the physical brain is a bag of chemicals blindly following the laws of physics, you will not find Consciousness there. Subjective experience truly exists outside of external reality, your consciousness can never be observed in any way, it only exists inside your mind in the same way as the color red exists.
Then why can it be altered by messing with the brain?
What's the contradiction between the two? Protip: you can't explain because there is none.
There is no difference between the external or internal world. Our instruments not being able to read the "internal" world is all there is to that.
Your philosophical approach to how consciousness is your personal experience has no value in this discussion.
Notice how you sharted out irrelevant rhetoric but didn't answer the question.
Notice how you keep repeating the same shit like a robot?
Your vocabulary is seriously lacking.
Why didn't you answer the question?
I did. I'll be here for you once you understand the answer.
Why are you lying? I asked you to show a contradiction. Nothing in your post concerns any such contradiction.
Well Anon we have a problem here if you aren't even able to understand my answer.
You can keep trying and I encourage it you to do so but the discussion can't continue until that happens.
Here's your answer:
>There is no difference between the external or internal world.
That's an unsubstantiated assertion, not the conradiction you were supposed to demonstrate.
>Our instruments not being able to read the "internal" world is all there is to that.
This isn't even a coherent followup to the previous statement, but in any case, it doesn't show any contradiction.
I'll give you some key words from the discussion that might help you.
>observation
>altered
Can you show how much of a smart boy you are with just these?
not that anon but posts like this convince me GPT bots are actually spamming this board
Agreed. The repeated use of subhuman, rat and NPC is a pretty clear cut sign of a bot.
your posts are unironically worse
You ran out of nonsensical drivel already, "not that anon"?
seethe, schizo
How are you so limited in your ability to deal with a slightly different response than usual?
don't really care about your internet drama. i'm just saying your posts look eerily AI-generated
Do us all a favor and explain how so.
lol. you think i'm actually gonna sit here and argue with you about it? i think anyone normal can see for themselves what i mean
So you want to keep giving non-answers as always?
>as always?
lol. you're actually schizophrenic
Yes Anon, the philosophy schizo who answers every single one of his replies but then stops replying and you who comments the same drivel claiming not to be him are very different people.
Its very difficult to explain because its somewhat a paradox.
1. Consciousness does not exist at all in the external world. Any evidence we can ever gather through our senses will tell us that brains are just bags of chemicals. And even if souls were shown to exist this would not actually change anything because a soul is basically a non-physical brain, but still part of the external world.
2. My consciousness exists outside of the external world, it is private to my own mind. The external world of course is the source of all my thoughts and feelings, but the raw subjective experience of being is very much private to my mind and can never be observed.
3. The only consciousness that exists from my frame of reference is my own. Every other human lacks a subjective experience. Its kind of lonely to think about.
>Its very difficult to explain because its somewhat a paradox.
It's very easy to explain: the specific details and "flavor" of a conscious experience are tied to a specific body, but this does not logically imply causation.
>Any evidence we can ever gather through our senses will tell us that brains are just bags of chemicals
Obviously not the case, as demonstrated by the very subject of this discussion.
>a soul is basically a non-physical brain
What the frick?
>the raw subjective experience of being is very much private to my mind and can never be observed.
You probably should have left it at that.0
>>a soul is basically a non-physical brain
>What the frick?
A brain is a device that stores and processes information. If souls were instead the source of the mind, then the soul would just be a device that stores and processes information.
>If souls were instead the source of the mind, then the soul would just be a device that stores and processes information.
Are you a literal bot?
>Are you a literal bot
Who knows, maybe I am. I have been suffering from derealisation lately, maybe I was never real to begin with, and my life is just an illusion.
Surely you understand that storing and processing information doesn't automatically make a mind, even if you're GPT-3.
> Then why can it be altered by messing with the brain?
It can’t be altered in any fashion. Only the objects of consciousness-the-subject are altered.
Changing thoughts?
Changing emotions?
Changes in memory?
Changes in one’s conception of oneself as a person?
Changing urges?
Disruptions or increases in cognitive efficiency?
None of these are consciousness itself changing but they are all objective (not the subject) content known *to* a consciousness, which itself qua consciousness is constant and unalterable
Only professional shitters like Chalmers make a distinction.
the distinction between consciousness and the objective content displayed to consciousness is self-evident and intuitively known to everyone, which reveals itself in the manner of speaking that people use even when they have been indoctrinated by dumb ideologies into denying the aforementioned truth; that’s why people always say “I know that” and “I saw this” instead of “this sensation knew that one” or “this thought knew that thought”
>Consciousness does not exist in the external world
The fact that our brain knows about our consciousness means that consciousness regularly interacts with the brain, which exists in the external world. Yes, we can't see it, but there are a lot of things we can't see, yet have managed to build accurate models with behavior predicting capabilities.
>MRI?
These look like the sort of analyses I was looking for. I'll watch them tonight. Thanks.
This kid actually killed himself lol
and apparently elon musk commented on his unironic schizo blog. Part of what caused him to believe he is in a simulation and finaly off himself as a "test".
I watched his videos and the core idea is kind of interesting, however he is really crazy.
Is there any deeper thought Im missig? What is his theroy called, he didn't invent that himself did he?
Mario is the ultimate case of what 0 pussy does a motherfricker.
bro what
None of Mario's ideas are originally his if I'm not mistaken but it seems that he had cobbled together a bunch of existing ideas into one metaphysical theory i.e. open + empty individualism, MWT + quantum immortality, eternalism, shit like that.
He was a literal schizo that also had diagnosed bipolar disorder and autism but he has made some interesting videos regardless of that.
>apparently elon musk commented on his unironic schizo blog
Pretty sure that was IQfy. We were into Mario when he was alive.
but he presented proof, email was of elon musk? You know he basically killed himself because of that lmao
Though I was a little skeptical, why would elon comment with his tesla business email.
What? lol no that guy who was pretending to be Elon was definitely anyone but Elon.
makes sense. Still this caused him to think he was in a simulation and then he killed himself to test his hypothesis. Probably he would have found another excuse eventually.
He not only had schizophrenia but also bipolar and autism. Even if fatalism weren't true, he would've offed himself at some point anyone and more likely sooner rather than later.
maybe. Most mental illnesses reduce way down by the time you are 40, especially psychosis and such. So if he just held out until 40, maybe he wouldn't have khs.
>Why did I experience consciousness at all?
the experience of consciousness is just a fricked up computer with a feedback loop somewhere in it. We're like animals, but one of the things that comes as an input is information about ourselves. Since all these 'inputs' seem to come magically, this awareness startles us. It only seems to come magically since the 'inputs' are neurons firing, and the only way for us to detect them is more neurons.
But why is my consciousness moving on a linear path from my birth to my death, and how can I be sure that it won't start all over again?
I don't know about block theory, or whether time is an illusion, but you're not the center of the universe. Your consciousness is playing out like billiard balls hitting one another. The fact that you can know that, and act dynamically, is just a matter of what I have already said. I have no guarantee that all things won't happen again, but I can say that it doesn't matter if it did. You would be no different, and you would lose no 'free will' because you had none in the first place.
>you would lose no 'free will' because you had none in the first place.
Agreed
>I have no guarantee that all things won't happen again, but I can say that it doesn't matter if it did.
Disagreed
>Disagreed
why?
Because if all things (including my consciousness) do happen again, it very much does matter. To me, anyway.
>Your consciousness is playing out like billiard balls hitting one another.
Imagine choosing this, of all things, as your irrational faith.
It's a natural conclusion from materialism. Bring your magic men elsewhere.
"Materialism" is a meaningless shart with no intellectual substance. It's also unscientific.
science deals with physical things, materialism is when you don't go outside of physical things in your thinking. What are you on?
>science deals with physical things
Define "physical things".
That which is detectable, either directly with the senses, or indirectly through another medium such as a telescope, and aspects about those things(Like the way they move, transform, or come together)
>That which is detectable
Good job. Your definition of "physical" potentially includes ghosts, god, magic, fairies, and any of the other things your likes are obsessed with.
>ghosts, god, magic, fairies, and any of the other things your likes are obsessed with.
could be. I'll believe it when they're actually detected.
People "detect" those things all the time. You may want to backpedal and revise your worthless definition to only include things detectable by instruments, not that it's gonna help you much, since that still doesn't exclude even literal magic fairytale bullshit. Take the L and walk away. The concept of a "physical" doesn't tell me anything about the nature of a thing. It's a non-concept.
> People "detect" those things all the time. You may want to backpedal and revise your worthless definition to only include things detectable by instruments, not that it's gonna help you much, since that still doesn't exclude even literal magic fairytale bullshit. Take the L and walk away. The concept of a "physical" doesn't tell me anything about the nature of a thing. It's a non-concept.
It doesn't have to be an instrument, it just needs to really detect it. That is, Occams razor. Prefer simpler explanations. People go on mushrooms all the time, even instruments fail or pick up noise.
Do you think things can't be detected or are you just pretending to be moronic?
>it just needs to really detect it
People "really" detect ghosts. Who are you to tell them otherwise?
>That is, Occams razor. Prefer simpler explanations.
There's a presistent patter with pop-soi mongoloids like you in that they don't understand Occam's razor. The simplest explanation for ghost sightings is that ghosts exists. Either way, these are irrelevant tangents and my point stands regardless: "physics" is basically a shopping list of known phenomena; "physical" is not a real category.
>The simplest explanation for ghost sightings is that ghosts exists
No, because ghosts existence would contradict all sorts of other things we know. If ghosts existed, then what is a spirit composed of? What laws of physics does it follow? Can it interact with the real world?
People claim extra-physical phenomena, but they can never prove it in experimental conditions, because it's not real. Not because magic /is/ real and we have to rework everything around it because someone sleep deprived, elderly, or otherwise suffering in the brain saw something in the dark.
Look, if you want formal definitions for all of this, I can give them to you. I can be airtight, but it's a very tedious process, and I expected that you would 'get it' by now. Oddly enough, you seem to just continue embracing unjustifiable claims. Do you think ghosts are real? If not, why not? If so, what other myths do you believe? Any people have claimed, like skinwalkers or Zues?
Everything about your post is moronic and unworthy of addressing, but you haven't actually addressed the point: "physics" is basically a shopping list of known phenomena; "physical" is not a real category.
>Everything about your post is moronic and unworthy of addressing
Strange that you stop now, you've already committed 6 posts. I'd appreciate it if you continue enlightening me.
>"physics" is basically a shopping list of known phenomena; "physical" is not a real category.
I would say that is a better description of science than physics, but yeah. Science, from "scientia" is "to know". We just have different standards for at what point you should accept something as known.
>"physical" is not a real category
Well, I would personally say that non-physical is not a real category, so we sort of agree in a big way (That is, that there's only one real category between physical and non-physical). Although, the best argument for non-physical objects that comes to mind is geometrical or logical constructs. Why do you say physical is not a real category?
>would personally say that non-physical is not a real category
Yes, that naturally follows from the fact that "physical" is not a real category. Your intelligence level is literally subhuman.
>Why do you say physical is not a real category?
I've already explained it numerous times, and at no point did you make an attempt to understand or address it. lol
>Yes, that naturally follows from the fact that "physical" is not a real category. Your intelligence level is literally subhuman.
Well, sort of. I don't believe that non-physical things exist, so non-physical as a category is just a fiction. But I think physical things exist, as they are all things, so I would consider that a valid term to use for something, although a redundant one, but that doesn't make it not a real category.
Still waiting for you to define what "physical" means. Notice how you can't do it, and have to resort to subhuman drivel with no defined meaning.
>Still waiting for you to define what "physical" means. Notice how you can't do it, and have to resort to subhuman drivel with no defined meaning.
The physical is the real stuff. That which you can detect, and that which you would be able to detect if it were close enough, and you had the right tools.
The non-physical and spiritual is a fiction created by people's delusions.
>real stuff
>That which you can detect
Once again, that doesn't define any actual category. One is just a synonym for "real", and the other is an ad hoc shopping list of currently known phenomena.
>Once again, that doesn't define any actual category.
Let me put it this way, there are things that actually happen, and things people say happen, but didn't happen. The real, the physical, and the true are the things that actually happen.
If you say their this nor the 'detectability' definition works, you're just working on stupid axioms.
You simply repeated the same dross. See
because it naturally still applies.
So you don't believe in the categories "real" "detectable" "non-fiction" and (by your logic) "fiction" either?
>"real"
>"detectable"
>"non-fiction"
LOL. I know the following point will be lost on you, but if your only resort in defining "physical" as a category is by equivalence with one of those other categories, why do you keep using this word? Why not just say "X isn't real because only real things are real"? Why are you hiding behind an extra layer of verbal obfuscation? Because doing otherwise will expose your vacuous, zero-information dross for what it is?
Yes, they are synonyms. No, they aren't useless or verbal obfuscation; they are used just as many synonyms are used: to focus on a different aspect of the thing.
Physical is opposed to the myth of the non-physical.
Non-fiction is opposed to fiction.
True is opposed to false.
Detectable is opposed to the myth of a thing that is undetectable.
Real is opposed to all of these.
Are you really so entrenched that you forgot how English works? Touch grass.
A literal subhuman. I really need to stop trying to talk to "people" on such a strikingly low level of cognition.
>I really need to stop trying to talk to "people" on such a strikingly low level of cognition.
oh yeah, you're a real A+ student. Bet you graduated from the mensa college of IQfy posts and rick and morty. have fun spending the next hour trying to comprehend a chair, doofus
A literal subhuman. No to ways about that. Only another subhuman could mistake this thing for a fully-fledged human being.
Go post your selfies on
, bot.
Don't kid yourself. You love trolling people here with the same nonsense every single thread.
>I've already explained it numerous times, and at no point did you make an attempt to understand or address it. lol
Did you?
You said "The concept of a "physical" doesn't tell me anything about the nature of a thing. It's a non-concept."
and "Your definition of "physical" potentially includes ghosts, god, magic, fairies, and any of the other things your likes are obsessed with."
None of this really explains everything, it just makes the claim. I would say I agree, but probably for different reasons.
>Did you?
I did. Come back when your level of cognition is high enough to comprehend it.
Why are you being so aggressive? I know that it's IQfy and everything, so it's in style to be edgy, but you just look insecure.
>Why are you being so aggressive?
Because you're literal trash and it's pretty tedious.
>If ghosts existed, then what is a spirit composed of?
We don't know what consciousness is made of, yet we know it is real.
>We don't know what consciousness is made of, yet we know it is real.
We know what its made up of. Its called the brain.
No, it's made of qualia, not brains.
its made of brains. you think it's special because it's your brain.
There's no qualia other than the brain.
People really saw flat earth, but it proved to be not real. They can be absolutely told otherwise. It takes more than a dumb normie to see things properly.
>People really saw flat earth, but it proved to be not real.
That's your problem if you subscribe to that moron's definition.
Definition doesn't matter there. It's merely statement of facts. People saw flat earth - fact. They were told otherwise - fact. This means people can be told otherwise when they see something.
>Definition doesn't matter there
Definition doesn't matter when asking someone for a definition?
Lmao can I have what youre smoking maaaaaaaan
I see ghosts/fairies, but they are obviously errors in vision processing, when a region of the field of view is assigned an erroneous motion vector.
Conscious experience doesn't entail a super natural super physical body.
>super natural
>super physical
Vacuous drivel. You cannot define what either "natural" or "physical" includes.
Sure we can. Natural is anything we have studied in physics today. Physical is anything that is tied to the body and not some ethereal floating nonsense.
>Natural is anything we have studied in physics today. Physical is anything that is tied to the body and not some ethereal floating nonsense.
Just how did people this fricking stupid end up on this board?
Through physical means and through the use of sciences we know that allow us to use the internet and computer.
Still waiting for you to define what "physical" is as a category. Notice how you can't do it?
It was already defined here
You are severely brain damaged if you think that's a definition.
I believe in the Block Universe Theory (I also believe in determinism)
In my opinion, while one's consciousness / awareness may not continue in any meaningful sense after the point of our death, our existence (whether its 1 year or 80 years) is forever etched into space-time (it being in the 'past' is just a bi-product of how our perception is hardwired).
Do you believe in free will? If you consider a singular determinate timeline to be true, do you also believe that you have no agency? You think all choice is illusory and predetermined?
>do you also believe that you have no agency?
I can do whatever I want. The fact that my decisions aren't random and depend on my current state is a necessary prerequirement for my ability to do whatever I want, and thus can't cancel it.
No I think a belief in determinism is incompatible with a belief in individual agency or free will. But despite this being true (in my opinion), people must obviously live as though they do have free will and take full responsibility for their actions (society literally becomes ungovernable if every person is reduced to the end product of a deterministic universe, which is where the criminal justice system has been heading).
Determinism is compatible with free will, if not even a necessary prerequisite of it. Read the free will series of less wrong posts, which includes
: https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/free-will-solution
> Why did I experience consciousness at all?
Because having an increasingly complex understanding of your environment was beneficial in the evolution of your race.
And having done so, why wouldn't it happen again?
Because your brain and therefore the source of your consciousness will rot away.
>(You)
Look, I agree 100% that consciousness can be explained by physical phenomenon. I do not believe in a soul. And I would be very inclined to agree with your view that consciousness ends when "your brain and therefore the source of your consciousness will rot away." That's the most obvious, intuitive explanation.
BUT, if the block universe theory is true (and it is consistent with my own strong conviction in determinism), it seems remarkable that I'm experiencing consciousness from my birth to my death, that it seems to last a certain length of time, and that I can recall periods when the present was the future, just as I will one day experience what is now only the future. So all that being true, despite the fact that the passage of time is merely a persistent illusion, makes me wonder why my consciousness simply started and existed for this length of time and, more importantly, why it will simply stop forever upon my death. The block universe remains the same--fixed, never-ending, never-beginning.
If consciousness is going to exist at all in such a universe, wouldn't it experience its full existence irrespective of a sense of time? And if not--if it's what we actually experience, a progression from birth to death and a sense of time passing--the only other thing that makes any sense whatsoever is that it will simply start over upon our "deaths." That it runs on that course ad infinitum. We live the same life over and over again, forever.
Or maybe I'm just a moron. I don't know....
>If consciousness is going to exist at all in such a universe, wouldn't it experience its full existence irrespective of a sense of time?
How could a conscious agent experience existing without time? Conscious experience depends on change over time.
>I can recall periods when the present was the future, just as I will one day experience what is now only the future
The periods you're recalling still exist, in the past.
>the only other thing that makes any sense whatsoever is that it will simply start over upon our "deaths."
"Start over" with regards to what? It seems like you're making the common mistake that people often do when talking about determinism of assuming some kind of "meta-time" exists. All the points on your timeline exist. They don't all exist "now", or "always" exist, those are time based words. They just exist. The you thinking about the future exists, and the you remembering thinking about the future exists.
>"Start over" with regards to what?
Start over the experience of consciousness, moving through all the different points on my timeline from birth to death.
>The you thinking about the future exists, and the you remembering thinking about the future exists.
But am I going to experience being those "yous" again, after I die? If not (which is my hunch and my hope), why did I experience it just this once?
Maybe the anons arguing that I'm not really asking a scientific question are right. Maybe this is purely metaphysical speculation. I knew there wasn't a conclusive answer, but I thought maybe there were some ballsy scientists out there who have hazarded a guess.
>But am I going to experience being those "yous" again, after I die?
>am I
What would that even mean? What does "I" mean here? You said you don't believe in a soul but it sounds like you do. If there's no common memories between two conscious agents they're not the same person, unless you conjure up some arbitrary notion of "soul".
>again
So time would loop again with regards to what? Again, you seem to think there's some kind of metatime.
>why did I experience it just this once?
Because that's the period of time during which you existed.
>Maybe the anons arguing that I'm not really asking a scientific question are right
It's not just a non-scientific question, it's a meaningless question. Depending on how you interpret vague terminology any answer could be correct.
Hmmm... you've given me food for thought. Thanks.
I think this is trying to make a similar distinction that I have made in the past, in that human beings are not "in" space-time but "of" space-time, so that your unique journey through the block is permanently defined by its location in space-time.
It sort of makes a recurrence seem strange if not causally connected to the "you" area that is being swept out.
I suggest you read this:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YYLmZFEGKsjCKQZut/timeless-control
There are 2 literally insane people on IQfy that can't help themselves when it comes to the topic of consciousness and all they do is call everyone an NPC and not sentient for not believing in magic.
There's another guy who keeps saying chaotic systems are not deterministic and his posting style is as rabid and moronic as this guy's. Makes me wonder if they're the same person
Wouldn't surprise me but I'm wondering what exactly any of them get out of this. Is it just trolling or are they actually insane?
Probably slightly insane
>One of the most comforting thoughts to me throughout my adult life has been that when you die, your consciousness simply stops existing. Forever.
Yes, very comforting lmao.
>Do us all a favor
Now you've reached the point of just responding with a quote. How much further can you fall apart?
Why do brainlets cling to nonsense about immaterial souls lmao. Its just nonsense
LOL @ redditors bonding over their butthurt with me and trying to create some group consensus. Can you get any more stereotypical?
At least you're giving it a new spin with this type of post.
Versatility is one of the benefits of being an actual human. You wouldn't get it. :^)
Keep going with it and the threads with you in them might actually not feel as stale as they did.
It's not threads with me that feel stale; it's threads with clinical subhumans like you who simply cannot keep a discussion going because they can't actually process new information.
So whats the deal with souls? Does it exist or is it just fairly tales?
Pretty much disproved by science, I'd say
Consciousness is not anything strange, its just a way to organize the sensory input from the external world
For example, the eye sees dashes of light color, that gets recorded as specific chemical firings within the brain. The brain equates the sequence of chemical firing within the brain as the external object that's seen. This is how we imagine things and how we "see" things. Whether it be "real" or through dreams or when your eyes are closed. The same is of other sensors. Each of our sensory organs creates a conscious experience. There's no "middle man" in there. The brain is also capable of synthesizing multiple sensory inputs and merging it as one experience.
Finally the idea of "self" conscious is merely the fact that brain is also capable of analyzing these ^above^ events as well. Analyzing creates a reference point for which the brain is analyzing the experience as. The reference point gets confused as a "self" conscious entity, when there isn't any.
There's no special existence to self consciousness, entity, or souls. The whole thing is a misunderstanding of our brain's function.
>Consciousness is not anything strange
Then why is no one able to offer an adequate explanation for it?
I just offered it. Most people simply assumed there was a mysterious entity, a small man, living inside your head, living inside your body, hijacking your body, stealing your body, that enters the body at birth, leaves at death, migrates to another body and steals that new body or simply migrates to another world where they are recalled back to their home base.
As absurd as that sounds, that is what people really believe, if you press them on it. This notion is completely nonsense if you examine it with a sober mind.
>I just offered it
Imagine being such a delusional simpleton that you think your 6th grade level post actually explains consciousness.
If any 6th grader can give this explanation, then they're a genius. Really.
Otherwise, you're attempts to minimize the explanatory powers are self-defense coping mechanism to protect your own foolish ideas about consciousness. Really, general people do not have an explanation on what consciousness is, let alone a 6th grader. Even psych majors don't have any real coherent idea on what consciousness is. My explanation is very simple, intuitive and has explanatory powers to de-supernaturalize and de-superphysical aspects of consciousness/selfhood/soul/etc
You should go to a neurology convention and tell them all about how you've figured out something they don't even begin to comprehend. As soon as you're finished explaining all the basic functions of the brain they don't understand, like memory, perception, learning, language processing etc.
No, I agree with neurology and neuroscience. My take is based upon modern understanding of neuroscience. In fact, the similar position is taken by few of the neuroscientists.
Its however not compatible with religious/common sense notion of self-hood/souls. Or anything that affirms the existence of a higher entity that is above and beyond the physical brain.
Its also not compatible with any dualists philosophers as well, aka Chalmers. The moron.
>I agree with neurology and neuroscience
Agree with neurology and neuroscience on the fact that they can't explain basic brain functions, let alone consciousness as a whole, presumably. Anyway, this is your last (You). No point arguing with someone who is demonstrably mentally ill.
Sounds like you just want to live in a fantasy world where ignorance reigns supreme and you're able to dictate the terms of what consciousness entails rather than what neuroscience has shown us.
Unfortunate, but this is not a unique position, but rather a common one. In the theological scene, the position is called "God of the gaps." In the evolutionary scene, its called the "missing link between humans and ape." In the consciousness scene, this is now "Soul of the gaps."
The argument is a rehash of argument from ignorance.
Sorry about your mental illness. Try actually reading on the subject instead of regurgitating pop-soi. Pretty much every basic function of the brain is still an open question in neurology.
>every basic function of the brain is still an open question in neurology
Therefore "soul"/"magic consciousness." LMAO.
This is "soul of the gaps." For that matter, we have understanding of the basic functions of the brain. We know which part of brain allows people to hear, to see, to think, to be conscious of, to smell, to taste, to fear, to be happy, to be sad, etc. We can tell if a person is dreaming or not, if they're asleep or not, without asking or looking at the person, but simply looking at the brain scans because we've researched enough about the brain to tell when someone's conscious or not.
All these things are known physical quantities within the brain. There are no mystery left which gives rise to any sense of self or soul entity that you wish it to be.
>Therefore "soul"/"magic consciousness."
And here the drone exposes itself with its nonsensical antics. At least you don't pretend neurology has explained consciousness.
>Agree with neurology and neuroscience on the fact that they can't explain basic brain functions
Damn Black person, what the actual frick
Not that anon but explain or give a concept yourself then please
>Not that anon but explain or give a concept yourself then please
You're like a christcuck demanding physicists give him a theory of everything, otherwise the world is 6000 years old.
>steals that new body
It's a symbiosis. The soul gets a cool toy related to its new attachment, the body gets a new powerful processor that helps it survive.
It’s bullshit tho, simplest way of looking at it is one soul many bodies.
You and I were already more closely related than any other possible pairings of me and, what, plant? Mineral? Stellar object?
One soul, many bodies. And then just ditch the soul idea because it isn’t any use anyway.
You will die and everything will be gone and no amount of dancing around the issue, scientific or not will change that.
moron, this is called "best possible outcome" in the terms of these discussions. Stop trying to drop it like a "gotcha!"
If you knew what was being discussed you'd be screaming as well.
What, that possibly consciousness once established is never allowed to dissipate?
Leading to eternal existence regardless of how many limbs you lose etc?
Dumb idea.
Consciousness is in all things, ie information processing, we just lucked into a nexus of high processing power.
Once the brain degrades we’re back to only having sufficient processing power to be or not be.
A rock just is, it doesn’t dream up shit.
The brain is the substrate that hosts your consciousness now but is by no natural law required to be the only one. Hope you're right but simply cannot know.
So you’re going defeatist to the idea, that quantum timelines mean you’ll get brain cancer that enables ongoing memory storage growth, or randomly ayylmaos kidnap you and stuff you into a machine consciousness?
Again, it’s silly, you don’t even remember half of what you did yesterday and eternal existence is supposed to be eternal torture..?
Get dementia before it’s a problem.
I can observe these things happening to others, yes, but I have no such evidence for degredation in my own perception and thats what is alarming.
So the void is more scary than eternal existence?
For me its the other way around. I could learn to cope with eternal and pointless spinning in circles but can hardly come up with a decent cope about the void. People who just accept the void imo lack the ability to truly comprehend what it means. They have some hardware feature simply overriding their fear even though it doesn't make any sense.
Only the inexperienced with severe lack of imagination fear nothingness. It would be a rare mercy in this existence.
oh so you are blackpilled about your own life and can't wait for it to be over?
idk about buzzwords but I do know suffering physical pain with no relief state is desirable by no one.
and why would eternal existence mean physical pain? Yes its one of the possibilities, if eternal consciousness existed, but why would you assume that? Could be eternal orgasm for all we know.
Because negative states abound in nature. You're more likely to encounter them. Humans for instance have to work for positive state, but to enter a decidedly negative state, one must simply fall forward on his face.
I disagree. There are more people having kind of fun in life compared to people who are 100% miserable all the time
>inb4 muh poverty
>antinatalism
Cringe, have sex incel
Why do these discussions always boil down to what seems to be the same 4 guys arguing the same shit again and again and again?
Saying "physical is real because real is physical" is not a definition of physical and can't be used to claim that physicalism is a true ontology or whatever. It's just going "all things that are real are physical because... they just are okay!?!?!"
What you're arguing against isn't just against physicalism, its against all forms of knowledge. In which case, the notion of consciousnes, the body, the universe itself is meaningless. Hence the very nature of any proposition is self-defeating and inconclusive to any argument.
Also I am a materialist, probably a stricter materialist than most of the anons here talking about physicalism or whatever. Most of you are probably not materialists, and will posit mathematical objects as real or claim certain un-material possibilities like being able to upload a mind into a computer or concepts of substrate independence etc., none of which are possible or real or material.
I just don't like that people don't answer questions directly when asked very simple direct questions. The NPC posting anon asked several times for a consistent non-circular definition of what "physical" is supposed to mean and not a single definition was given this entire thread. It's annoying to witness.
I don't have to claim knowledge is physical in order to claim it's real.
>non-circular definition of what "physical" is supposed to mean
Why is it necessary? Physical is whatever physics deals with.
Then you have to prove that what physics deals with is the only things that are real.
Saying "it's the only things that are measurable" etc., is not a proof btw, you do not have a way to know whether new phenomenon will or wont be discovered
>Then you have to prove that what physics deals with is the only things that are real.
You're arguing from ignorance. Whatever our physics science have discovered is the limit to our knowledge. As far as human knowledge goes, physics is the limit. Questions about existence beyond what physics has theorized or has shown so far, are utterly useless. You also cannot prove something that may not exist to exist. Thats the problem of burden of proof.
What you're claiming is there must be something beyond physics which no humans have knowledge/access to, which physics must prove is not there. Its an impossible task order.
>You're arguing from ignorance. Whatever our physics science have discovered is the limit to our knowledge. As far as human knowledge goes, physics is the limit.
You simply asserting this is not a proof.
>What you're claiming is there must be something beyond physics which no humans have knowledge/access to, which physics must prove is not there. Its an impossible task order.
Nope. I'm saying that just because you want physics to be the end all be all, does not and never will make that so.
>Then you have to prove that what physics deals with is the only things that are real.
In principle, there's no aspect of something that can't be studied with physics. The "proof" of this is the success of physics.
>Saying "it's the only things that are measurable" etc., is not a proof btw,
Never said this
>In principle, there's no aspect of something that can't be studied with physics.
Prove it
The "proof" of this is the success of physics.
This is not a proof
I'm not required to prove it and you haven't even specified what axioms I'm allowed to use, so of course I can just include the statement "All real things are physical" as an axiom.
>I'm not required to prove it
Yes you are, you're the one claiming it. "axioms" don't factor in here, they wouldn't be physical anyway (axioms aren't physical things) so even by saying this you're arguing against physicalism.
Until you can, you must accept that physics will never be the totality of knowledge. I don't know why this upsets you btw it's really not that big of a deal
Axioms are just sentences in some language so of course they're physical. You haven't given much thought into this have you.
>come out! there is no relationship between metaphysics and science!
>we've got you surrounded, your
theory is unfalsifyable!
ihatethebrainlet
ihatethebrainlet
>But the conscious experience of moving through time seems inconsistent with that reality.
Because consciousness is not physical. The physical just takes place within consciousnesses. So the make up of the physical universe has no bearing on the ontological status of consciousness and what consciousness is made of. Consciousness is consciousness. Hence why consciousness is never in super position as the physical world is and hence why no consciousness, be it one that belongs to a cat or whatever other conscious thing, can ever be dead and alive at the same time. This is exactly what threw off everett and why he came up with the mega cope of the many worlds in interpretation. He says so in his 'Relative State” Formulation of Quantum
Mechanics'.
http://www.weylmann.com/relative_state.pdf
"If not, we are forced to admit that systems which contain observers
are not subject to the same kind of quantum-mechanical description as we
admit for all other physical systems. The question cannot be ruled out as
lying in the domain of psychology."
He couldn't deal with projection postulate and the role of the observer.
>The probabilistic, non-unitary, non-local, discontinuous change brought about by observation and measurement
And so he went moronic and just denied it and postulated that there is no wave function collapse and that the wave function is objectively real and all possible outcomes are physically real.
>Hence why consciousness is never in super position as the physical world is and hence why no consciousness, be it one that belongs to a cat or whatever other conscious thing, can ever be dead and alive at the same tim
Meds. Now. >>>/x/
>I'm a big believer in the block universe and determinism.
brainlet detected, learn some QM please
Brainlet containment thread.
welcome brother
In case anyone wanted a tldr:
>I am mentally moronic
That's unfortunate. Have you tried seeing a doctor?
It seems to me that you give way too much importance to consciousness. There's nothing special about it. Even if we relive our lives over and over, what's the difference for you considering you won't remember? Also, It's not infinite as one after the other, but more likely infinite as everything happening simultaneously in a timeless place, so our infinite existences would "overlap".
The most scientific approach has been the Boltzmann brain. From all the configurations of matter that produce conciousness, the one configuration that produces a single consciousness is the most likely.
And that’s quite frankly the observation as well. I only know my consciousness, all the rest would be arbitrary close approximations that dominate ultra high-dimensional space.
I'm not the moron you're sperging off against, but I can tell you're the kind of mindless drone who watches 3 minute YT clips about psychiatric pseud babble and then spends the following months accusing everyone of having imaginary disorders.
>universe theory
>no physics or maths
>Consciousness theory
>no neurology or neuroscience
please post your shower thought philosophy to
, >>>/x/ or
. this is a science and maths board
Browse /x and see yourself why people post that here instead.
I miss when /x/ was creepy stories instead of literal schizos.
To those who say "it doesn't matter," I must remind you that we as reproducing creatures have the ability to subject new conscious agents to whatever states await them.
If there were some negative eternal state inherent in conscious agency, then we would have a pretty important decision to make regarding consciousnesses not yet substantiated.
This is an interesting point, but it presumes that the future isn't fixed--that there are potential outcomes we can avoid. That contradicts determinism and the block universe theory, which are the premises for OP's question.
>Some interpret Nietzsche's concept of eternal return to mean that we literally relive our same lives over and over again.
even worse is if there is only one observer and we become every organism somehow YIKES
Open Individualism. Would you believe that gets shilled like its not a nightmare?
Just think about how many girls you get to fug.
Just think about you have to get fricked by every guy ever.
Well, I don't have to get fricked by you.
Is Block Universe Theory a theory for ants? It needs to be, like, at least three times this size!
A bloc university can be dynamic determinism is a dogma not empirical reality
Only just reading about the block universe for the first time now.
If block universe theory is correct, what is the property of consciousness that propels us forward through the time dimension?
There's nothing special about consciousness. And there's no time. As a character in a book or a video game or film, that's just your role. Char in the book thinks he's conscious but: 1. he's not 2. the book's already written.
Well said. This is exactly what perplexes me, as well as what worries me (in terms of its implications for what I always believed would be the eternal end of one's consciousness upon death).
This anon said some interesting stuff that my gut tells me is on the right track, but I don't fully understand it:
Consciousness cannot be computational because computations don't produce an observer. Complex robots with AI capable of learning and behaving like a human do not have the capacity to observe, they only react. People who think consciousness is computed don't realize they actually mean that "the things I observe are computed", the way the things on a computer monitor are computationally rendered. They completely miss the fact that your consciousness is the relationship between the screen and your own observation of it. The screen is not its own observer, and the observer is not a material entity. These facts call the notion of consciousness being something created out of material processes into serious doubt.
>Consciousness cannot be computational because computations don't produce an observer.
We don't know that.
>We don't know that.
So you're going with faith? There's no reason whatsoever to presume it would. Complexity doesn't increase to some magic point where consciousness just appears out of nothing, there is no materialistic explanation for it whatsoever.
There is over 60 years of neuroscience developing models of consciousness that are all evidenced, and with predictions confirmed by that evidence. That is all materialistic.
Your ignorance is not a fact about the world. It is only a testament to your inability or unwillingness to learn. You can watch, for free, any neuroscience lecture series and innumerable literature review papers with modern models on consciousness and experimental evidence validating them.
That has nothing to do with the fact that you don't produce an observer by increasing computational complexity.
I'm not that anon, didn't say you do. But that'd depend on what one defines as "complexity". Either way, not my argument and I wouldn't word it that way.
Also, not relevant. You made a really stupid claim, that "there is no materialistic explanation [for consciousness]", and you're about as wrong as a flat earther is. If you care, you have a lot of reading to do. If not, at least don't open your mouth and show how ignorant you are to others.
Refer me to something then
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Neuroscience+models+of+consciousness
ooo, the snark has arrived!
lol, everyone said its so so its so. moron. Didn't know reality had to accomodate you gay voting system on whats real and not.
A metaphysics thread in IQfy gets more replies than any of the serious science - related threads out there. Thanks for making IQfy look stupid.
>serious science - related threads
Where are these science threads? Are they on the board with us right now?
>One of the most comforting thoughts to me throughout my adult life has been that when you die, your consciousness simply stops existing. Forever.
It's the opposite for me. The thought of not existing for all of eternity fills me up with the worst feelings of dread and loss that I have ever experienced. Nothing in my life has ever come anywhere close to this fear and anxiety.
>believing in determinism
ngmi, you've already fricked up.
why cant all of everyone's life happen in the exact same moment? would anything feel different?
All other "realities" have collapsed into this one that we all share.
The universe is conserving energy: energy does not just spontaneously spring into existence and anyone who thinks they are in a simulation or is being told they are in a simulation, ask them to show you an instance of energy being created from nothing (It's big brain checkmate to conmen and cults).
As the universe is conserving energy, all the neurons that make up you are also conserving energy, meaning all the thoughts you have are using the least amount of energy to occur and creating new "thoughts" or pathways requires effort, which is why changing someone's opinion is so hard.
The statistical improbability of a universe that is conserving energy creating our solar system (or universe) and in turn creating creatures that can perceive the universe they are in is pretty balling.
The universe at some point in the past must have been equally spaced mass on an infinite plane and something disrupted that state of equilibrium leading to matter going from an inert state of being to self-aware and self-replicating matter on a planet in a solar system of which you reading this are the apex of that process in the present.
Thank you for reading my blog.