Does the non-physical nature of consciousness challenge physicalism?
>>16296797we need to refute the vitalist hypothesis so that you never make a thread again
>>16296809unfair comparison
>>16296797No, because consciousness is physical.
>>16296797Consciousness is not susceptible to /sci/ because it cannot be objectively measured; it can only be subjectively observed by each individual within themselves.Science can only objectively measure and duplicate intelligence; consciousness on the other hand will forever be out of reach of grasping empirical paws.
>>16296797yes but it's philosophy not science
>>16296797Science by itself does not indictate either physicalism or idealism.Those are philosophic interpretations. Science deals with models and predictions.
>>16296797No more than the non-physical nature of software challenges computer science.
>>16296797>non-physical natureWhen did /sci/ become so retarded?
>>16296809based
It's amazing how a simple fact stated by OP causes all the NPCs to expose themselves.
>>16297018Its amazing how retards still don't understand software versus hardware.
>>16297029It's amazing how midwits mistakenly believe computer analogies had any epistemological value.
>>16297037The software you are using to show off your retardation to the world still works perfectly fine despite being non-physical, cry harder about another retarded non-issue.
>>16297040>imagine being this buckbroken
>>16297037You are a midwit for mistakenly believing that the actual multilayered physical encapsulation process where where software application arise from conception is an analogy rather than a direct example of how non-physical abstractions drive hard physical processes.
>>16297043I don't have to imagine, I get to actually watch you use non-physical software to moan about the non-physical aspects of reality that have you so anxious.
>>16296797Does the non-heterosexual nature of original posters challenge troll threads?
>>16297044>>16297045You just made the analogy even more cringe. No amount of projecting will save you.
>>16297048An example is not an analogy, nitwit.
>>16297051If it's not an analogy it has nothing to do with consciousness. Why are you posting offtopic, dummy?
>>16297118It has to do with non-physical things necessarily being the driving mechanism behind physical things, of which, consciousness and software are two examples.
>>16296834If its immeasurable/unquantiable, how can you verify the hypothesis that consciousness is "purely physical"?What else would constitute it being "not physical"? Quantum effects? ORCH OR? Those are physically derived qualities, they are just ones which PERMIT unknowableness so determinists hate them.
>>16297040In what way is consciousness independent of the hardware it runs on?Humans are not universal turing machines.
>>16297152Humans (non-NPC) are hyperturing. Free will is not computable.
>>162971221. This doesn't prove shit.2. It is immoral because it invites anti-intellectual trash like >>16297152 who doesn't even know what a Turing machine is.
>>16297152>In what way is consciousness independent of the hardware it runs on?Language, you can just tell someone to run the same programs you are or just write a book with all the instruction laid out algorithmically. The point is that non-physical things are necessary to drive the physical things, hardware is generally useless and dead without software to run it.
>>16296797>NOOOOO NOT MY HECKIN AWESUM REDDIT SCOIENCE!!!
>>16296797Does the physicalism challenge the idea that consciousness is a magical spirit living inside you?
>>16297292Is data physical?
There is NO SUCH THING AS NON-PHYSICALS
>>16297542Can you please show me morality? Where does it reside in nature?
>>16297542>write about a unicorn>can't actually know if there are no unicorns in the universe>therefore cannot assert it is non-physical, nor reject that is not physical
>>16297545It resides for example on my screen as a word.
>>16297148You can measure brain activity, and you can measure the lack of brain activity. We know that brain activity is consciousness.
>>16297613Le correlation vs causation fallacy and you are already factually wrong. Most brain activity is happening subconsciously.
>>16297616>any two things that are correlated are NEVER CAUSALLY LINKEDThere should be a new fallacy, what should we call it?>most brain activity is automatic >???>therefore consciousness isn't physicalVery convincing, anon.
>>16297622>getting filtered by the most basic sender receiver analogy
>>16297625Certain parts of the brain being damaged can damage certain parts of being conscious. For example, you can no longer speak but can still understand your native language. Why would this happen if it was not physical?
>>16297627See >>16297625. I don't need to repeat myself.
>>16297627Because there is a causal relationship between the physical and non-physical. It's like you skipped centuries of discourse. >inb4 then it's not non-physicalIt's because the notion of non-physical you have in your mind is not the same as philosophers. Let go of the everyday notion when engaging with this topic and you might just come to agree.
>>16297639Why not let go of your dualism and try to see it physically? You might just come to agree.>>16297638So we're just totally ignoring Occam's razor? There's no evidence of a non-physical thing, but evidence of the physical, so why multiply entities beyond necessity?
>>16297645The laws of physics can't explain qualia. Therefore Occam's razor suggests the simplest hypothesis: they are something different.
>>16297653There is literally 0 evidence of the non-physical, but there is plenty of evidence of brain activity and it being directly linked with thoughts, feeling, and emotion. Can you demonstrate how the soul interfaces with the body, and also show where it doesn't interface? can you perform any experiment that proves it?
>>16297660>Can you demonstrate how the soul interfaces with the bodyControl of the gauge freedom in the quantum field.
>>16297663Ok, and can you show this is a controlled effect?You may as well say "release photons from the sun to hit our eyes." There is still no evidence of the non-physical
My ancestor :(
>>16297666Still better than Indian street food. I wouldn't eat anything that swam in a Chinese river though.
>>16297665The evidence is subjective. But since you are unable to see it I will have to assume it isn't present in your mind, i.e. you do not experience qualia or free will. This shows that brain activity does not necessarily cause consciousness. Hence the consciousness I am experiencing from my first person perspective cannot be reduced to physical processes.
>>16297673>ad hominem>still no evidence Why would brain damage be able to cause blindsight?Are memories stored in the brain, or the soul? Explain memory loss. Is there any reason to assume a non-physical? Let me answer for you: no. It's just religious cope.If there is a soul, why can people go into comas and then wake up again? Were they on a groovy soul vacation?
>>16297682It's not an ad hom, it's an empirical observation. I experience something you don't. This needs to be explained. Explanations within our current physical theories are insufficient. Hence it must be something else. For the rest of your post see >>16297625
>>16297688>ad hominem >and just asserting claims without evidenceImagine getting filtered by basic physicality.Is binary addition non-physical? The transistors are just a receiver for the binary computer addition spirit?Is sight non physical? The eyes just perceive reality without interfacing with it in any way?I'm sorry that physicality scares you, but there is literally no evidence to the contrary. You can believe it if you want, but you still have 0 proof. It's literally just cope for you future non-existence.
>>16297693The only religious fanatic here is you. You cannot accept that there are people who aren't NPCs.
>>16297660>how the soul interfaces with the bodyThe official /x/ narrative is that the soul is the default unbounded existence. Physicality, or matter as we know them, is the bounded, programmed, state of the originally infinite soul. So it's less there are two distinct entities (body and soul) interacting with one another but more the relationship between hardware (soul) and software (body).As for how this hypothesis can be empirically demonstrated, the experiment would have to be a demonstration of psychic ability that alters the very foundation of reality as we know it.
>>16297682>blocks your path
>>16297702>I-I HAVE A SOUL!!!!>I WON'T DIE!!!>I-IT'S REAL! I KNOW IT'S REAL!And Grandpa is taking care of Fido on the farm upstate with Yahweh and Mohammad, or whatever it is you believe. >>16297709Now see, we could actually try to prove this. A demonstration of psychic abilities would be some proof of something, maybe you could spin it into proof of a non-physical existence.The issue is, despite having been tested countless times, there have been no positive results. Is there a way to square this circle? Even if it existed but wasn't tested, what would you expect to see? I'd expect to see people who somehow win the lottery more often than not, or mind control, or something like that.What do you expect to see, anon? Is there any evidence? Thank you for being much more civil than that other retard, by the way. He won't read this far though my post so it's OK to insult him now.
>>16297718>shifting le goalpostsI never said the soul was immortal. You are making up shit because you have no arguments.
>>16297720>You are making up shit because you have no arguments.I couldn't have said it better myself.Why not just displace some quantum fields for me? Could you do that under an experiment in a lab?Could we record it?Even something that philosophers used to quibble about like "what is color" we've solved. It's just the reaction of specific wavelengths of light with specific cones in our eye. Do you believe in the non-physical existence of color still? I bet not.
>>16297474information is physical.
In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am englightened by my intelligence
>>16297778Comma splice.Period instead of semicolonStarting a sentence with "but"Comma spliceMisspelling enlightened>In this moment I am euphoric; not because of any phony god's blessing, but because I am enlightened by my intelligence.
>>16297718>is there any evidenceI have done /x/ related practices and I have seen level of evidence for myself.The problem scientifically however is I know for certain there is no way these evidences can be presented in an objective manner to stand scrutiny as they can always be explained away by conventional theories. The sheer frequency of occurances however have convinced me personally.As for something mindblowing that can stand up to scrutiny, word around the schizo block is that the world is changing. Not in the socio-economic and political sense, but literally. Where once consciousness can only conjure up synchronicities that can be explained away now it's full on Matrix bullet dodge. This bold prediction is also not something in 100 years but in literal years.So I guess we'll just have to see.
>>16297795The issue with basically every miracle claim is some combination of these things:It wasn't recordedIt was recorded, but fakedThey're assuming something means something it doesn'tFor examples of each>it happened last Tuesday, I totally predicted the numbers on my friends fortune cookie! I told you I was psychic! >anything by Uri Geller >I prayed to God for a sign, and after looking for literally any sign for 10 days, I found a $20 bill in the parking lot when I was $19.80 short on my electric bill!
>>16297653>Occam's razor suggests the simplest hypothesisSo an emergent phenomena coming from physical processes, just like literally everything else? I feel like occams razor is the worst argument you could possibly make, considering the "existence of a nonphysical thing" is a massive assumption
>>16297795Also, something I meant to add, if you admit that they're better explained by convention, and you're in a meeting place where literally every believer is trying to prove it, you'd expect at least some claims to slip through. If it's real, really real, why hasn't anyone ever actually tried to prove it over on /x/? I'm sure you could find enough self-claimed psychics in your city or area to join in a quick "guess the numbers in a box, use some dowsing rods, read some auras" experiment.
>>16296797There is no reason to believe that consciousness is non-physical.
>>16297808"Emergent" isn't even a meaningful word.
>>16297830https://www.dictionary.com/browse/emergent
>>16297834yeah, cite the dictionary definition for a discipline specific conceptepic, simply epic
>>16297830Do you think angels replicate cells and hold stars together, or are brains special in that regard?
>>16297839So you admit it has meaning? Do you want to make an actual point or just continue to spew nonsense? Can you experimentally show the interface between non-physical and physical medium?Can you explain where your soul goes when you go into a coma vs when you come out of a coma?You only avoid direct questions and answers because you're dishonest. You can prove otherwise, but that would require answering these questions. I'd accept an "I don't know," but I'm sure you could see why that doesn't convince me you're right.
>>16297847Can you explain where the world goes when I go to sleep? Can you prove you aren't a figment of my imagination? Can you prove you aren't a bot?
>>16297855No, which is why I have some axioms. I assume reality is real. If I didn't, I couldn't prove it was, but that's why it's an axiom.I assume I'm not the center of the universe, dreaming it into existence. I assume since I am conscious, other people are too. This is so far partially confirmed, because we've measured the stuff in people's heads and they pretty much act the same as the stuff in my head. You are incredibly dishonest. You haven't argued a single point at all. To restate my questions:Where does the soul go in a coma patient? Why does it not control their brain like it does when they come back alive?Can you demonstrate the interaction between a soul and matter in any verifiable way? You are a dishonest liar.
>>16297841Why are you talking about brains? This thread is about consciousness.
>>16297867>why are you talking about the heart? this is about the circulatory system.
>>16297867>Why are you talking about stars? This thread is about light
>>16297873>>16297875Your examples only show the weakness of your stance. The circulatory system could work with any pump other than a heart. Photons are emitted by many objects other than stars. Consciousness is independent of the brain.
>>16297879You're right, my example is too weak. Answer these questions >>16297859>why are you talking about photons? this discussion is about brightness
>>16297879>Photons are emitted by many objects other than starsExactly, and consciousness can be produced by things other than the brain. The brain still produces consciousness in humans
>>16297859>I assume since I'm consciousYou are not conscious.
>>16297881Consciousness isn't "produced" because no physical process can produce something nonphysical.
>>16297889How does stubbing my toe (a physical process) produce the nonphysical sensation of pain?
>>16297895Prove that you experience any pain. Just saying ouch or making a painful face doesn't prove it.
>>16297899Prove that you're capable of conscious thought. Just making a retarded 4chan post isn't enough
>>16297904>shifting le burden of proofAs expected you have no arguments. You lost.
>>16297909Then who won? A philosophical zombie can't "win", let alone comprehend the idea of winning. They merely appear to be people
>>16297909Lost hard, consciousness once again proved physical, and you proven to have none.
>>16297916>>16297934>a blind man celebrates his victory after proving that colors don't exist
>>16297859The figment of my imagination says I must just assume that it isn't. It goes a step further because this assumption is the basis for all material suppositions, including those which seek to refute the axiom in the first place - ergo, the axiom contradicts itself and should be discarded. >you haz no free will!>you are fizzy chemicals>this axiom is just fizzy chemicals in random coherent alignmentAnd somehow I am the dishonest one. Boring materialist agent.
>>16297803>>16297808>If it's real, really real, why hasn't anyone ever actually tried to prove it over on /x/?Prove what exactly? You do "X" and "Y" happens in a significantly high frequency to satisfy. That's pretty much the only proof anyone need. I mean do you really understand why anything work in /sci/? Or do you merely observe, adjust model, and make predictions?And yes, due to the very unregulated nature of /x/, the amount of fakes irl is higher than /sci/.Nonetheless, whatever does work, works.
>>16297952Wow, for an AI chatbot it you write really coherently
>>16297639When I think of physical I think of physics and how physics should be able to measure or calculate consciousness somehow.
>>16297956>Nonetheless, whatever does work, works.Tautology, doesn't prove anything about the current situation. Why not get a bunch of psychics together, do some tests, see which ones fair better than chance, and have a little tournament or something. Both parties write down 5 numbers and draw a simple picture, and then try to guess what the other person wrote and drew. It could be like an /x/ gameshow, and if it's real they'd have someone able to get like 90% accuracy. >>16297952>argument from consequences Sorry reality makes you feel bad, I hope your headcanon helps you feel better :)
>>16297952Can you answer any questions here? >>16297859If you can, you will reply with answers, including "I don't know" as an acceptable answer.If you can't, you will either not reply or post something off topic.
>>16297971>remote viewingGo ask the CIA about that gameshow.As for me, I'm not some academic here trying to prove something to fight people for a cut of funding.Certain practices worked for me in my life and I have reaped the benefits. I will continue to do so and that is good enough for me.
>>16297976All of your "questions" have been answered by >>16297625
>>16297982So you have no proof? And that's why I don't believe.>>16297983>argument from analogy Your analogy is flawed, you're filtered by basic arguments.Prove me wrong, and answer my questions. Until you do so, you're filtered.
>>16297985You are so fucking butthurt because you got filtered.
>>16297997>filtered by a basic chemistry analogy Answer the questions. Read them and understand, then answer.
>>16297888You're right, but you're also not conscious. I'm the only real person ITT, and you're all figments of my imagination
>>16298001You did not post a chemistry analogy. Stay mad.
>>16298035You did not post a sender receiver analogy. Where is the soul of a coma patient? What is it doing? Nothing?
>>16298036Indeed, I never posted it. I merely referred to it since it is well known. Yet you still got filtered.
>>16298038And I pointed out it's simple chemistry. Filtered.Where are memories stored? In the soul? Why does brain damage cause memory loss?
>>16298040It's so funny that you don't understand the topic at all.
>>16298049Keep dodging my questions. It only makes you look bad, and gives me the upper hand. Can you measure the signal from a soul?
>>16298040>Why does brain damage cause memory loss?NTA but I would guess it would be like damaging a 'receiver' irl, where the quality of the recieved signal is diminished. Certain parts of the brain correspond to sending/receiving from certain parts of the soul. The issue with that though is if you continue that logic enough, the "soul" and the neurons in the brain are basically mapped 1-1, and at that point what's the difference between the soul and the brain creating consciousness (besides the fact that the soul can exist after death I suppose.)
>>16297029Larper retard detected
>>16298055Filtered by monads
>>16298055That's why I brought up Occam's razor earlier.If the brain can do everything the soul is supposed to, why propose a soul?I keep asking this guy simple questions and he can answer none of them. I'd be willing to argue the receiver point, but he brought it up once and never actually tried to defend it.
>>16298052>my ignorance gives me the upper handTop lel, this is /sci/ 2024
>>16298062>why propose a soulI guess it would make some of the weirder implications of physicalism more intuitive. Like, if you were killed and were replaced by a perfect clone who shares all your thoughts/memories, a physicalist would say you're the same person (since you share the same brain/body with the clone) but OP could say you were different people w/ different souls.
>>16298062I gave you two examples of phenomena not explainable by physics. You WILL keep dishonestly ignoring them.
>>16298078You gave none. >qualia Perfectly explainable by "you" being brain chemistry.Have you heard about split brain patients? Which half has the soul?If you're going to say "they both have the same soul" why would the physical disconnect in the brain cause a disconnect in the controlling soul? Explain that.>>16298077If you created a perfect clone with exactly the same brain pattern and chemistry, you couldn't tell them apart. If you were replaced in your sleep tonight, you'd have no idea that you were no longer you, would you?I'm of a mind with Parfit here, it's just as good as regular survival.
Is this thread just 2 people having the most unproductive conversation in the world?
>>16298087Basically just me and him, yeah. Though I think it's fun to pose challenges and he thinks it's fun to cry about it.What is productive about 4chan if not having fun?
>>16298082Go on, explain qualia.
>>16297542where can I touch a thought?
>>16298108You receive information from elctrochemical reactions, such as taste, sight, or sound. These in turn produce electrochemical reactions in your brain, which fires off other reactions, etc, in a big network that gives you a memory of an experience. The "taste" of an apple isn't a part of the apple, it's a part of the shit that fired in your head. Your turn.Answer the split brain question.
>>16298114That's not an explanation. You didn't answer the question. You merely repeated your assertion.
>>16298117Your turn.Answer the split brain question.
>>16298117He explained what produces qualia, what more do you want?
>>16298125He didn't address the explanatory gap.
>>16298138Where's the gap?Maybe it's in the split brain question. Feel free to answer that.
shitty thread full of anime and frogs
>>16298140It's on Wikipedia. Your ignorance never ceases to amuse.
>>16298151So about the split brain question? Got nothing there?No answer?It's perfectly well explained physically. The fact you won't accept the physical explanation is a you problem, not a physicalism problem.
>>16298158The split brain is completely irrelevant. Only your ignorance doesn't allow you to realize why. You are blind.
>>16298164>i-it's irrelevant...>i don't have any answers, b-but that doesn't matter...>I don't care, you just don't understand...>n-no I totally understand, I just don't want to answer...I try not to argue with ESLs because they have a hard time putting themselves into english, so their arguments appear weaker than they actually might otherwise be.You, on the other hand, are just an idiot who can't face facts. You don't understand? What's there not to understand? How do you explain magnetic fields being able to give transcendent euphoric experience? That's qualia with a direct, measurable, physical, tunable cause.Answer the split brain question, or admit you don't know.
>>16298167Now you're buckbroken. And you still don't understand the hard problem of consciousness. Hilarious.
>>16298175He can't answer any questions about his religion, because his religion has no answers for hard questions. I've won, simple as.
>>16298184Which religion?
>>16296797Yes because all the physics points to the idea that it is far far more likely you are a Boltzmann Brain, which is ridiculous but that's what the physics tells us.
>>16298258what physics points to that?
>>16298279The general argument is that over many billions of years, heat death is inevitable. But over an infinite amount of time, there's an infinitesimal chance that all the particles in the universe will arrange themselves such that the big bang happens and the universe is "restarted". It's way more likely for a Boltzmann brain to form than the universe though
>>16298279It's the idea that perfect thermal or quantum equilibrium is impossible, and fluctuations happen even in an otherwise featureless universe. Over a very long time, it is practically certaint that there will be a random fluctuation strong enough to generate a whole conscious brain. And wouldn't it be more likely that this brain is you? (instead of a whole universe filled with life and planets and stars that seemingly formed with you)?
>>16298341I don't believe it would be more likely. In one situation, you somehow have a brain totally randomly, in the other scenario you have basic laws that eventually result in a brain. Brains are selected for, evolutionary speaking.What are the odds that of all the brains that could have formed, its just you? It's much more likely you're one of a crowd than the one and only. This argument holds no weight because there is no real probability being displayed.
>>16298348It's not totally random. Pure randomness is also impossible. All the laws of physics are the same and its easier for them to result in brains if it is a random entropic process because there is less material needed and less randomness needed to generate it.
>>16298350So there is a brain out there which somehow knows everything you know, thinks humans look like this and work like this, blah blah blah, basically simulates a whole universe, and that's more likely than a universe that is likely to select for life and brains?If you bring up some retarded shit about flipping heads N many times, I'll point out 2 things. 1. Any combonation of heads and tails in a specific sequence is unlikely to come upIt's just as unlikely to get HHHTTTHHHTTT as HTHTHHHTHTHT.2. This is still just guessing game wankery, there is no real probability involved.
>>16298352It is much more likely for a boltzmann brain to have formed than for the universe to have formed. Getting 10 trillion heads in a row is less likely than getting a thousand heads in a row
>>16298357For every once boltzman brain possible, in a universe such as ours there are billions of possible brains.
>>16298361Yes, and the differences in probability are still so vast that it doesn't matter. [math] 10^{80} [/math] atoms all need to be arranged for the universe to exist, only [math] 10^{30} [/math] atoms need to be arranged for a human brain to exist, possibly fewer
>>16298366I'm saying your probability is wrong. It's simply a thought experiment, and you mislead yourself. There's no reason to assume one more likely than the other, and in fact the inverse is true.I said a billion, but it's likely not a billionFor every boltzman, there are trillions, quadrillions, perhaps more in a universe like this one. Having 1 brain come together randomly is much less likely than in a universe where chemistry promotes the formation of billions or trillions per species, and perhaps billions of intelligent spiecies per galaxy, and billions of galaxy per every one memeber of the species.One universe is so unaccountably vast that the likelihood of a boltzman brain compared to any 1 real brain is nearly zero.
>>16298352It doesn't simulate a whole universe. It simulates the exact present moment you are in right now and that's it.And yes, this situation is far more likely than a whole universe forming with all the life and brains and various interactions of things that we know happened, it's just the theories seem to be flawed for this paradox, and it hasn't been resolved.
>>16298372It's not a paradox, it's literally just someone saying "What if it was like this."There are no measurements, there is no reality to it. That's been my whole point.What if a computer formed and it was a perfect computer that just happened to simulate a very very small portion of our univese every second, but since we're part of the universe we'd never even noticed it because it simulates us on the same timeframe.Maybe ever planksecond takes what we would think of as 10^100 years.
>>16298366It's much bigger than that. It's all the individual microstates of all the atomic and particle interactions that have ever occurred and will ever occur, which added up would be bigger than Graham's number, verses a momentary blip of 10^30 atoms and their quick interactions to generate the present moment you are experiencing right now.
>>16298376>What if it was like thisThat's how scientific theories work. Either our current understanding of thermodynamics is wrong or we're probably boltzmann brains. I'd prefer to believe the former
>>16298383You are the densest person I've ever talked out outside of that one other retard I was arguing with earlier in this thread. A scientific theory isn't just "what if it was like this," it's "considering all these things we KNOW, what best explains this."A boltzman brain is not something we knowYou fat retard.
>>16298376You clearly don't even understand what we're talking about. This comment proves it.>What if a computer formed and it was a perfect computer that just happened to simulate a very very small portion of our univese every second, but since we're part of the universe we'd never even noticed it because it simulates us on the same timeframe.You are an absolute moron who has no hope for actually understanding this problem.
>>16298391You are the dumbest motherfucker ever.>it's obvious I'm just a random brain in space>what? a computer??? You don't get it at all!Why not? A computer is simpler than a brain, and we've programmed simulations all the time.Really, if you think about it, it's much more likely than a boltzman brain.If you disagree, you're clearly just misunderstanding. Again, you have no argument, it's just nonsense drivel you chose to put your faith in.
>>16298385>considering all these things we KNOW, what best explains thisYes, and we know almost nothing>A boltzman brain is not something we knowExactly, and yet according to our theory of thermodynamics it is much more likely to exist than anything we do know. That is the paradox
>>16298394Can you even state the laws of thermodynamics without looking them up?
>>16298393Because the fucking computer is not conscious, you thick-skulled idiot.
>>16298402Oh sure, but it's simulating you, which is conscious. So there you go. I told you "if you didin't get it, then you simply misunderstood." And I was right.
>>16298398No. Do you understand thermodynamics better than Feynmann, or Caroll, or most cosmologists? I'm assuming they know more than you or me
>>16298404No, you don't get it. I am conscious. The computer is not conscious and therefore irrelevant. You're setting up an idiotic strawman that has nothing to do with the actual thing we are talking about.
>>16298393You said that this computer is 'perfect'. This is a meaningless ideal computer that has no basis in reality.
>>16298412Prove that you're not just being simulated on a very simple computer which ticks away at its job very slowly.You can't. So therefore you're most likely just a random simulation on a simple computer. QED.Of course you're not convinced. I doubt even you yourself think you're a boltzman brain. You're just arguing about things with no basis in reality.>>16298409Caroll agrees with me. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00850You can disagree with him, of course. But I don't. It's a pretty good argument he lays out.>>16298417Boltzmann Brains are equally baseless.
>>16298420I don't think I'm a Boltzmann Brain for fucks sake. Your hypothetical computer is actually MORE complex than a Boltzmann Brain because it requires more total interactions due to the fact that it must have systems that sustain the computer as well as the simulated brain.
>>16298425So BBs are more complex because they require the brain as well as every memory in the brain and every thought the brain will ever have.Obviously, this is a stupid argument, so I'm surprised you're willing to make it.
>>16298429It only requires the memories that you happen to be having right now and doesn't involve any future thoughts beyond the present moment of experience.
>>16298433And so with a simulation of youA brain is just a gooey simulation made of complex proteins and fatsA computer is a relatively simpler thing made of some metals therefore you are a Boltzmann Bot
>>16298435You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't matter how simple the computer is. It is the cumulative amount of interactions that are necessary to generate a brain, and that amount seems to be less than what we observe happening in the universe. Your computer strawman is a complete misunderstanding of the paradox and even if I concede that it would take fewer interactions to generate my brain, that would actually hurt your stupid idea because it would be SIMPLER whereas the whole universe is observed as more COMPLEX.
>>16298446We're not talking about the whole universe. We're talking about you.You're the star, and you're a slow, shitty, run down simulation on a shitty, simple computer. Much more likely than anything remotely brain-like with organic molecules and complex fat-storage and proteins.
>>16298450I am fucking done. Holy fuck this board is full of idiots.
>>16298452No, just you.And your shitty simulation. Sucks this ended up being your one microsecond.
>>16298420The argument from cognitive instability seems self defeating to me. There are two possibilities You are a BB: Then you can't trust the laws of thermodynamics, and you conclude that you're not a BBYou are not a BB: All of our knowledge regarding cosmology says you are almost certainly a BB though. Since we ruled out the possibility of being a BB, that means our understanding of cosmology is wrongIf either is true, then we're still left knowing nothing
>>16298485It could also be that the probabilities are off, and that you are not likely to be a BB in a universe which is expanding seemingly infinitely.The natural conclusion of the limit is that BBs are rarer and rarer every second
>>16298490But that also means that the likelihood of a new universe being created is constantly decreasing as well, reducing the chances of a non-BB person existing. Unless we're the first (and maybe only) universe to exist
>>16298496From what I know, I believe this is a one way ticket. It's nice to be here while I can be.
>>16296848So you say op is correct?
>muh split brainSevering the corpus callosum does not affect the pineal gland. The pineal gland has been known in Ancient Greece already as the gateway of consciousness. NPCs are simply people with calcified pineal gland from drinking too much fluoride.
