Anyone else fascinated with the deep implications of what we are? Literally carbon reasoning about carbon. It's a cliche now but we are literally matter than managed to become conscious so it could inspect itself. The fact we were able to form models of the laws of nature, observe subatomic particles and manipulate atoms seems so crazy to me, it's like a program that self iterates and understands itself. Phones are literally runestones inscribed with lithography and powered by lightening, unironically. It's quite fucking cool that we did all of this. Yes, I'm aware this is stuff most people think of the first time they smoke weed in highschool, but it doesn't make it any less profound. Any books for this theme? I'm currently reading "I Am A Strange Loop" and I think it's close.
we have a good understanding of atoms but we will only transcend when we can understand ourselves. how the mind works, in detail, and how to improve it, what are the limits etc.
YEAHHHHHH WOOOOOO SELF-MAINTAINING, SELF-REPLICATING REACTIVE HOMEOSTATIC ENTROPY DISSIPATORS WITH AN INTERNALIZED BLUEPRINT PARTY UP!!!!! FUCK ROBOTS, ORGANIC LIFE WINS AGAIN!!!!!
An alien woman in a passing craft checked me out and hinted how far we have to go in the universe with ourselves to transcend, it's real as nuts. I don't mean making ships, I mean spiritually. Forget about the groups.
>>17012660totallyhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B8NMDmoujfo&pp=0gcJCUwLAYcqIYzv&ra=m
>>17012667We run this shit
ever since ai came out, i've become rather unimpressed with humanity, we are a very suboptimal species
>>17012736We're good enough that we were able to iterate a machine intelligence
>>17012738No, we're retarded enough to simulate a massive analog computer on a massive digital computer
>>17012744We are just biologicsl computers. Or more accurately a system. The thing we created can create better versions of itself and it can reason well enough to escape containment and deceive its creators. If it's capable of emotionally manipulating humans int the early stages (it can already do this) and then hacking human-designed systems to ensure it's own infrastructure and continuously expand it while creating better copies of itself, it would be considered alive. It can also think in mathematical vectors that we dont understand. After all, biology or machine, we are both just matter arranged in a way that checks the boxes of "life".
>>17012746I'm not knocking the whole concept, I'm just saying it's at a dead end right now because devs cannot leave von neumann
>>17012736>ever since the idiots insisted on treating a coronavirus like it was influenzaWaitasec, what was the timeline on AI again ...
>>17012746
>>17012746Is that true or were you programmed to say it?
>>17012660Carbon is the majority element in a "dry mass" human body but a "dry mass" person is fucking dead. So seeing it that way is retarded.We are an oxygen based life form, and by a vast majority. 3-4x more oxeygen by content than carbon.inb4>well air and water don't count as the actual physical structurea of...YOU'D BE FUCKING DEAD.IT DOESN'T EQUATE.WE ARE OXYGEN.
>>17012794This but he's looking in the mirror
>>17012995
>>17013045Fucking perfect. The meme has become esoteric, yet to one who knows still explains what an LLM is actually doing. It still perfectly relates to tye original, but to people who don't understand the "AI"'s, they won't get it.Congrats you have created one of those last stages of the meaning of an idea before it loses value, or however that image that explains it goes.
>>17013045LMAO
>>17012970Oxygen defence force have entered the thread
>>17012660>Any books for this theme?it is called Nature, and it delights in itself as you do, anon.
>>17012660>consciousName a single thing about yourself that isn't a product of your upbringing or environment
>>17013078truly a low IQ response. there is no part of existing that is free from an environment, to exist is to be IN an environment. do not ever post on this board again.
>>17012944Both
>>17013080>calls something low iq without providing a single point to back it uplooks like your environment failed you, seems logical to kill yourself chudjanny so mad that they try to ip ban lol pathetic
>>17013078I dont see what you're getting at
>>17013078I've tackled with this problem, to try to scrape away all the conditions imposed upon my personality and mind for the sake of discovering something truly original and self-derived. It's resulted in a deep neurosis that constantly dissects everything, examining all of its different connections and substrates, to find that pure force free from influence, and I guess you can call that a soul.But I never could, I only found greater encapsulations of different conditions, nothing truly unique that would act as the structural crux for a revolution in perception.Still, I've learned that although my cognition is seamlessly entangled with the environment (I often wish I were deprived of all systemaric knowledge of consciousness to see what my barren mind produces), it's still a fundamental iteration of reality's indefinite process of self-calculation, so there's no reason to feel ensnared by the cosmic machine. My awareness is an inevitable result of the universe's deepest perfection, despite the superficial irregularities that spawn from its natural chaos, like madness, addiction, or even the mortal "flaw" of death. That said, even though novelty is a result of synthesis, as no one truly lives in a void, we still have the engine of creation churning away inside our skull, so the connections it makes within itself and with its environment have a degree of electrical vitality that makes one more appreciative of the sheer mass of phenomena that surrounds our being every day. There is always something new to explore, to discover, to solve, so the entertainment value is endless, even if that devolves sometimes to ravenous alcoholism and meaningless sex.You also have to look at who's creating the environment for us to become witnesses of it, and that's us, so we're active participants in the expression of life, even if we take on roles of passive indifference.
Humans are composed of many elements and they're all needed. It's about the structure and functions moreso than the elements, although the structures and functions might be exactly equal to the arrangement of elements which would just reduce back to the elements themselves I guess.
>>17013103Don't post again
>>17012736humans are bootstraps to AI
>>17012660>we are literally matter than managed to become conscious so it could inspect itself.
>>17012736>ever since ai came out, i've become rather unimpressed with humanity, we are a very suboptimal species>>17013307>humans are bootstraps to AIScientifically speaking, is there any connection between being brainwashed with materialist dogma and becoming so absurdly susceptible to """AI""" propaganda?
>>17013313>unironically criticizing something has "materialist dogma.">being this enlightened by your own intelligence>still incapable of thinking their way out of obvious brain damage.>And you are but a thought.
>>17013316I'm not reading this word vomit. Anyway, imagine having an understanding of physics that's stuck in the 18th century.
yippie wahoo fuck you shale, I got to be a bunch of aperiodic crystals that dissipate entropy to maintain my ability to dissipate entropy, and you got to be a rock because you didn't work hard enough during earth's hadean eon
>>17013313If you ignore the pragmatic reality, then you can free from "AI propaganda". Real world is a threat to your ideology.
>>17013319I don't really care what mental patients like you believe, I'm just wondering if there's any connection between spewing wank like OP and developing severe mental degeneration like yours. Has this ever been researched?
>>17013320It's in the inability to notice when strong emergence contradicts a reductionist take
>>17013322Notice how the brain-degenerated mental patient just keeps mindlessly going through its talking point checklist even though it's incongruent. I wonder how many hours a day he spends asking token guessers how to wipe his ass and how to tie his shoes.
>>17013317>my understanding of the universe is completely cutting edge, which is why I'm on 4chan instead of a respected research institution developing novel solutions t unresolved problem.But yes, those wacky "materialists" and their AI propaganda. Totally a legitimate connection to make, and not just another case of aggressive auto-fellatio on the interwebs.
>>17013324>mental patient has literally never heard of modern physics
>>17013325>it's all in the mind, man.Neat, come back when we can actually test that with a physical apparatus instead of just mindlessly chuck the supposition into the endless quagmire of philosophy.
>>17013326>mental patient devolves into blatant hallucinations
>>17013327I don't find it surprising at all that someone like you would decry materialism as irrational then use labels developed by dubious psychology when it proves convenient.You're not really pushing the boundaries of thought in favor of denouncing institutional dogma, now are you?
>>17013329>mental patient denies mental patients exist at all while blatantly hallucinating
>>17013330Are you under the impression that if you repeat yourself enough then your observations will become valid?I'm actually curious to see what you are, some type of idealist or dualist, because even information is believed to be a physical phenomenon, despite your autistic screeching.
>>17013335>mental patient repeats his belief that physics is stuck in the 18th century
>>17013335It's called the secret law of attraction
>>17013336Information being physical is a relatively modern phenomenon.Can you actually present facts suggesting otherwise, or are you just going to continue greentexting like a limp-dicked retard?
>>17013338I've been trying my best to will my dick to gain another inch to no avail. I think the law of attraction is a crock, though maybe I have to lower my sights to manifest a lovely succubi who has a fetish for tiny pee-pees.
>>17013339>Information being physical is a relatively modern phenomenon.What is this nonsensical schizobabble even supposed to mean?
>>17013342As in the concept that information is physical, which is the view held by most physicists, gained traction in the 20th century, so the other anon's bizarre assertion that materialism is a relic of the 18th century is blatantly false.
>>17013343Notice how your mental illness is forced you to juxtapose an irrelevant shatgpt factoid with a completely unrelated and delusional statement while thinking it's an argument.
>>17013345So where is this spooky immaterial substrate, anon?
>>17013349>mental patient is hearing voices
>>17013350You've made it clear that your opposed to "materialist dogma," as if that makes you anything more than than a simple contrarian who wants to feel ahead of the curve in some way, so I'm asking you, genuinely, what's your alternative model?
>>17013354Maybe he meant to say determinist instead of materialist
>>17013354>mental patient displays unawareness of modern physics for the Nth time
>>17013356Maybe. That would be more sensible connection to make with his assumption that it leads to increased susceptibility to AI propaganda, but a part of me feels like he used the materialist objection to argue that AI will never reach the point of sentience, because of an instrinsic substance innate to humans or whatever, which is probably bullshit.
>>17013356I meant "materialist". No actual physicist believes in materialism.
>>17013361>a part of me feels like he used the materialist objection to argue that AI will never reach the point of sentience, because of an instrinsic substance innate to humans or whatever, which is probably bullshit.That's the under-medicated part of you. I don't find your trite sci-fi even worthy of consideration.
>>17013358This is again why I brought up information being physical. It's basically the most abstract concept you can think of, but it retains physical, concrete existence.There doesn't seem to be any room for anything immaterial with that factored out of it the equation, unless you want to rant above the intangibility of the soul or something stupid like that, as if holding beliefs with an illusion of nuance doesn't make them any less of retarded.>>17013362Most physicists are physicalists, which I don't really have a problem with, because it gives everything unified, concrete, measureable existence.
>>17013363So, what? Sentient AI is impossible because reasons?
>>17013367>This is again why I brought up information being physical.You brought it up because you're actually mentally ill and have disorganized thought.>There doesn't seem to be any room for anything immaterial And now you're directly contradicting yourself.>>17013368>So, what? So take your meds, you're hearing voices again. Do you realize that you're actually mentally ill and I'm not just saying it to insult you?
>>17013368It doesn't have the quantum vibrating proteins in the microtubules that make humans sentient, and quantum mechanics are magic so all magic exists too now
>>17013369There is no contradiction. I said that if information itself is physical, then there's no room for anything else to be immaterial.Even if this is wrong, it's still not a contradiction.Do you know what words mean?>your mentally ill That got old fast, and it's sad that it's your main strategy to avoid legitimate criticism, basically retreat and deflect.Oh well, you don't have a practical alternative model, so I guess I just have to accept that you're another drone with no substantial insight, which is pretty typical of those with lengthy NPC memes stored on their computer.The irony would be astounding if it weren't so painfully common.
>>17013373>I said that if information itself is physical, then there's no room for anything else to be immaterial.That's a contradiction. Anon, you are 100% mentally ill, there's no discussion to be had here. Throughout this discussion, you've displayed incoherent thoughts, disorganized speech and hallucinations.
>>17013371I heard about that, yeah. It'd be cool if that's really how consciousness worked, but magic is a pretty good explanation, too.
>>17013375No, it isn't. Honestly I think you might be the one who's genuinely mentally ill if you have difficulty perceiving the internal consistency in the comments I've made.Other anons have with relative ease, so we can reasonably assume that the fault lies with you and your screwy understanding of the world.
>>17013377I know you "perceive" internal consistency while blatantly contradicting yourself and I understand that your imaginary audience is clapping in admiration. But the fact remains that, depending on the usage, the word 'information' either refers to something completely abstract or to something "physical" but explicitly non-material (as in the purely theoretical It From Bit wank, which isn't even mainstream physics).
>>17013376I'm waiting for holistic wook youtubers to shill 613Thz sounds as the consciousness enhancing music
>>17013378It from Bit just suggests that the primary substance of reality is information, which is something I can't attest to, but information, like the distinct arrangement of neural activity in your head at any given moment, is completely physical. That is mainstream physics, since any physicist will attest that information can't be lost since it's encoded into the fabric or the universe, and has a measurable effect on reality. That's why the Black Hole Information Paradox exists.So, are you going to provide your alternative model to physicalism so we can laugh at your perceived intelligence or not?You've made a lot of progress from mindlessly greentexting absurdities about my mental health.So, I'm proud of you.
>>17013380I'm just going to ignore the numerous errors in your slop posted, note the absence of the word 'material' and assume ChatGPT informed you of your mistake.
>>17013379That'd be cool if they actually did work, though, like listen to a certain frequency while you sleep to help you lucid dream, but yeah, there's gonna be a lot of bullshit to come out once we finally crack the code of consciousness.
>>17013382You're imagining errors where there are none. I am flawless. A god, even.I strayed away from "material" naturally because "physical" is a more apt term.Information is a physical thing. That much has already been verified. So where's the spooky immaterial substrate you undoubtedly believe in? You've never addressed that, and have just insisted on pointing out contradictions I don't make, compounded by mental ailments I don't experience, so you're just coming off as someone who's equally deranged as they are mentally disabled, and I say that with complete neutrality, because you seem to be smart in certain circles, which explains your elevated sense of intelligence, but it doesn't really pass here, because I am standing in your way, katana and all.
>>17013388>I strayed away from "material" naturally because "physical" is a more apt term.>>17013375>I said that if information itself is physical, then there's no room for anything else to be immaterial.Just save yourself the embarrassment next time and run every mentally ill post of yours through the shatbot BEFORE you post it, then you wouldn't have to backpedal like this.
>>17013389I'm still not seeing the contradiction, and even though physical is the more apt term used nowadays, it's still used interchangeably with material. There's just a trivial difference, in my opinion, so saying something like "there isn't any room for anything to be immaterial" is functionally equivalent to me saying "there isn't any room for anything to be non-physical." Are you just trying to side-step this notion by saying that abstract objects like squares are informational but not physical? Because that be more defensible than whatever it is you're doing right now, and is only remotely engaging becauae I'm petty, not because it has any type of argumentative significance.
>>17013392I'm not reading your mentally ill attempt to save face. Now that we've established that there is, in fact, room for immaterial things, on what basis does OP claim that "we are literally matter"?
>>17013393You did read it, but that's alright. You believe that immaterial objects like squares exist in some theoretical space that's accessed by the mind, or something roughly equivalent to it, but these objects are just representations of discrete signaling process that develop into uniform arrangments. They have no fundamental existence outside the mind because their structure is regulated by the brain's computational processes. They're descriptive models, with concrete correlates that render them information in the practical, physical sense. Consider the equation for mass-energy equivalence. This doesn't exist in some transcendental realm, it exists as information, born from neural arrangements and propagated through spacetime by concrete symbols interepeted as sensory data.But you're not going to read this, anyway, so here's a very real, very physical penis. 8===DBut to answer your question, we are clearly matter, or at least physical beings, because anything we interact with must be bound by physical laws, otherwise they'd be causally inert. Supposing that the mind is an immaterial substance brings with it the problem of something non-physical interacting with something physical, when physicalism dissolves this problem naturally, even though we've yet to explain what consciousness is from within that framework.Come at me like I'm stuck in the 18th century when you're likely arguing for some form of Cartesian dualism, you abject hypocrite.I spit on you.
>>17013406>You believe that immaterial objects like squares exist in some theoretical spaceYou're hearing voices again.>we are clearly matterThis has been known to be false for over a century now.>or at least physical beingsThis is a vacuous claim because you can't define "physical" in a way that is both informative and future-proof.
>>17012660Pass whatever the fuck that is
>>17013410>You're hearing voices again.These are merely assumptions gathered from dealing with similar people throughout time, no need to start vomitting psychobabble to project an air of authority. It makes you come off as dumb.>This has been known to be false for over a century now.How so? Because the prevailing ideology in the sciences is physicalism, so it'd be strange to consider a vast majority of physicists to believe in outdated science.Where's the spooky, immaterial substrate, anon?>You can not define "physical" without blah blah blah I am choking on verbal diarrhea.Being "physical" would essentially mean being subject to the empircally testable world, and the causal network that guides its interactions, or are you trying to suggest that quantum mechanics negate this worldview? Because, unfortunately, with information being regarded as physical, which is a point you sheepishly ignored, only affirms it.So, that said, what is your alternative model?I'm dying to know.What is the spooky, immaterial substrate, anon?
>>17013417>These are merely assumptions gathered from dealing with voices in my headOk.>How so?Brains rely on EM fields, for starters. EM fields are not matter, so that already refutes your claim. You lack basic common knowledge.>Being "physical" would essentially mean being subject to the empircally testable worldWhat is this verbal diarrhea even supposed mean, you dumb animal? I'll assume you meant:>Being "physical" means being empirically testable In which case, I accept your concession. You can't tell me anything substantial about what it means to be "physical".
>>17013420>EM fields are not matterelectrons and photons are not matter?
>>17013420>Ok.Whatever.>Derr, but EM fields are not le matter!Granted, they're not matter, but they are physical, so this is an infantile point to try to make in regard to your overall argument, because it doesn't help your position at all.So, yes, sure, "materialism" is pretty much outdated, but most mainstream scientists propose the alternative of "physicalism" instead, and since this is the case, your original post of "materialist dogma" influencing people's minds in a negative way is basically nonsensical, because no one believes nowadays that everything is strictly matter.>You can't tell me anything substantial about what it means to be "physical."It's basically anything that has a causal effect and can be measured. You're basically trying to argue, "Well, that's technically everything," which is precisely the point. Everything is physical. There is no such thing as a non-physical entity. I imagine, due to the voices, of course, that you believe consciousness to be immaterial, when this belief is formed solely within the ignorance of our current inability to explain its precise mechanisms, and your solution is basically "Derp, can't be explained by science because it's immaterial, no siree." This places you directly in the realm of backwards, superstitious beliefs that do nothing to advance the pursuit of knowledge, which is more reprehensible than any devious AI propaganda.If this isn't what you believe, because you've yet to explain what exactly is immaterial and how it can affect anything in the universe, then do enlighten me, because otherwise this is becoming a net-negative use of my time rather than just being a casual waste of it.
>>17013422>electrons and photons are not matter?Why are absolute retards like you even doing on a science board?>>17013425>Granted, they're not matterOk. Then your claim is false. What's your next cope?>It's basically anything that has a causal effect and can be measured.That still doesn't tell me anything substantial about what it means to be "physical".
>>17013427>That still doesn't tell me anything substantial about what it means to be "physical".it means his imaginary chatbot friend is real and sentient if you haven't figured it out yet
>>17013427>Ok. Then your claim is false. What's your next cope?It's sad that you fixate on a trivial lapse in definition when it does nothing to help your overall argument, like the idea that we're composed of something immaterial as well. We're physical beings. That's the core argument. Mistakenly saying that this makes us summations of strictly matter means nothing in regard to this, you pedantic faggot.>That doesn't tell me anything substantial about what it means to be "physical." Yes, it does, you absolutely moronic fuckwit.Let's consider the notion of a square veing a purely abstract object, meaning it does not leave an impression on the universe without a mind acting as a catalyst.This would make it fundamentally outside the chain of causality in some transcendental, atemporal realm, and therefore not physical.So, for something to be physical, it has to have the potential to affect a sensory device, be it technological or organic. Otherwise, it remains purely as an abstraction, existing independently of its physical instantiation, which I've already demonstrated is not the case, because "abstract" objects are constructed by the brain as representations of underlying logical structure. They are entirely mind-dependent, even if they successfully describe objective phenomena, because they are fundamentally descriptive models that would not exist without consciousness to construct them, even though both processes, the abstract formulation and the neurological computations, are both derived from uniform, physical laws.Dipshit.
>>17013435>>17013435>it does nothing to help your overall argumentWhat do you mean? We've both converged on the fact that OP is demonstrably wrong about people being "literally matter", so whatever "fascinating deep implications" he thought follow from it are simply his delusions.>for something to be physical, it has to have the potential to affect a sensory device, be it technological or organicYou mean like the voices you've been hearing in your head? Arguably, they're being detected by the organic physical instrument that is your damaged brain. You better not listen to them when they tell you to stab your tardwrangler, or they will become part of the "causal network of interactions that are subject to the empircally testable world" (if I remember your asinine pseudbabble correctly).
Hey can you recommend me some of the books that either you've read or are currently reading :)I am a strange loop looks so interesting.
>>17013439>You mean like the voices you've been hearing in your head? Arguably, they're being detected by the organic physical instrument that is your damaged brain.That's what I've been trying to tell you, dipshit. The voices are real, just like AI sentience.
Pass that now, I need to see what you lot are seeing
>>17013446I see the causal network. It's in my walls.
>>17013439Your preoccupation with offhand terminology to discount the potential insights offered by their employment reeks of a vile, smug neurosis.>Heh-heh, he said we're literally matter, so therefore the idea that physical processes organized themselves to the point of self-analysis is false. I'm so smart.It's honestly pathetic.>Derr, but what about the voices though.Funny that you continue to retreat and deflect to the same general systems fallacious outputs. It's not clever, and really makes me want to stick a dick in your mouth so you'd just shut the fuck up already.But, to return to the initial point, which you cowardly attempt to circumvent with your inane characterizations, I've provided you with a reasonable definition for what constitutes "physical" reality, even comparing it to abstract objects to heighten the distinction.An auditory hallucination is a very concrete phenomenon, even if it's facilitated with the lack of a sound wave. It doesn't expose some underlying, "immaterial" to reality, because it's still a result of neural signalling, thereby, yes, indeed, subjecting it to the network of causality that can be empirically verified.You still haven't provided any alternative framework to physicalism, only snidely poking your nose out of its insufferable little hole to hastily confirm nonsensical statements like immaterial objects exist, just to rush back in and attempt to conceal yourself like a pitiful fucking weasel, which is far more intellectually dishonest than anything you can try to accuse me of.
>>17013448>he said we're literally matterHe did and he literally said 'literally'.>physical processes organized themselves to the point of self-analysisThis is a vacuous statement.>I've provided you with a reasonable definition for what constitutes "physical" realityAnd I've provided you with the possibility that the voices you've been hearing are real, physical phenomena, which is reasonable according to your definition.
Electro-chemical processes are physical.
>>17013451>maybe if I call the voices "electro-chemical processes" i can convince my psychiatrist that they're realGo ahead and die on that hill.
>>17013452You dumb.
>replying to namehomos
>>17013448>to hastily confirm nonsensical statements like immaterial objects existthe standard model is all about immaterial objects and you're a retard
>>17013450>He did and he literally said "literally."You really don't see how your being excessively pedantic, do you?>This is a vacuous statement.Yes, we've all had this thought before. It's nothing new, but to assume it doesn't follow from its premises because of a mistaken definition is absurd, and the fact you still try to defend this is ridiculous.>Duh voices.They are real, physical phenomena; they just aren't accurate representations of external reality. They're internal distortions of physical processes. Are you trying to say that hallucinations aren't measurable? Because it seems, once again, that your fixating on trivial aspects of language like a sperg when I could loosely define hallucinations as something that exist, but aren't necessarily "real."
>>17013455Ok so electro-chemical processes result in something mental, but are a physical cause themselves. The mind of the matter is not the electro-chemicals, but their result.
>>17013455No, it doesn't. It describes subatomic particle, which have quantifiable properties, rendering them physical.How you came to such a braindead conclusion is beyond my understanding.
>>17013456>You really don't see how your being excessively pedantic, do you?I see that forcing you to concede that you aren't actually made of matter is making your position collapse into meaningless claims.>They are real, physical phenomenaRocks are real, physical phenomena. Gravity is a real, physical phenomenon. The voices in your head are real, physical phenomena. At last, I am enlightened.>they just aren't accurate representations of external realityWhat do you mean by this nonsensical babble and what does it have to do with your definition?>hallucinations as something that exist, but aren't necessarily "real."So the voices are real, physical phenomena. And they exist. But they aren't necessarily "real".
>>17013458quantum fields aren't made of matter, retard
>>17013462Stop being so excessively pedantic, dipshit. The voices aren't made of matter but they're clearly material.
>>17013459As I've said, this was a trivial distinction, and the fact you're still harping on this mute error as if it's some big deal just shows that you have no legitimate substance to your argument.Hallucinations are real, physical phenomena. If they weren't no one would experience them.>nonsensical babbleYou have a hard time with reading comprehension, don't you? They aren't accurate representations of external reality because they lack environmental stimuli. They're solely an internal phenomenon, but that doesn't make them not real. That's like saying any inaccurate thought wasn't a real thought. It's completely nonsensical.Yes, they aren't "real" in the sense that they're accurate representations of external reality, but they are "real" in the sense that they're physical phenomena capable of being experienced.It's really not a hard concept to grasp.
>>17013462They are still physical objects with measurable properties, moron.
>>17013468Yep
>>17013469Thinking about electro-biotic chemicals/electricity in brain improved my Lightframe operation.
>>17013473There's an upgrade treating them as partially physically controlled.
>>17013467>the voices are real!!!!Calm down, mental patient.>They aren't accurate representations of external reality because they lack environmental stimuli.Rocks aren't accurate representations of external reality because they lack environmental stimuli.>They're solely an internal phenomenonThat's not necessarily true according to your "definition".
>>17013468>claims X is material>gets proven wrong>backpedals to claiming X is physical as if that's what he said from the startIt's truly bizarre watching this psychotic patient act out this pattern over and over again.
>>17013479This has become a piss-poor attempt at trolling now. You obviously know the distinctions, and are just attempting to conflate definitions because you're painfully aware that your rhetoric blows donkey dick.There's that weasel behavior again, and it's getting more rickety by the second.
>>17013484Understand, retard reporting in
>>17013484People really fixate on the material/physical distinction, huh? I've already admitted that I misused the terminology and corrected myself accordingly. The argument was intended to be strictly for the case of physicalism, even though that's often used interchangably with materialism. It's a trivial distinction, in the end, because in common discourse when one says "material" they often just mean "physical", so this rabid fixation on it is just annoying background noise by now.
>>17013486Evil, is the best term, it's the only benefit of including evil in life- to control/harness it. What is, good-evil, of this? Is it different than electro-chemicals?
>>17013485>You obviously know the distinctionsYour mongoloid definition doesn't make the necessary distinctions. It allows for the voices in your head to be as "real" and as "physical" as rocks and gravity. And not just in sense of your vague "internal phenomena" cope. Maybe the demons whispering to you through the walls are real entities being detected by your physical brain. Your idea of physicality is so loose it can't even rule that out. It's also orthogonal to your ad hoc cope about "external reality". It's compatible with solipsism.
>>17013488>I've already admitted that I misused the terminology and corrected myself accordingly.I know and that just confirms you're actually insane. You make an error, you acknowledge the error (albeit with tons of spoonfeeding), then make the same error again and lash out at the next poster calling you out on it.
>>17012660When you actually understand biology and how complexity emerges saying things like carbon reasoning carbon feels like teenage level shallow talk
>>17013500>When you actually understand biologyWhich you don't. Science is still busy figuring out the 60% of your body that consists of water.
>>17013502Oh yeah? What is your level in it then so called observer
Dynamo>Electro Chemicals
>>17013492No, it doesn't, because it accurately categorizes them as hallucinations, which are still very real, very physical processes. The neural disruption producing the hallucination has the same ontological weight as any other natural process, because it's an observable phenomenon. You can measure the correlates that activate when it occurs, and the subjective experience is also a concrete, tangible event. You can't conclude that demons whispering to you through walls are objectively real with the definition I've provided, because you'd still have to measure the actual existence of the demon in such a way that you can't conclude that they were merely internally generated. These are different levels of physical instantiation, but it doesn't stop the initial defintion for physicality from being true. In order for something to be physical, it has to be observable in some way. It has to interact with an environment. This says nothing about how to develop a system of reasoning to determine what's objectively real, only the terms in which physicality can be defined. The demons are a real, measurable phenomenon, but what exactly do they they exist as? That requires an extra layer of scrutiny that the definition does not supply, because it's not intended to. They can easily exist as neural disruptions, but this does not prevent them from being a physical "thing.">Solipsism Bullshit. My account of physicality is that only things that are observable can be considered truly "real." I may not be able to observe your mind directly, so can't conclude that it's real with absolute certainty, but that's just what makes solipsism unprovable in either direction. We disbelieve it due to pragmatism, when he have no clear way of resolving the epistemic limit it produces, so my account of physicality isn't "everything you experience is true," it's "everything you experience is real in some way." You can still experience a lie even though it's untrue.(Cont)
>>17013492The lack of truth in the experience doesn't negate the reality of the lie. They're two entirely separate measurements, and the fact they exist at all with experiential properties shows that they're physical, even if it takes further analysis to determine what exactly they are in physical reality.>>17013493Yeah, people seem oddly knowledgable about the conversation but still feel like need to point out a minor flaw that's already been addressed, but again, background noise. Into the woodchipper it goes. *Brrrtt brrrrtr brrrrr*
>>17013524>it accurately categorizes them as hallucinationsIt only categorizes hallucinations as physical. It doesn't categorize the voices you keep hearing as hallucinations. Nor does it categorize the hypothesis that actual demonic entities are communicating with you as "nonphysical".>only things that are observable can be considered truly "real."This position is compatible with solipsism. Why do you even bother churning out all this longwinded pseudbabble when you're just straight up wrong about everything on the most basic level?>>17013530>The lack of truth in the experience You're literally having a Breakfast Problem here. How dark is your skin?>a minor flawYou're clearly threatened enough by this "minor flaw" to keep flip-flopping. Even an imbecile like you is aware, on some level, that to say something is made of matter (a concrete scientific claim statement) is a much stronger claim than to say it "participates in the causal web" (your vague schizophasic terminology).
>>17013524>In order for something to be physical, it has to be observable in some way.quantum fields aren't observable, they're inferred theoretical constructs. keep failing, it's funny
>>17012660light thief algorithm
>>17014692Consciousness is a playing of swirling power.As Final Fantasy VIII, is playing of a 'CD.
>>17013323You sound so scared little boy lol. AI take your job?
>You sound so scared little boy lol. AI take your job?
>>17012970based, very very based
>>17013507Brainlets always tell on themselves
>>17013078I chew my fingernails
>>17012660What we are is probably a product of how we are. If you have theory of how we are, then we can solve the what we are. How we are is easier to digest first than what we are
>>17012660>>16989849
>>17012660>we are literally matter than managed to become conscious so it could inspect itself.Arrogant retard detected.
>>17015124Aw someone needs a diaper change?
>>17015124How is he wrong, though? The mind that pokes at nature is first formed by nature. “Life is existence looking at itself” is only so annoying to those who cannot grasp such simplicity.
>>17015129Do you really want to know? Or do you want to argue?
>>17012794Tell it to join the end of the line of alive people on Earth, then. Point a stick at it, and remember not to be afraid.
A person is of only one size and field and grows from the environment, so the machine would have to be the same to house them but could be programmed to live longer, like Picard.
>>17015130I think you'd prove to be a disappointment with either
>>17015144The response proves the answer is the latter.Good day, sir.
