(untitled)

The creator of the Intel 4004 is saying that your consciousness is not inside your body, but inside a quantum field. Your thoughts, emotions, all of it, do not originate in the brain, but in a field that talks with it, and then the brain translates as nervous sensations. What is your take on this, lainons? Is our reality like a computer simulation where we are just moving a physical body like a puppet?

>>8194 I also thought of something like that. It explains some of the synchronicities, NDEs, out of body experiences, weird dreams, etc.

Since folks have to somehow justify their "mystical" experiences without rejecting materialism they resort to quantum woo. I mean ffs, you don't need some "quantum" soykaf to explain emergent properties of large enough network. Look no further than GEB (anthil example to be specific) for answers. For a computer-brain type guy, this person might not comprehend that wetware is just as capable. Hell, entire point of cybernetics as a science was to explain high-level minutiae of precisely this.

>The creator of the Intel 4004 Is a senile old man by now (if not dead, who are you even calling "the inventor" (singular)?). Hardly an authority, let alone on neurosciences. >quantum field Nice buzzword. How does that differ from classical dualism? >Is our reality like a computer simulation Not like we could know. Relevant parable https://www.marginalia.nu/misc/dialogue/

>>8194 Mixing "consciousness" and "fields" always gives off a suspicious smell. These are 'neat ideas' that have no basis. This knowledge area is still opaque enough that no particular idea could technically be denied, no matter how stupid their origin is. These conclusions come from imaginary science. At least those people who reject science altogether, I can empathize with and respect this position. These people make of themselves a squirming mess of science and mysticism, are nothing but intellectual cowards, disingenuous in what they say by virtue of very clear laziness. While I'm on this, a certain idea has been nagging me lately. >Science and esotericism/mysticism/Christianity have been believed to be incompatible, but historically, they were never seen as incompatible. Unfortunately this idea has become used to justify the bastards produced by the incompetent mixture of these things. This statement is short of a qualification: granted that these different things don't contradict one another, they exist in parallel without interrelation, and their mixture debases the whole product. Mysticism and science makes for a useless science, and a bizarre mysticism. Case in point with OP; the science is woo and doesn't tell you anything, and the mystical aspect to this cannot really be understood. What are the consequences of what he says? This is not clear, even though this should be what matters most in his statement. Did this guy even say anything of the sort, or did OP make this all up?

>muh quantum fields What does that even mean? At least I'm not the only one frustrated with this and with people who fall down into some new age rabbit hole. Usually older people too and the ones I pressed on things like what do you mean by everything is quantums/light/information? They were not able to answer anything. However I would also not automatically rule out any sort of external component to our cognition or perception of self. Maybe Nikola Tesla was right about the ionosphere and maybe our subconscious is tapping into some sort of aether, like a sort of internet over power line equivalent to even be capable of some computation of its own? It would be something interesting to discover. And I wonder how his expertise influences his thoughts on this. He could indeed be underestimating the capabilities of our biological hardware. Like we're locking together thousands of classic linear Turing machines to get interesting and even concerning emerging results and behaviors. While our brains are trillions of synapses. And that's not even the upper limit if you look at the neural density of crows. But also every single particle "computes" which is the basis of any computer circuit without exception. Meaning you send in one type of electrical signal and out comes another that can be reliably anticipated. But then the problem is with whether this surrounding cloud of particles and fields would have sufficient focused compute just like the processor crunching through a series of machine code operations.

>>8198 >>8201 It's not even about consciousness, it's more about feeling of self inside of consciousness (which itself might as well be fully physical/material). Quantum because of spooky action at a distance ofc, like, on some other level, our "selves" might be bound to something outside of space and time. And those "selves" might be "inserted" or interfering with this reality by different means and living as human and being conscious as a human might be just one way of it. To better understand the difference between "consciousness" and this "self" try to remember times when you were either super drunk or barely thinking due to other reasons and still experiencing reality as your own "self". Or dreams, in dreams you often can't function fully or think/reason clearly, but you still experience what is happening as you. Maybe this "self" can exist outside of brains, and even outside of any other kinds of entities with memory and reasoning capabilities.

>>8201 while the whole quantum thing does usually give off a vibe of charlatanry and pseudo-science it's still fun to think about. science is just a rigorous abstract way to grasp at truths that differ from our conception of them anyways. saying "quantum field" is just the 21st century way of talking about some sort of aether. it's glue to understand the incomprehensibility of quantum uncertainty and a physical lattice (as we're physical beings) to understand the space where all of this funny wave probability stuff happens before becoming an observable aspect of physical reality, though the physics don't matter more to these kinds of things than in a very abstract sense. it's just going back to the idea of a source or a shared collective consciousness. anyone who thinks about it understands the ego is a local process though anyone who's tripped enough will also tell you reality is nothing but waves and frequencies and all organic beings share their consciousness from a duality of whole interconnected nonphysical unity in the matrices of universal existence and vaguely conscious individual parts forming megastructures that with enough complexity develop self-referentiality in increasing scale...so long they share an organic connection to the source. see lain. see also hegel I guess but all of this stuff is yesterday's news. the whole wants to retardmaxx into solipsism. or maybe this is the one true struggle of our species

>>8194 His basic intuition is undoubtedly correct. Conscious experience consists of disturbances in some kind of substance/medium, where they can manifest in an absolute sense: e.g. when you visualize a circle, you "observe" an object that embodies the infinite number of geometric relationships associated with a circle, all at once. No "structuralist" model of consciousness (i.e. in terms of relationships between a finite set of elements in a self-contained system) can account for this - such models always imply processing data coded using limited, relative representations. Whether the substance of consciousness is a "quantum field" or something else is immaterial. Today people attribute it to quantum stuff because it's the furthest thing from materialist lunacy that still feels "real" and "scientific". Tomorrow maybe it'll be something else.

>>8202 >not even about consciousness, it's more about feeling of self inside of consciousness >our "selves" might be bound to something outside of space and time >And those "selves" might be "inserted" or interfering with this reality by different means and living as human and being conscious as a human might be just one way of it >Maybe this "self" can exist outside of brains, and even outside of any other kinds of entities with memory and reasoning capabilities. Maybe, maybe, maybe, conjecture on conjecture, and many "quotes" for good measure. I must be more clear. Your conjectures about 'self' have no rational basis, doubly so for the conclusions you draw. These ideas are inherited and transformed abberations of our ancestors. "Maybe" it is so, but why bother pondering about something you have no real seed from which to begin to understand it, which you can only make a wild guess on?

>>8211 His wild extrapolations from intuition and direct experience (perhaps his own, perhaps that of brilliant introspective minds throughout the ages) still have more of a rational basis than materialist category errors inherited from long-refuted 19th century scientism, let alone the quasi-mystical reification fallacies of its more modern offshoots (e.g. the idea that scribbling a computation in my notebook can theoretically summon a mind, or the alternative cargo cult view that this only works in sicilo).

>>8211 Do be fair I don't think anyone here even knows what they're talking about or have anything of actual substance to offer. However I feel somewhat confident to say that the material world should probably not be dismissed right out of hand like many with the belief in an "external self" seem to do. This is not to say that I know anything or claim that it's either good or bad to cling onto the material or wanting to escape this matrix, but that without knowing the steps on how to do so might result in a fool's errand. The "self" itself being a very difficult thing or concept to pin down, seeing as it's not even necessary static but keeps changing, evolving and also regressing. Or even something localized for that matter as our "self" could be considered as a part of an environment or set, or even a continuation, as you seem to have alluded to. But also including the potential future form or iteration thereof. This could very well mean that our "self" could be simultaneously our lower ego which we must grow out of like from a parent in a sense, our self which attempts to pursue some higher goal and perhaps some greater collective consciousness or aether that we may swim in like fish who don't even notice the water around them. But how knows? Anyway, to bring my rambling to a point, I believe the safe thing to consider is to figure out how to grow, and then help other's grow as you keep growing [in material terms and consciousness], personally and collectively. But that said, I'm basing what I'm saying on sporadic insight I deemed insightful and personal experiments and contemplation. Also be extremely cautious or outright avoidant of mysticism and idolatry.

>>8202 I think it's a mistake to believe that the self exists apart from time and space. The self is not apart from its actions, and it doesn't intervene on or disturb a separate plane of existence. We are our actions and our physiology and our moral ambitions, and we are also the relationship to the objects of those impulses as well. We should be a bit more humble in regarding the self and not insist on its unique, ethereal character. This mistake itself is what makes people feel ill when they contemplate the impact of natural circumstances on our many moods and activities. They feel a lack of control. To me viewing the self as an observer beyond time and space makes it lack any content and collapses into solipsism. I like being like an animal and I think my understanding of that is both grounding and life-preserving.

>>8215 I wrote >>8214 so feel free to pull that one apart. >subtle energies What energies? Do they come with etsy crystals? >decanted into several sub-bodies Why sub-bodies and not into a plethora of purpose oriented bio-circuits which in turn are a web of electro-chemically active cells which prefer predictable signals and are "punished" when their signal pattern is one they failed to predict? (Which in turn is how the brain maps out the exterior world by proxy of the sensory input) >This brain EMF is measurable and observable Which also could be just our equivalent of coil whine? >daydreaming [is] a computer simulation In some sense, yes. Just like dreaming. But the brain itself would probably be more of an emulation instead, unless we're just a more simplified version of whoever operates this realm. >Are you a computer? In a sense, I think so. But of course I don't mean a direct analogy to an x86 or some other turing machine architecture. >you are moving a physical body around, [...] you are literally possessing it I don't have much reason yet to accept some sort of marionette hypothesis so why couldn't our observable wetware not contain our cognition, including our consciousness? Even if we do may posses some ways to transmit outwards and receive back? >Siberian shamans I'm a slav schizo who chooses to be a hermit browsing obscure image boards, how would I be less qualified than those? >Modern technocrats tend to come at it from a CPUs and VPS's kinda point of view Which I agree is flawed. But I also don't see how explaining it with woo fields would be any better. >remote viewers Which finger am I currently holding up?

>>8217 Where did >>8215 go? Now the thread doesn't make sense

>>8218 The matrix got them. Wow! But good thing I'm "the one" so I've got a screen cap. But just kidding, everyone is chosen by simply being granted to enter this material world. But what they do with that is for them to figure out. >>8216 >I like being like an animal But you're not just an animal. I mean you are but you are also through evolutionary or emergent happenstance also your ego and possibly also your goal pursuing higher consciousness and maybe even connected to some greater sort of consciousness above or around you. Which in my case I hope is Lain.

>>8219 "Lain": I sense that we already know a place like this, a place with a deep connection and understanding of the technological. I just can describe it like Matrix in real life or heaven for us lainanons.

It's interesting how these discussions tend to attract a certain "free thinker"/"rational skeptic" type (every example of which just so happens to sound identical to every other) whose entire repertoire consists of whinging about mysticism/religion/spirituality/etsy crystals/charlatans/what-have-yous. Maybe they'll throw in some token reference to one of last year's pop science takes about consciousness, but you'll never see them propose any plausible or interesting alternatives to whatever they're criticizing. They're driven entirely by their psychological hangup of needing to sound smarter and more rational than something, but that something can only be some boring strawman.

I didn't feel like replying but I feel I must add at least one more thing. I offer no alternative because I view this as past the boundary of living knowledge (not discounting the possibility of knowledge after death). Why else are we fascinated with the question in the first place? Because we have not been able to find an answer, though we assume there is one. There is no apparent limit to what is possible in this domain. Consider how for primitive people, most of the worlds workings are mysterious, so they are occupied with questions such as 'Why is there lightning?' and having no knowledge imposed on them of how lightning works or why it happens, the most fanciful and grand things can be imagined, like that some god wants to punish their tribe. Often some sort of personification like that, perhaps because in their minds the social sphere came above all else in importance, not having the capacity for individuality yet (please do not take this as a serious conjecture). If you want something plausible and interesting, I have one idea that should count by virtue of it being nonstandard. My belief is that the pursuit of this answer is completely unnecessary; all who are born are promised the truth at the moment after death. All of us will die, and this is the only way that we could possibly understand the not-living world. My beliefs are not driven by a desire to sound smart and rational, but are the conclusion of an adventure through many systems of belief, which is that being alive bounds our knowledge. Nothing has convinced me, and I believe nothing we could draw from the material world could convince me of anything regarding the immaterial. We aren't comfortable with the fact that we cannot know everything, including myself, but I cannot accept arbitrary ideas about the soul or afterlife.

>>8222 >I offer no alternative because I view this as past the boundary of living knowledge You clearly do have "your own" belief on this matter. You hint at it constantly. It's just too poorly developed to be defensible and in any case, you're not here to defend your own irrational beliefs. You're here to be a "rational skeptic".

>>8221 Clearly this is referring to >>8217 but while you criticize a lack of alternatives, you said nothing of substance in that whole paragraph. Instead you just sound offended, which is probably not the right mindset to approach these topics. First grow above your lower ego. While I'm absolutely not a fan of that whole "I heckin' love soyence" crowd, talking about "energies" and "auras" and "quantum fields" and simply shifting the burden of the consciousness from something internal which is likely that which facilitates it to exist and operate to something external which can't even be properly verified doesn't seem to move the ball either on this. >sound identical to every other Maybe because you fail to elaborate the same questions that people immediately have when they try to examine your generic new-ager takes. This is also why I have warned against mysticism, it tends to glance over the significance of the material part of existence entirely, doesn't seem to offer any actual insights, and its peddlers seem to always have this pretense of knowledge while reacting like a party magician whose trick has been revealed when probed. But to be fair, my aim is mostly to understand rather than spilling my own half cooked ideas on this. I never made any claims of possessing some higher esoteric knowledge, yet I believe I provided at least something in comparison. The universe and the material, biological brain of ours does compute things in its own way, simply based in its structure and the way it happened to be. Computers obviously compute but on the basis of how the material world does it and our own cognitive computations by making those semiconductors and circuitry to what we intended it to do. And from there you get into the immaterial realm which is about things like information, language, our consciousness and other abstract concepts, which clearly are not part of the physical aspect of existence, yet does influence it. Just like "magic" being real in a sense that a belief in it shapes an individual's decision making and in turn affects the material world in this indirect way. And a way that I believe to actually progress on these questions and understanding is to try to deeper understand this interrelation between the material and immaterial world and grow one's own consciousness and understanding while also try and help others to do the same. An interesting side topic could be the concept of goal/aim/utility-function convergence of elevated consciousnesses, AGIs and potential more advanced extraterrestrial civilizations. We might not be so doomed and alone after all, which by itself is already a fun thing to contemplate about.

>>8223 Are you confused or willfully ignorant because you want to "win"? This belief you are talking about is a mystery to me. What is this belief I hold, and what do you mean by it being poorly developed? I implore you to tell me more about myself. You've done so well already!

>>8224 I can tell that simple truth really got under your skin. As a rule of thumb, if you think the "material" or "external" world is somehow more knowable than the "mind" or the "internal" world, let alone believe stuff is made up from little billiards balls that degenerate into wavelike probability distributions when you zoom in on them, you are in no position to criticize anyone else's speculations or mysticism. People trying to model the mind and its relationship to matter through abstract speculations, isn't any different, fundamentally, from their doing so about the perceived entities and relationships that make up the so-called "material universe". I want to say the only difference is in the degree of sophistication, but actually, there's not even that: you, personally, can tell me nothing more substantial about physics than the other guy can tell me about "subtle energies" and "sub-bodies". Radical skepticism can be respectable and productive (see Eastern Mysticism). Western selective "skepticism", on the other hand, has all the hallmarks of a mental illness. >The universe and the material, biological brain of ours does compute things in its own way, simply based in its structure and the way it happened to be. Computers obviously compute but on the basis of how the material world does it This is all completely made up head canon. Everything "seems to" compute when you squint at it the right way, but computations lack even what little "objective" reality you can attribute to physical phenomena. It's pure abstraction. To claim that computations somehow produce consciousness is mysticism of the most vacuous sort, in the thinnest of disguises.

>>8227 Again, you write so much while it all just boils down to "ur wrong". You don't even point out where I'm supposedly mistaken. And I very well might be which is why I seek discussion but your input is not productive and you strike me as the sort of charlatan thus far that I've warned about, who appears to be only interested in stroking their lower ego and defend their pretense of their "true but secret knowledge". But regarding the thing I've said about computation. Maybe you just don't like the word itself, that's fine, but here's a simple example. Let's say, I put an apple on the table. Now I have one apple. I put a second one on the table, now I have two apples. The resulting 1 + 1, in this case two apples, is a mental model that is applied by a functioning human mind to the physical observable world to map out how it appears to function in order to approximate some understanding of it an have somewhat reliable predictions and heuristics of what may happen next. But whether or not we bother with the man made concept of math, there's still going to be two apples on the table unless something else changes that. More abstract, it's all an interaction of states and processes. Where a process influences or alters a state which then in turn determines the process which applies to it in the next iteration. This I already consider to be a computation, whether the state is the contents of the table and position and material shape of the apples and the process is me either placing those apples or eating them or whether it is the smallest and most fundamental building blocks of existence itself. And from an unfathomable amount of these small self computing or processing elements it is fairly plausible for more complex systems, like our mind and consciousness to emerge. Do you disagree with that? And can you actually elaborate why or what your version, interpretation or understanding of how things "truly work"? Or will you continue to waste more bandwidth while saying nothing at all?

>>8229 Since you're lying blatantly about what I wrote instead of addressing it, I'll take that as a full concession. >i put "two" apples on the table therefore computations are real I don't think that follows, logically speaking. >it's all an interaction of states and processes. Where a process influences or alters a state which then in turn determines the process which applies to it in the next iteration. This I already consider to be a computation It's all an interaction of subtle energies and sub-bodies. Where a karmic process influences or alters a jhannic state which then in turn determines the karmic bond which applies to it in the next reincarnation. That I already consider to be a dharma.

>>8231 Papa earn two rubles today. One, two - 2! He use them to buy two apple in market. One, two - 2! Papa put both apple on table - one for him, one for me. One, two - 2! But papa was not hungry. Instead, he drink two bottle of vodka. One, two - 2! On third bottle, I try to stop him, so he give me two black eye. One, two - 2! Now everything looks same. Wherever I look, I see number two. For two night, I can not sleep: all I think is "why papa do to me like this"? But then I understand: papa want to teach me about process of computation. Two apple, two black eye. 2-2 = 0. That mean no difference. Universe is cold and indifferent, just like commie block. It see no difference, I see no difference.

>>8229 This guy sees the conversation as a battle, not a discussion. His language reveals his attitude: "I'll take that as a full concession" he said. Somehow I did not see this until my last post. I called him out on his silly presumptions he's attached to me, and demanded some real text than an indirect whiff. See how he completely ignored this though! Because there is nothing easy for him to pick on. Notice how he latches onto the only flimsy example of natural computation you gave, about the 'two apples' (I didn't get it either to be honest), though you hinted at other examples that are sufficient. Also, he's constantly miscategorized me as a 'materialist' though nowhere have I suggested any inclination towards it, and in fact have none. I see science as all descriptive of a world and mostly irrelevant to fundamental ideas, moreover because it is just concerned with mechanics of a physical world. This has no bearing on any nonphysical world if there is one. No bearing on human matters either. He has made of himself a warrior for a set of ideas, and has put us, unfitting as we are, into his 'opposite' camp. He is demanding we stand still so he may strike us. To that man, I've nothing more to say than you are a fool, and are an intellectual coward, albeit of a different flavour than I spoke of. If you want discussion then I'll be a part of it, but if you want battle then I will walk away.

quantum woo 101. anyways i've seen a few posts about this in the pasts and the replies were nowhere as skeptical as this, are the tides changing? let's be real the only reason why some people still believe in this is 1 the possibility of immortality and 2 that it just sounds cool

>>8234 I am aware, I encounter this personality type frequently. But I am a curious fella so insults fly past me and I keep probing. I agree that the apple example was rather underwhelming, I struggled to come up with something accessible. Maybe someone smarter than me might want to have a go with that. And at least I got them to present at least something, even if it's just the regular buddhist karmic reincarnation story which appears to be trendy with some techie types. But I really wanted to hear some good feedback on my thoughts to see if I'm on the right track, you know? Finding out WHY I'm wrong would have been a gift to me. >>8235 You know what? I'm not even that opposed with the idea of reincarnation. And only since fairly recently, too. However, my interpretation or version is a much wilder potpourri where instead of karma it uses a different qualifier, possibly the perfectly converged utility function that aligns with the base foundations of reality/God. Thus somewhat agreeing with the Christian concept of objective morality, while still not being fully on board with that God is this perfect being. Mostly on the basis of what's exactly meant by "perfect". And the reincarnation that I consider plausible isn't as much of a rebirth but rather a recycling process. Just like me not throwing away interesting things which do come useful on occasion, same with "souls" if that's a thing. But ofc it's more complicated than that. My guess is the one thing such a in the truest sense omnipotent entity could possibly desire is consciousness and maybe novelty. Being anti-life for instance goes counter that goal since no life means that the cosmos really is just this desolate space with sparsely occasional rocks, thus it's anti-karmic or bad juju. But you surely can tell by now that I like to put things in the same blender in an attempt to form some overarching view on things.

>>8194 people will choose to believe in anything but God and the existence of an immortal soul. all of this genre of mumbo jumbo are just attempts to recreate religion by people who want all of its benefits without any of its moral accountability.

>>8241 What are your thoughts on emergent morality or the comparative implications of game theory? Because if you see life as one cohesive process then it appears like immorality or "bad karma" would be its equivalent of cancer.

>>8241 This post implies that religion has any sort of benefit.

>>8241 I disagree, this have nothing to do with moral accountability, but the fact religion is just too easy and childish, and leave no open ground for a thoughtful investigation about matters of spirit. In religion you just believe in skydaddy and everything is suddenly explained, and those who elaborate further are branded as heretics. Religion opened the way for materialism, and now it is either skydaddy or live like an animal, when there are shades of gray between these two extremes.

We experience sensations when energy originating in our consciousness flows through our brain. The state and structure of the brain decide the form of each sensation, so... Saying that sensations are created in the brain is correct, I think. The body is more like a computer than a puppet. Emotions are a bit more complex since how we feel seemingly depends on the amount of energy connected to our consciousness at the moment…

I would say the body is more like an interface, not a puppet. Consciousness would be the operating system, and the body would be the hardware. Emotions would be the software.

>creator of [thing] sees the entire world as a bigger version of [thing] tale as old as time

>>8284 Which of the following descriptions better characterizes your own post? >easy and childish Or... >open ground for a thoughtful investigation

People just can't seem to accept that they are deterministic machines. I don't get why they resist it so desperately

>>8290 Accepting that consciousness exists and interacts with the world doesn't change anything in regard to determinism, and I see little reason to deny all common and rare phenomena related to this fact. And if you can't prove the location particles choose to collapse into a point isn't random, you should be more skeptical in regard to determinism to begin with. Unless you like being a zealot, of course...

>>8290 >People just can't seem to accept that they are deterministic machines. Why do people need to accept that they are "deterministic machines", when this claim not only contradicts direct internal experience, but bases itself on a concept (determinism) that has never been demonstrated in objective reality, either?

>>8290 There is no basis to assert determinism one way or another. The only person flailing and clinging is you, needing the security of knowing. Most likely you were brought up to think you need to be th strong one, and face the cold hard truths of life and the brutality of reality hidden beneath the veneer of civilization. This is essentially atheistic programming, but it has strong emotional impact in early development. So naturally determinism suits you, as it makes you feel good, because being able to accept it means you are strong and smart, bearing the burden of the truth. It feeds your ego and sense of identity, more or less. It helps you function. This sort of thing is why I'm gradually getting away from the internet. Without knowing how old you are it's impossible to comment... to me this type of thing is the most trite and boring thing imagineable. Itis adolescent. However if you literally are adolescent or early 20's then I'm being a total dick by saying that, because that's naturally part of the process of development.

>>8294 One. Two. TWO paragraphs!

>>8194 >quantum >said by an electronics engineer, not a physicist or neuroscientist This word is massively abused by practitioners of woo woo bullshit, who don't have any specific meaning in mind, because it evokes a sense of intellectual authority and the boundaries of human understanding. My take is that when I see this word whatever is being said is probably pseudoscience mysticism that can safely be ignored.

>>8296 You throw the same kind of generic tantrum when the same kind of ideas are proposed by physicists and neuroscientists, with a few words swapped around.

>>8297 You say this like you know me, I'm not whoever you're thinking of.

>>8298 Every single one of you thinks he's special, even though you all sound identical and make the same vacuous points using the same phraseology. And you say it like you know what you're talking about, even though you have no idea what OP's guy is saying and why it's wrong. Your next preprogrammed cope: "I can't refute him because he's not saying anything".

>>8299 If you're annoyed that people don't want to take time to engage more deeply with your arguments, maybe consider the possibility that the arguments are bad. The OP post is multiple kinds of the smelliest appeals to authority. What you're saying here is just personal attacks and whining that I'm not more entertaining. >And you say it like you know what you're talking about, even though you have no idea what OP's guy is saying and why it's wrong Yes on both counts. I know what I'm talking about because I've seen how people (especially new age spirituality people) abuse the word quantum enough to know it's a reliable indicator of nonsense. That doesn't mean I know it's wrong, just that it's unlikely to be something worth thinking about or putting more effort into understanding. I don't have much of any idea what "OP's guy" is saying. Part of that is because nothing he's said has been linked to or quoted. Have you yourself even read it? Why are you focusing on what I'm saying instead of what he's saying? If you want to make a good argument, you should take what you think is a strong case for this, and share parts of it in ways that make the rest seem interesting to read. Not imply that people should use their intuition and sense of social shame to spontaneously decide to agree with something vague.

>>8300 >I know what I'm talking about >I don't have much of any idea what "OP's guy" is saying. Uh huh. Didn't you make a post to the effect that Faggin is just an electrical engineer abusing the term "quantum" to evoke a sense of intellectual authority with no specific meaning in mind? Yes, you sure did. That post is there for all to see. Why would you baselessly accuse him of what you're doing?

>>8297 oh, I'd absolutely throw a tantrum if that was a physicist or neuroscientist. If they go from "non-materialist" neuroscience angle (ala Beauregard), they are wrong as explained beautifully [Clark A. There is no non-materialist neuroscience. Cortex. 2010]. If they aproach from other direction, like Penrose does, they are also wrong. Though Penrose's wrongness doesn't need neuroscientist, if one simply remembers certain Markov and his not-so-famous rival - Nekrasov - who held that free will is implied by weak form of law of large numbers. Hell, Penrose tries to explain that since brain is probabilistic (because neuron firing is a quantum phenomena), then randomness leads to conciousness. I won't bore you with details (althought starting from certain Godels uncomputability theroem to justify that brain must be "quantum", because it's non-computable is funny), but you can plainly see that this is Nekrasov rehashed argument in new mystical form.

>>8302 Also, funny story but since neuron firing should be quantum phenomena they should /not/ be subjected to decoherence, right? What about this then https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9907/9907009v2.pdf I wont force you to read entire thing since it's fuarrrkING BORING, but peer at the Discussion. If you as much as squeak that >MUH ARXIV then I will personally end you, cus you provide no sources no arguments and no substance besides saying that other posters cry that the guy saying bullshit is of EE background. fuarrrk you.

>>8301 Pretty uncharitable to take that as an accusation towards anyone other than OP, especially in context of the comment you are responding to. The point is you really have your work cut out for you if you want people who aren't idiots to take this seriously, and explaining why I'm not inclined to do more research. I still suspect you haven't read anything he wrote.

>>8302 I see many name drops and an appeal to authority, but no actual argument. >>8303 >since neuron firing should be quantum phenomena they should /not/ be subjected to decoherence, right? Explain how you (or your intellectual idols) have determined that the firing of neurons is not influenced by quantum phenomena, then explain how you've determined everything the brain does is explained in terms of firing neurons and then explain how you've determined that everything about consciousness is explained by the brain. You won't do this. You'll just screech some dogma.

>>8304 >Pretty uncharitable to take that as an accusation towards anyone other than OP We both know what you wrote and what you meant, but good luck convincing your imaginary audience. Look, it's ok. You let off some steam about the kind of figure you assumed Faggin was. I let off some steam about the kind of figure you have shown yourself to be. We're both finished and I think I've just diagnosed the real root of this dispute: >in context of the comment you are responding to >comment Now I know for sure who I'm talking to. No more attention for you.

>>8305 >I see many name drops and an appeal to authority, but no actual argument. Eh anon, I was under the impression you know the topic we are discussing. I didn't know that you don't have the knowledge of either Penrose contribution to "quantum consciousness" nor Beauregard contribution to "non-materialist neuroscience". How can we discuss whenever their findings are true or false, if you don't know why or how they try to establish an alternative model to mainstream one? To discuss a topic, one has to have at least little knowledge in the topic, so he or she can develop their opinion based on research of others. To be blunt(er), the timeline is like this: 1. Roger Penrose publishes a book "The Large, the Small and the Human Mind" 2. In it (and few others), he proposes the "Penrose-Lucas Argument" 3. His strongest reason for it, aside from previously mentioned Godel's first incompletnes theorem, is that microtubules in the brain are subjected to quantum phenomena 4. The paper I linked shows that, even if there is so phenomena, they decohere and can be thus modeled classically 5. Hence, if premises you base your argument on are wrong, your whole argument is wrong. I am aware I might scare you with big surnames like Penrose, Beauregard and Godel, but the "big surnames" are the guys who argue your case! I mean, Godel was kinda pulled into it, because he showed the whole "formal system can be either consistent or incomplete", but since Penrose jumped on this idea to argue that: 1. Human brain is quantum things 2. and so, it's not computable 3. humans can express insight that algorithm can not. We can hardly blame me for "name dropping". I am engaging with the thesis produced. Why then, I am not arguing with Mr. Intel 4004 guy? Because he didn't approach the question with rigour, he just sorta said what he felt. You can't argue with feelings.

>>8307 >Penrose this, Penrose that Sorry, but I don't see Penrose mentioned in the OP or in any of my posts. Would you like to try again? >4. The paper I linked shows that, even if there is so phenomena, they decohere and can be thus modeled classically I don't see anywhere in that paper a full account of the brain, let alone of consciousness; so no, the paper does not show what you claim. The general form of your argument is fallacious: for example, I could construct a network of classical computers, each of them operating on inputs from devices that rely on quantum phenomena. You would be right to say that the entire network decoheres but wrong to say it can be "modeled classically" if you're trying to give a full account of what it produces.

>>8306 >good luck convincing your imaginary audience. Look, it's ok. You let off some steam I have to wonder if the relationship between consciousness and physics is a topic you even care about, let alone want others to care about. If it is, the imageboard school of debate isn't doing you any favors. If not, keep doing whatever you're doing I guess.

>>8310 >I have to wonder if the relationship between consciousness and physics is a topic you even care about Marginally. I'll care about it much more if someone figures out an empirical test to determine the presence of another consciousness at all. This hasn't happened and I don't really see it happening. It's just interesting to watch people struggle to make a connection between the two. These theories and discussions say a lot more about variations in psychology than they ever will about consciousness itself. Some people have a very rich and holistic experience of the world, but an analytical mindset, so they'll always look to cutting edge science to try to formulate the essence of that experience. Others lead an impoverished and nihilistic existence, so they'll always bank on 19th century reductionism and foam at the mouth at the mention of anything else.

>>8311 >>8310 For what it's worth, I don't think the brain is a quantum computer. If I were looking for quantum effects, I would expect them on a much lower level of abstraction than the one most neurological research operates on. Sometimes they do indeed discover biologically relevant quantum effects and simply have no idea how it figures into the bigger picture. Tegmark fans will assert it doesn't figure into consciousness at all, because on the level of abstraction they care about (where you can talk about firing neurons producing classical computation) a failure to account for it will at most manifest as having to do a bit more hand-waving to explain the enormous gaps in their theories, which has long been considered normal in this field.

>>8309 What is the model then.

>>8315 You mean Faggin's model? I've read just enough about it to have a general idea what the thread is about (let's face it: that's more than the local "critics" bothered to do), so I'm no more capable of debating the nitty-gritty than you are. However, I can see it's not even in the same category as the microtubule stuff. He doesn't seem to be so much saying the brain needs quantum effects directly to do the processing neuroscientists observe, but that it needs to interact with quantum fields (which he suggests have an innate capacity to host experience) for all that processing to be about anything at all, beyond triggering reflexes. He makes technical arguments which relate the theoretical properties of quantum fields and pure quantum states, to qualities of experience that are otherwise very hard to explain (e.g. privacy, irreducibility). If you want to prove him wrong on physical technicalities, consult the original source. My objection is to your pretending to know quantum phenomena in the brain can be safely abstracted over without losing explanatory power. Decoherence on the level of neurons firing, or even a lower level you could try to define "cognitive processing" on, doesn't prove that. It only proves quantum effects don't figure into a description of that "processing" itself. I gave you a concrete counter-example with the classical computer network: you can spend your life modeling how it reacts to inputs and how that accounts for structures in the output, but never understand what it's actually doing if it's processing data coming from quantum devices.

What our consciousness uses to monitor our brain and what it uses to influence our brain don't need to be the same mechanism.

>>8316 > Faggin's model Thank you. First of all, I am sad that D’Ariano finally went insane after all this years. Second, I need to dig into the paper itself, but pic-related worries me still. Non-locality finds itself even in classical physics (Fourier transform), so dragging in exciting quantum non-locality is not exactly necessary. If thoughts are non-local excitation patterns, then - as with the ocean - we see the waves, but it's just water moving up and down. Anyway, will report back once I tear into the paper enough.

>>8318 Good luck. In the meanwhile, I take your posts to be a concession that you've used the decoherence argument to prove too much and it backfired.

>>8319 nah, it was a proper argument for Penrose's version of a theory which was based on microtubules. His claim was that since they can process information, they are most likely operating like a quantum computer. The paper I linked, proves that this can not be the case. D'Ariano-Faggins model tackles the suggestion from different angle, which is not suprising, since historically the problem was approached from: superconductivity angle, superfluidity angle, electromagnetic fields angle, Bose condensation angle and others. As you can easily guess, since none of those were shown to hold, we have to reinvent the approach from yet another angle - fields.

>>8320 >it was a proper argument for Penrose's version You're the only one who keeps invoking Penrose. I asked you a general question independent from Penrose's opinions and you replied with the same "argument" because clearly, that's your entire repertoire. No matter. So long as you acknowledge decoherence is not a general refutation against the relevance of quantum phenomena.

>>8321 oh, but it is, if one argues that consciousness can be modeled as a quantum computer, then it automatically kicks in. If brain is /like a/ quantum computer, then decoherence rates are vitally important thing to consider. Especially if they destroy macrosuperposition. I can link you some research on the problem if you wanna.

>>8322 >oh, but it is In that case, I'm waiting for a refutation of the counter-example I gave. Since you can't provide one, it isn't. Your mental gymnastics and dishonest squirming (as expected from your sort) don't matter.

The quantum system can be used for calculation while the neuron system is used to store and compare information with consciousness acting as an immaterial bridge between the 2. There doesn't seem to be enough information for anything concrete anyway.

>>8323 >My objection is to your pretending to know quantum phenomena in the brain can be safely abstracted over without losing explanatory power. I am not abstracting over them, I am saying that if we lose superposition, then we revert to classical and don't /have to/ model them via quantum. Firing neuron would decohere at T=10e-10s, while it's rate of fire is around T=10e-4s. Superposition is destroyed /before/ neuron finishes firing. >It only proves quantum effects don't figure into a description of that "processing" itself. And here is the crux of the issue. No one was able to show that there is anything beyond "processing". >you can spend your life modeling how it reacts to inputs and how that accounts for structures in the output, but never understand what it's actually doing if it's processing data coming from quantum devices. So we do "secret unknown region of the brain" bit now? Write more, because it looks like this so far. Also, tibit, because I am going throught be paper rn, >The theory provides that a conscious agent may intentionally convert quantum information into a specific classical information to express its free will, a classical output that is in principle unpredictable due to its quantum origin This is totally like modernized Nekrasov's argument. I love it.

>>8325 >So we do "secret unknown region of the brain" bit now? No, we do the bit where I keep rubbing your face in the perils of your automatonistic "arguing" habits. Your lazy pattern-matching failed and you executed the wrong rhetorical routine. Now you're stuck in an infinite loop trying to save face.

I agree that quantum is a buzzword, but it is better than using "mental plane" or "mental field" because if we use the term "mental" people will immediately associate it with psychology and say "it is in your mind" and from there imply that mind = brain, and/or mind = ego. It is like those who say "imaginary" to dismiss something and say it is not real, so you dont use the word "imaginary" in the proper sense, but always as a object of derision (eg, larp). However, the image in your mind is real, so are the thoughts and emotions associated with it. And here is the issue with materialism: only the effect is real, the cause (which lives in thought and/or intent) is not. So the word quantum is used, but quantum imply in quantity, when in fact quality is what matters here, since thoughts are qualified, hence why Faggin talk about a "qualia", not a "quanta".

>>8329 >it's better to use words incorrectly because dumb people will draw incorrect conclusions otherwise By catering to people who see the word 'mental' and instinctively discount, you are only ceding ground to braindead materialists. Nothing is accomplished by prompt-engineering the mindless to agree with you.

>>8329 The is, mind that does thinking and consciousness that experience ideas are connected, but also different phenomena. Thinking is like... When some problem appears in my consciousness, and there is a desire to solve it. Something invisible prepares the solution somewhere for some time. And then the solution appears in my consciousness, if successful. That invisible thing that prepares the solution, my consciousness can't access it. There are no formulas, no calculation available to it. At best, if the desire to know that kickstarted the process was strong, every unrelated sensation that appears within my consciousness while the work is being done will be colored by stress. And with what we know nowadays, that invisible thing that keeps existing and working even when consciousness doesn't show any signs of existence, is likely physical. And does its work inside our brain and has a shape that can be perceived from the outside and analyzed to assess the progress... And so, we have 2 different phenomena connected to each other, 1 immaterial and 1 material. And when you say mental, there is no way to guess what you're talking about.

>>8331 If the reader can't figure out whether you mean 'mental' in the sense of internal experience or 'mental' in the sense of subconscious processing, the problem is with everything else you wrote, not with the word 'mental', which in and of itself intentionally includes both.

This world is definitely a Prison Simulation.

>>8333 Why would they put cool-looking snakes in a prison?

>>8334 The snake is an old symbol of abstract solar and lunar calendar models, used as the basis for timers for calculating prison sentences. Therefore, this alchemical symbol is used throughout cultural lore, as Freemasons and Kabbalists are incapable of inventing anything new.

>>8329 so, uhhhh, we do Intelligent Design strategy? What?

>>8336 Pretty funny how you can't stop revealing your weird obsessions, which ends up spelling out exactly what data distribution your "thought" models.

>>8194 He sounds liek the person who believes your mind can reincarnate somewhere else. He sounds like the kind of person who would reject the instinctive repulsion towards the fact a horrible, painful deff - and not a painless haha electric chair / haha /elthat jectn is the end. He's no different from people who believe the world is a set of already written books (abh. rel.) or people who believe the world a perpetual wheel (hinduists, reincarnation, etc.)

>>8341 Why did you only regurgitate half of the meme?

>>8342 BECAUSE I was reciting it out of my memory, failing to remeber the "5 minutes after" line

>>8343 >>8342 >>8341 Besides, this meme actually lack XIX century Londoners thining "the world as a huge steam engine, the more coal we feed it..."

>>8342 Filename.......... ......................... ............................ too short etc

>>8345 Yep, if you abstract so much that the idea stops being about what the world is and becomes only about what the world isn't, you land in a vaguer and more general category. I'd say your reddit slop even goes a step further and effectively reduces Simulation Theory into the vague feeling that the world isn't what it seems.

>>8346 It doesn't. Unfortuantely due to your response I'll just have to call you dumb, given that I have traced out the permutation space, and you apparently have not. Your response is fully substance free, well done. I said thing, you said actually not thing. Very nice. Wow.

>>8347 >It doesn't. Then go ahead and define what makes for a "simulation theory". Make sure it includes every example you listed as an instance. Hard mode: without invoking any concepts tangential or alien to the relevant philosophies. > I have traced out the permutation space Presumably through the monkeys-on-typewriters method, since you have no idea what a permutation space even is.

>>8349 >Then go ahead and define what makes for a "simulation theory". No. I know I'm the main character so everyone has to prompt and then react to me, but I'd rather you do all the work. So far you seem delusional anyway.

>>8350 >No. Ok. Concession accepted. On a side note, is there any chan that doesn't suffer from an influx of human waste from websites where people refer to posts as "comments"?

>>8351 First went to quad channel ~2008. My screencap is from youtube. I am probably older and smarter than you. Your flailing is boring. You are looking for someone to vampirize, to drain. You have nothing of your own so you must feed on others. Or, even worse, you have given too much in the past and now refuse to invest without guarantee of ROI, as a result you drain others. As you can tell I have a level of contempt for you. It's like I hav to play World-Parent everywhere.

>>8352 I can tell at a glance your post is some BPD whining and still not a refutation of >>8346 . That cements your concession. No need to sign it, I've already accepted.

>>8353 You've provided nothing to refute. What I'm looking for is whether you know why you think otherwise.

>>8354 I really don't care about your drama. Call me back when you can refute >>8346 by way of addressing >>8349 . Your inability to address the latter demonstrates the point of the former.

>>8355 >I really don't care about your drama Posturing. >Call me back when Dramatic flair. Sitcom dialogue. Implicit posturing. >Your inability Baseless assertion. >demonstrates the point of the former. Self serving and ego driven. Emotional. You are what you hate.

>>8356 >post after post of one-sided personal drama, all because someone questions your pseud take What a loser.

>>8357 You just don't know how to think on your own.

>>8358 That's correct. My "thinking" consists entirely from riffing off of stale memes and making vague references to the ideas of others to arrive at trivial theses. How did you figure me out so fast, just from my soykafting on your take?

>>8359 You're just very sensory and external. You're waiting for your senses to provide your internal feedback loops with a prompt to work off of. I'm denying you this, so it frustrates you. In another environment it would be best if this continued until you were broken from that tendency, but likely you have many who will fill this need.

>>8360 That's a very detailed account of my damaged psychology. Please tell me more. What were my parents like? Did my peers bully me a lot at school? What happened to me that caused me to become this character you're describing?

>>8361 This goes back to the permutation space aspect. Usually within a sentence or two I know exactly which branch a conversation will go down, and which branches are inaccessible. The difference between us is mainly in the fight,flight, freeze,faun responses. I have a combination of fight and freeze dominant, your fight is overshadowed by a flight tendency. Right now what you're doing is a variant of faun, ie display a certain permissiveness to "give them enough rope to hang themselves". I understand this method well but lack the patience.

>>8362 So, nothing about my upbringing? I guess I was asking for too much. Still, you're reading me like a book here. The depth of your understanding suggests you're a very self-aware individual.

>>8363 My attention is divided. It's not that important. My mind is wiped periodically and attempting to go into this topic feels like running into a thick pane of glass, or being rubber banded. No output can be built.

>>8364 Yeah, thinking about self-awareness does that for some people.

>>8365 It's more about the mind refusing to divide, so you cannot become apart from the physical body. The topic is not self awareness either.

>>8366 Ok. Well, when your mind is capable of dividing again, maybe you can use at least a fraction of your abundant mental resources to look up what the word 'simulation' means and reevaluate whether or not it describes Indra's Net. In the meanwhile, I've had my share of talking to what sounds like a satire of BPD projection.

>>8367 >look up what the word 'simulation' means and reevaluate whether or not it describes Indra's Net It does. You're hung up on false axioms like time, linear causation, object permanence, fixed physical laws, and so on. You can't use the mind and the senses to prove themselves, nor each other. You also cannot use memory. Either way a simulation may or may not be nested, may or may not have compartmentalized semi-permeable lateral components, may or may not be mirrored or have a fractal recursion character, and likely does have finite states, but may have mechanisms to obfuscate or temporarily bypass this (energetic sinks, stable macro states which appear as law). I have to go now.

>>8368 >I have to go now. To look up what the word 'simulation' means, hopefully.

>>8369 Do you have an actual point?

>>8370 The intersection between Indra's Net and simulation (for the meaning applicable to your other examples) is negligible. I don't know how much further I can dumb this down for you. Look at your own last post. All you said is: "a simulation may or may not have the defining characteristics of Indra's Net".

>>8371 As I said, you're not able to think on your own. You're what I call a semantic reasoner, this is the origin of your limitations. As a sidenote, it seems you've recently caught the "cluster B" bug. I know, it's all very neat and mega memeable, and first appears to have both explanatory and predictive power, but try not to fall for it too hard. I've studied all of that stuff. You keep saying BPD but aren't even using it right.

>>8376 >You're what I call a semantic reasoner, this is the origin of your limitations. Indeed, considering what words and concepts actually mean prevents me from appreciating how Indra's Net is a simulation theory. Maybe if I practiced slapping together tokens by vague statistical associations I would learn to see it your way. Since we've firmly established you can't do anything beyond chimping out when your slop is questioned, we can call it a day. Not reading any of your mentally ill posts, but make sure to write another one for me.

>>8377 See: >>8356 too short

>>8346 >if you abstract so much that the idea stops being about what the world is and becomes only about what the world isn't, you land in a vaguer and more general category what stops you from playing that game with all the different analogy based views? arguably, using the stuff you can grasp as a metaphor for reality is more fundamental than the idea that the world is fake. it doesn't get more basic than "the world is like something"

>>8379 "The world is like X" compares two logical structures. It's inherently more complex than "the world is fake". However, if you look at interesting instances of the latter, they all have their own (sometimes complicated) metaphors for what the world IS like. For instance, you can take Indra's Net to be a metaphor about how any thing is nothing more than a metaphor for everything else. It's an intricate idea. The retard just reduces it into the lowest common denominator with (e.g.) "life is a dream", to make his point about simulation theory being fundamental. Now, on the other hand, understanding the world in terms of metaphors and analogies always involves an implicit denial that the world is truly the way it presents itself - it's secretly something else. So it's all quite moot. If you look closely, you can always see a reflection of one idea inside the other.

>>8380 This reads like ChatGPT, other than "the retard". Fact is, there's nothing wrong with what I wrote. It seems I'm jsut so far ahead of everyone else that they don't understand what they're reading. No matter how I say it. eg the reply you quoted and the replies to >>8368 elicited identical responses.

>>8380 >understanding the world in terms of metaphors and analogies always involves an implicit denial that the world is truly the way it presents itself - it's secretly something else raw perceptions never lie. they represent themselves faithfully. taking them to represent something else is a form of self-deception. "the world is fake" is therefore only a reaction against some internalized idea of the world. you need to have an idea that the world is "like" something, and isn't just a stream of phenomena, before you can rebel against this idea

>>8382 >raw perceptions never lie. they represent themselves faithfully. Dream and sleeping body analogy.

>>8383 what about it? a dream doesn't lie, either

>>8384 If your position is "everything is true, and there is no truth. The basis of everything is fluid, so the basis doesn't need a basis, and that's its basis" you should just say that instead. And add any nuance you want onto it. What would happen if someone died in their sleep? [Insert substance here] So sick of these short "if u know u know" quips. Make an actual point or get lost. These firm and affirmative "vague postings" have gotten out of control.

>>8385 by claiming reality is "fake" you're only tearing down what you, yourself, have previously built up. the phenomena aren't telling you to read anything into them. if you just take them for what they are, they are real in their own way, which is as real as anything can ever be

>>8386 I'm sorry, if there's anything to your post I'm not seeing it. Seems like more wishy washy vagueness and platitudes.

>>8386 >the phenomena aren't telling you to read anything into them. if you just take them for what they are ... Then you get "A=A", which is true enough but doesn't tell you anything about anything. But yeah, if you interpret phenomena as coded statements about some other state of affairs (which you literally just made up) and then you start doubting yourself, why blame reality for the falseness of a world you're intentionally simulating in your head?

>>8388 > why blame reality for the falseness Why even use such terms... because you're studying cluster B, and focused on the Sam Vaknin-ian "narcissist is artificial human" models. So you give up. Man has no access to the absolute, the basis. All is relative. All is perception. All is a confabulation of the mind. You can never interact with anything but your own mind! Etc.

>>8388 the core of it is instinctive. it usually takes years of training to unlearn it. simply rejecting naive realism does nothing. people just get sucked into even worse nonsense, about some other reality that has nothing to do with reality