Thread: Model Of Determinism.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Observervations, but not thoughts?

No... I'm not responding better until you put some effort into your own responses. You have a habit of replying with vague questions and don't address what I've said.

Originally Posted by really

No... I'm not responding better until you put some effort into your own responses. You have a habit of replying with vague questions and don't address what I've said.

You change your stance way too much for this conversation to get anywhere. I don't think even you know what you are trying to say. Good luck to you.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You change your stance way too much for this conversation to get anywhere. I don't think even you know what you are trying to say. Good luck to you.

I don't change my stance, but I may when addressing different issues or topics. You have to convince me that you don't understand because I don't believe you.

I don't think you can admit that evolution isn't true outside the realm of time/space, and that there isn't any "how did we get here" in that context. Causes and processes are only relevant in a space-time. How is it then relevant in quantum mechanics at the fundamental level of potentiality and "probabilities"?

Originally Posted by really

I don't change my stance, but I may when addressing different issues or topics.

Isn't that a contradiction?

Originally Posted by really

You have to convince me that you don't understand because I don't believe you.

How could I possibly do that?

Originally Posted by really

I I don't think you can admit that evolution isn't true outside the realm of time/space, and that there isn't any "how did we get here" in that context. Causes and processes are only relevant in a space-time.

Doesn't evolution happen within space-time?

Originally Posted by really

How is it then relevant in quantum mechanics at the fundamental level of potentiality and "probabilities"?

Are those outside of space-time? Why can't causes exist at that level? Why can't causes exist outside of time and space?

Probabilities are just indications of lack of human knowledge.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Isn't that a contradiction?

Only if I'm speaking all in one context, but sometimes you mix levels and I have to jump around a bit. Just follow my responses to the above quotes. Otherwise actually quote what seems to be out of place.

Doesn't evolution happen within space-time?

In the sense that it correlates with sequential observation of phenomena (growing life forms, etc) that exists within manifest space, then yes. It doesn't apply outside time-space because then there is no life forms to evolve or transform, and no time for that to occur as a process. This might lead you to say that it doesn't happen at all.

On the other hand you can say that what seems to be happening is a partial representation of what is beyond space-time, which is what I was hoping you'd gather from my previous responses because both paradigms co-exist (context includes content).

Are those outside of space-time? Why can't causes exist at that level? Why can't causes exist outside of time and space?

Probabilities are just indications of lack of human knowledge.

Why can causes exist at all? Beyond space time there is no form. It is only pure energy or potentiality. You seem to think that if something isn't caused then it is random, but both are artifacts of perception. "Random" is just a defect from viewing from a certain perspective or dimension, and so is a "cause." The power of that which is beyond time and space is the same everywhere within time and space.

Originally Posted by really

Thanks, but this doesn't change anything when I am talking about existence itself as a whole. If existence has no cause and nothing that is beyond it, then everything else is also part of that until you observe it. The chair you may be sitting on has existed for all eternity in essence and never may perish from its source. Its form as a chair is transitory in that it can only transform from one form to another. Nothing causes you to sit on it or for you to use it as a step ladder. It's all a unified process of potentiality manifesting as actuality. This is what quantum physics seems to indicate.

Define "observe". Really, "to observe" is nothing more than to let that thing which is being observed influence something else, so that humans can observe that something else with their senses and cognize that information into an idea. Highlight to the fact that humans are also part of the system.

The chair is actually an organization of matter. The matter has always been there. You're exactly right. I don't know, though, what you're trying to prove by saying this. Quantum physics is not about philosophy.

Remember that you are part of the system yourself. And by "you" I mean the brain.

I'm not so much convinced about causality as I used to be. There's no reason for me to believe that a toy plane crashing on your roof caused you to climb up there and get it and cause the birds to ignore it, and that a single accident can cause years and years of grief to one person and cause relief to another. The whole notion of causes seems to be quite limited compared to a quantum reality that acknowledges the existence of universal consciousness on a much broader level.

Man. It doesn't matter if you realize it or not. You're made of matter. You only function as you do because of the physiochemical processes that occur in your body and around your body.

You're taking the concept "cause" to a really simplistic level. By cause I mean the deepest microscopic level, as that of Newton's cause and effect law. What you're doing now is because one atom collided with another, with another, with another, with another........ which ultimately caused the matter that consists you to behave in a certain way.

Also, quantum physics never speaks about consciousness or even free will. Those are just interpretations made by people who understand quantum physics very poorly. Science doesn't even fully understand how each of 2500 proteins in your brain behave to result in your behavior, let alone subatomic particles. Quantum physics came to show us that everything is made of particles, even waves and fields. It came to show us that there is not magic controlling what happens and what doesn't. And some not-so-bright believers love to use the term "quantum physics" without even knowing what it is to try to justify their superstitions and ignorance.

Define "rooves."

I already did. Rooving is that which the universe does.

Originally Posted by Xei

And stop babbling on about everybody but you being ignorant of neuroscience. If you'd actually talked to a professional theoretical neuroscientist for five minutes about this or read any of the basic literature (I've done both) you'd know that actually the whole of science is completely ignorant of the basic ways in which the system of neurons in the brain processes information.

What is your question again?

Also, if you're here just to try to say that neuroscience knows nothing, go back to your hut. Neuroscience knows a fugging lot, it just can't put all pieces together. It's one heck of a puzzle. Our current computers can't even simulate the shape of a given protein yet, let alone simulate a brain. Let's say that there are two fronts to neuroscience: one being macroscopic, that tries to gain knowledge by going each time more microscopic; and the other beign microscopic/biochemical, that tries to gain knowledge by going each time more macroscopic. The two fronts haven't touched each other yet.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually what you've been claiming is that consciousness doesn't exist, and that what we mistake for consciousness (attention) is explained by neuroscience which is completely different from the seemingly exact same process that is displayed by man made machines.

Attention is not just one single, exact process. There are many processes made by brains and many processes made by machines. Some of them are similar, some of them are analogous. But none are exactly the same. I already said that, even if you consider that which a camera does "attention", it's not as developed as the attention of the human brain.

If science has no definitive answer for what consciousness is, how can you be so sure quantum mechanics can't explain it?

Science has no definitive answer for what consciousness is, just like science has no definitive answer for what God is. You know, science can't really know much about things that don't exist.

Also, I am pretty sure quantum physics can't explain it, because quantum physics has nothing to do with the human brain. Saying quantum physics explains cognitive processes is just like saying geology explains jurisprudence.

Why would you show me neuroscience books to teach me about consciousness if there is no definition of what consciousness is?

I already told you they wouldn't teach anything about consciousness, they'd teach you about attention. Seriously, if you don't have an argument, don't post.

How can you claim consciousness doesn't exist if you can't even define what it is?

Exactly. It's not in science's scope to define things. Define consciousness, and if your definition has anything truthful to it, science will study your definition of consciousness. You don't even know what a definition is... a definition is an arbitrary convention made for the simple purpose of facilitating human understanding of reality. Definitions are not always the best there are for explaining reality, especially because science advances and makes old theories obsolete.

Just as useless is claiming that consciousness does not exist, since you are not going to convince the population of the entire earth that they are in fact not really experiencing anything at all.

Human beings do experience things. It just happens that your idea of what it is to experience something is not really scientific. If you let me say it, your idea is very simplistic and emotional -- fear of not having free-will, fear of not having control, fear of realizing that you are just a product of the medium. Yes, you do experience things. Just like a camera experiences a scene. You are just slightly more complex than the camera.

We aren't talking about intelligence, artificial or otherwise. If you are going to define a phenomenon by certain behavior then that definition will apply whenever that behavior is present, regardless of where it manifests itself. This would be similar to saying that there is no biological life anywhere else in the universe because it is defined as cellular organisms that evolved on the planet earth.

Nah. Biological life is defined as the existence of cells with metabolism, reproduction, irritability and natural selection. It's the reason why viruses aren't considered life -- a mere definition. It doesn't really matter at all what you consider "alive" or not. It's all matter.

Ever since I became one what?

Bluehat.

Try not to follow science so emotionally, dogmatically and religiously.

Try to follow science. It must be hard for you.

Science is not an institution. Science is the information acquired through the scientific method. If only you knew what that is, you'd tell me to do follow science emotionally, dogmatically and religiously.

What is your question again?

I was asking about the Ship of Theseus paradoxes (also known as the teleporter / silicon chip / swampman paradoxes).

The question is, if your brain were scanned, destroyed and instantaneously two new brains created, put in new bodies and left to live (clearly different) lives, which, if any, set of experiences would you have; that of brain 1, brain 2, or would your consciousness have been destroyed?

Also, if you're here just to try to say that neuroscience knows nothing, go back to your hut. Neuroscience knows a fugging lot, it just can't put all pieces together. It's one heck of a puzzle. Our current computers can't even simulate the shape of a given protein yet, let alone simulate a brain. Let's say that there are two fronts to neuroscience: one being macroscopic, that tries to gain knowledge by going each time more microscopic; and the other beign microscopic/biochemical, that tries to gain knowledge by going each time more macroscopic. The two fronts haven't touched each other yet.

Except I didn't say that neuroscience knows nothing, did I Kromoh?

I said that there is no understanding of how information is represented and processed in neural networks. Though I believe this is the most crucial aspect of neuroscience, it is clearly not the only piece of science that regards the brain. I should know, considering theoretical neuroscience research has been my only ever career aim.

I don't have a hut, I have a cottage.

Originally Posted by Xei

I was asking about the Ship of Theseus paradoxes (also known as the teleporter / silicon chip / swampman paradoxes).

The question is, if your brain were scanned, destroyed and instantaneously two new brains created, put in new bodies and left to live (clearly different) lives, which, if any, set of experiences would you have; that of brain 1, brain 2, or would your consciousness have been destroyed?

Man. Did you even read any of the 1000 times I said "consciousness" doesn't exist?

The copies of my brain would be me for all senses and interpretations. The matter that composes you is you. Nothing else is involved.

"I" am the product of the matter that composes me. "Which set of experiences I would have?" That of both the brains, but each brain individually, of course. Also, the old brain being destroyed would mean me being destroyed, two. "I" was destroyed once and created twice -- just like a machine can be destroyed once and created twice. There is no "soul" or "vital force" that controls my brain. The brain is made of matter, and of matter only.

Food for thought: remember that "you" (aka your body) are constantly changing. Each atom in the brain is constantly being substituted. "You" are someone else after each second, milisecond, nanosecond. In fact, you change after a fraction of time so infinitely small, that it's impossible to say "you" ever are "you" at all. You are only an organization of matter in the system.

I said that there is no understanding of how information is represented and processed in neural networks.

Yet.

I don't have a hut, I have a cottage.

"Hut" wasn't literal. You would know if you didn't search meticulously for reasons to counter-argue and actually gave a thought about what I'm saying.

Man. Did you even read any of the 1000 times I said "consciousness" doesn't exist?

The copies of my brain would be me for all senses and definitions. The matter that composes you is you. Nothing else is involved.

I'm clearly experiencing something rather than nothing right now. Even Descartes halted his radical skepticism at his own consciousness.

What would you experience? Do you really deny that this is not a well defined question?

Either way, you contradicted a past claim when you asserted that 'the matter that makes you is you'. I asked you previously what would happen to your consciousness if your neurons were replaced one by one with functionally identical mechanical devices and you said it would remain (curiously you didn't have a problem with the term consciousness then, though). Obviously these devices are different matter.

Yet.

Duh.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm clearly experiencing something rather than nothing right now. Even Descartes halted his radical skepticism at his own consciousness.

What would you experience? Do you really deny that this is not a well defined question?

I'll answer the question in a different way. Which of the brains would be me? Both. Which of the brains would behave as me? Both. Which of the brains would experience things just like I do? Both.

The problem with your questions is that it utilizes definitions which were not planned for this kind of discussion.

To make it simple: "I" would die, then "I" would be recreated twice. Each brain experiences that which each brain experiences. The experience of the old brain would end together with the old brain, but two exact copies would be created, and an identical copy is the original (at least for physics, perhaps not for lawyers).

Also, Descartes didn't even learn about the existence of atoms. So don't use him as an argument of authority.

Either way, you contradicted a past claim when you asserted that 'the matter that makes you is you'. I asked you previously what would happen to your consciousness if your neurons were replaced one by one with functionally identical mechanical devices and you said it would remain (curiously you didn't have a problem with the term consciousness then, though). Obviously these devices are different matter.

Man, you understood what I said by the time, don't argue over semantics. "I" would still be "I". You too are changing after each infinitesimal fraction of time. There is not a "soul" of sorts that experiences things. Experiencing is something done by the brain, even though it's hard for you to believe.

I'll answer the question in a different way. Which of the brains would be me? Both. Which of the brains would behave as me? Both. Which of the brains would experience things just like I do? Both.

The problem with your questions is that it utilizes definitions which were not planned for this kind of discussion.

To make it simple: "I" would die, then "I" would be recreated twice. Each brain experiences that which each brain experiences. The experience of the old brain would end together with the old brain, but two exact copies would be created, and an identical copy is the original (at least for physics, perhaps not for lawyers).

So you do not think the following is a legitimate question: 'what would you, personally, experience'?

I personally think such a stance is a denial of your own being. In my view it's perfectly acceptable to talk of yourself experiencing things. Right now I'm experiencing the whiteness of this website, for instance. If brain 1 was in a red room and brain 2 was in a blue room, to say for instance that 'my consciousness would from that point on be associated with brain 1' is to say that 'from that point on I will start to experience red'. To say that you would become 'both' is contradictory because you can't experience just red and experience just blue at the same time. Consciousness is singular.

Also, Descartes didn't even learn about the existence of atoms. So don't use him as an argument of authority.

wtf does ignorance of atoms have to do with anything? And at what point did I argue from authority??

Man, you understood what I said by the time, don't argue over semantics. "I" would still be "I". You too are changing after each infinitesimal fraction of time. There is not a "soul" of sorts that experiences things. Experiencing is something done by the brain, even though it's hard for you to believe.

I don't believe in an immaterial soul of sorts. I believe 'I' am a result of the causal system enacted by my neural network.

I personally think such a stance is a denial of your own being.

Nah. Not having this stance is fear of letting go of your ego.

Originally Posted by Xei

So you do not think the following is a legitimate question: 'what would you, personally, experience'?

I don't know, it depends on what you call "you" (or "me" in this case). As I said, this definition is arbitrary. For the sake of the discussion, instead of saying 'you' and 'me', say 'this brain' or 'that brain'. You'll notice things getting a lot clearer.

Right now I'm experiencing the whiteness of this website, for instance. If brain 1 was in a red room and brain 2 was in a blue room, to say for instance that 'my consciousness would from that point on be associated with brain 1' is to say that 'from that point on I will start to experience red'.

If each brain has been put on a different scenario than that of the old brain, then they have already interacted with the medium and are no longer identical to the old brain or to each other. Very similar, yes, but not identical. They're different from how the old brain was just before being destroyed. However, they will react exactly the same way the old brain would if put in those situations. So, really, what you call "you" is very arbitrary.

To say that you would become 'both' is contradictory because you can't experience just red and experience just blue at the same time. Consciousness is singular.

I never said that. Each new brain would be a new "me", and would behave like I would in the situations they are put. Once again: in physics, an exact copy of an object is the object.

There is no "I" that transcends matter. The "I" is the product of the matter. Disassemble the matter and the "I" dies. Recreate the matter and the "I" is recreated, too. Once again, you experience does not transcend your body.

If this is what you wanna know: your old brain would not experience the same things your new brain(s) would. However, each new brain would behave just as if they were the old brain (ONCE AGAIN, in physics, an identical copy *is* the original). Whichever of those three brains you want to call "you" is arbitrary. I personally would call the three brains "me", but it's up for you to choose.

wtf does ignorance of atoms have to do with anything? And at what point did I argue from authority??
I don't believe in an immaterial soul of sorts. I believe 'I' am a result of the causal system enacted by my neural network.

LOL, the ignorance of atoms plays a major part. By the time of Descartes, it was not yet known if the brain was made of matter alone, or if there was something else controlling it (a spirit, so to speak). He didn't know which of these was the truth, and as a true skeptic decided not to adopt either point of view.

I never said that. Each new brain would be a new "me", and would behave like I would in the situations they are put. Once again: in physics, an exact copy of an object is the object.

Consciousness is not currently within the cope of physics so referencing physical concepts is futile.

I know that both brains would act in an identical manner. That is not my question. My question is what you - by you I mean the experiencer which is currently experiencing the reading of these words - would go on to experience.

LOL, the ignorance of atoms plays a major part. By the time of Descartes, it was not yet known if the brain was made of matter alone, or if there was something else controlling it (a spirit, so to speak). He didn't know which of these was the truth, and as a true skeptic decided not to adopt either point of view.

...but I wasn't referencing Descartes with respect to dualism, I was talking about scepticism. Descartes famously said that he could not deny the existence of his own being, as such a denial entails a denier.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Science has no definitive answer for what consciousness is, just like science has no definitive answer for what God is. You know, science can't really know much about things that don't exist.

Also, I am pretty sure quantum physics can't explain it, because quantum physics has nothing to do with the human brain. Saying quantum physics explains cognitive processes is just like saying geology explains jurisprudence.

Consciousness doesn't exist, but its a cognitive function?

quantum physics has a lot to do with the brain. You may not realize, but there are billions of electrons zipping around your nervous system right now. They all play a pretty significant roll in how your brain functions and they are all defined by a quantum wave function.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I already told you they wouldn't teach anything about consciousness, they'd teach you about attention. Seriously, if you don't have an argument, don't post.

So far, the only evidence you have offered to prove that consciousness is really attention is "cuz I sed so". Keep trying though.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Exactly. It's not in science's scope to define things. Define consciousness, and if your definition has anything truthful to it, science will study your definition of consciousness. You don't even know what a definition is... a definition is an arbitrary convention made for the simple purpose of facilitating human understanding of reality. Definitions are not always the best there are for explaining reality, especially because science advances and makes old theories obsolete.

Human beings do experience things. It just happens that your idea of what it is to experience something is not really scientific. If you let me say it, your idea is very simplistic and emotional -- fear of not having free-will, fear of not having control, fear of realizing that you are just a product of the medium. Yes, you do experience things. Just like a camera experiences a scene. You are just slightly more complex than the camera.

Maybe I missed your answer to this question; Why are we not philosophical zombies, again? Why does the complex system of shit bumping into each other cause a subjective experience(otherwise known as consciousness)?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Bluehat.

Cop out.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Try to follow science. It must be hard for you.

Science is not an institution. Science is the information acquired through the scientific method. If only you knew what that is, you'd tell me to do follow science emotionally, dogmatically and religiously.

Funny, I was parroting you when you told me to

Abandon all emotion when dealing with science.

And Kromoh, I hate to burst your superiority bubble, but I started studying college physics when I was 18. I'm now 26. I think I've been at this a little longer than you have, first year med student. Normally I try to avoid these sorts of pissing matches but you assuming I know nothing about science and physics in particular has gotten just too painful to stomach. If you would just shut up for a moment and stop assuming you are smarter than everyone else in the world, you might actually learn something. I am sure there is something you know and I don't and I would be happy to learn from you, just as soon as you actually say something relevant that isn't just a piss poor attempt at an insult or some parroted piece of info that you think is going to impress everyone.

This whole charade about consciousness has been just you puffing out your chest. I thought eventually it would lead back to the topic of determinism since the subjects are so intertwined but it looks like I may have been wrong. If we don't get back there soon, I'm going to have to split all of this up into two different threads and I can't deny that it will take supreme zen calm on my part not to take the effort that will cause me out on you somehow.

Originally Posted by Xei

Consciousness is not currently within the cope of physics so referencing physical concepts is futile.

Nah. Referencing consciousness is futile. Neurology is just physics at a more macroscopic level.

Unless you're saying we should abandon science. lul

...but I wasn't referencing Descartes with respect to dualism, I was talking about scepticism. Descartes famously said that he could not deny the existence of his own being, as such a denial entails a denier.

That doesn't mean the "being" breaks any physical laws, you know.

Also, maybe believing you are denying something doesn't (necessarily) mean you are.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Consciousness doesn't exist, but its a cognitive function?

Nah. Consciousness doesn't exist. Attention does, and is a cognitive function.

quantum physics has a lot to do with the brain. You may not realize, but there are billions of electrons zipping around your nervous system right now. They all play a pretty significant roll in how your brain functions and they are all defined by a quantum wave function.

You may not realize, but there are 2500 different types of proteins reacting wildly in your brain right now, which are much more important in the overall aspect than electrons. I mean, subatomic particles are everywhere; why, out of all the atoms in the universe, would they choose to prioritize only the atoms in the molecules in the cells of your brain? Seriously, if quantum physics gives you free will, then it also gives free will to every H2O molecule there is. Think twice before drinking water, you may be doing something those poor molecules don't want.

You fail to realize the size of things, seriously. Water molecules travel at the average speed of 640 m/s at 25ºC. DNA polimerase duplicates 1000 DNA bases per second. There are approximatedly 2500 different proteins in your body. Neurotransmitters used in your feet may take a few days being transported in the neuron to arrive there.

If quantum physics affects anything, then that would be atoms, not human brains. The role quantum properties play in your brain is, contrary to what you said, insignificant, compared to the old models.

So far, the only evidence you have offered to prove that consciousness is really attention is "cuz I sed so". Keep trying though.

Wow. I linked you to wikipedia, I cited 3 books. Shut the fuck up.

Maybe I missed your answer to this question; Why are we not philosophical zombies, again? Why does the complex system of shit bumping into each other cause a subjective experience(otherwise known as consciousness)

?

Who said you are not a philosophical zombie? You think your experience is special, but it's just your fugging brain doing its job.

Cop out.

I'll say it again. I saw it coming the day you became a bluehat.

And Kromoh, I hate to burst your superiority bubble, but I started studying college physics when I was 18. I'm now 26. I think I've been at this a little longer than you have, first year med student. Normally I try to avoid these sorts of pissing matches but you assuming I know nothing about science and physics in particular has gotten just too painful to stomach. If you would just shut up for a moment and stop assuming you are smarter than everyone else in the world, you might actually learn something. I am sure there is something you know and I don't and I would be happy to learn from you, just as soon as you actually say something relevant that isn't just a piss poor attempt at an insult or some parroted piece of info that you think is going to impress everyone.

What do you study, again? =.=

Seriously, if you're in college or not, if you study or not, whatever, it doesn't matter. When have I ever spoken anything about my studying neuroscience several years? bah. But really, for someone who claims to have studied more than I have, you should have a better grasp on the subject.

This whole charade about consciousness has been just you puffing out your chest. I thought eventually it would lead back to the topic of determinism since the subjects are so intertwined but it looks like I may have been wrong. If we don't get back there soon, I'm going to have to split all of this up into two different threads and I can't deny that it will take supreme zen calm on my part not to take the effort that will cause me out on you somehow.

If someone wanted to continue to talk about determinism, they would have posted already. Jeez, find a reason to do things before you do them. Don't just obey protocol. The protocol has an underlying reason, you know.

I'm glad you're not law student, heh.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Define "observe". Really, "to observe" is nothing more than to let that thing which is being observed influence something else, so that humans can observe that something else with their senses and cognize that information into an idea. Highlight to the fact that humans are also part of the system.

Observing involves fields of consciousness that interact with and influence subatomic particles at the microscopic level. If the field is strong enough, the effects are more dramatic. Some people misinterpret the observer to be separate in order for this to be valid, but this obviously all happens in one system where the consciousness of the observer is united with that which is being observed. Fields don't ensue causality but activate potentiality.

The chair is actually an organization of matter. The matter has always been there. You're exactly right. I don't know, though, what you're trying to prove by saying this. Quantum physics is not about philosophy.

In this case, yes it is about philosophy. This thread's in the philosophy section, so it's very much open to that.

Remember that you are part of the system yourself. And by "you" I mean the brain.

That can't be right, the brain is an object of observation. The identity must be purely subjective and is rooted in consciousness. Consciousness cannot be defined accurately but that's not to say it doesn't exist.

Man. It doesn't matter if you realize it or not. You're made of matter. You only function as you do because of the physiochemical processes that occur in your body and around your body.

That doesn't address my point, and it actually just seems like a more advanced description of a system. It is still based in causality and that we do things because that's what the body was predetermined to do. News for you is, there is a subjective reality in consciousness, which, if it didn't exist, nothing else could exist either. You can only think that you are matter because of the energy of consciousness. That contradicts the assumption that "you" are matter.

You're taking the concept "cause" to a really simplistic level. By cause I mean the deepest microscopic level, as that of Newton's cause and effect law. What you're doing now is because one atom collided with another, with another, with another, with another........ which ultimately caused the matter that consists you to behave in a certain way.

That's not true. Newtonian causality is not microscopic at all. It is macroscopic and that is reflected with all classical physics. Quantum behavior is microscopic and it appears to be far more complex than with causality. You are dealing with fields of energy and things that do not discretely exist, namely waves and particles.

Also, quantum physics never speaks about consciousness or even free will. Those are just interpretations made by people who understand quantum physics very poorly. Science doesn't even fully understand how each of 2500 proteins in your brain behave to result in your behavior, let alone subatomic particles. Quantum physics came to show us that everything is made of particles, even waves and fields. It came to show us that there is not magic controlling what happens and what doesn't. And some not-so-bright believers love to use the term "quantum physics" without even knowing what it is to try to justify their superstitions and ignorance.

Quantum physics never speaks about anything. It is what scientists, philosophers and researchers, (etc) do with the information and the theories that gives it meaning. From there it is easy to understand that quantum mechanics and the science of consciousness are some of the greatest topics in today's society.

I already did. Rooving is that which the universe does.

Then what is the universe doing? It's not a definition. I think this is circular reasoning.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

You may not realize, but there are 2500 different types of proteins reacting wildly in your brain right now, which are much more important in the overall aspect than electrons. I mean, subatomic particles are everywhere; why, out of all the atoms in the universe, would they choose to prioritize only the atoms in the molecules in the cells of your brain? Seriously, if quantum physics gives you free will, then it also gives free will to every H2O molecule there is. Think twice before drinking water, you may be doing something

You fail to realize the size of things, seriously. Water molecules travel at the average speed of 640 m/s at 25ºC. DNA polimerase duplicates 1000 DNA bases per second. There are approximatedly 2500 different proteins in your body. Neurotransmitters used in your feet may take a few days being transported in the neuron to arrive there.

If quantum physics affects anything, then that would be atoms, not human brains. The role quantum properties play in your brain is, contrary to what you said, insignificant, compared to the old models.

None of your regurgitated data in this post is relevant to what I said at all. I'm not talking about just any electrons in your head as part of the molecules; I'm talking about information transferring electromagnetic fields. The electrons in a water molecule rarely transfer information, since they are in a stable state. There are thousands of neural spikes occurring in your brain every second, and each one is electrons being transferred in order to pass on information. These are quantum events. The electromagnetic field that surrounds your brain and the rest of your body and allows EEG machines to work is governed by quantum mechanics.

All of this is ridiculous though because my argument was never that quantum mechanics can explain consciousness. That was another one of your assumptions from not paying attention. I would not argue such a thing since there isn't any evidence. I was arguing that the results of experiments in quantum mechanics are evidence that consciousness plays a fundamental role in our universe since the act of conscious observation has the same or similar effects on wave functions as gravity, electro-weak forces, and strong nuclear forces.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Wow. I linked you to wikipedia, I cited 3 books. Shut the fuck up.

Putting up links is not an argument. Your wikipedia links did not address the issue at all (have you read them?) and I showed you exactly how your attention link is not enough to explain consciousness. Have you read the books you listed? I know I'm not going to go spend $100+ dollars in order to find out if they even have anything to do with the discussion we are having. This is what is called misdirection on your part. Cite evidence that you know people don't have access to so when someone says "you didn't offer any arguments or evidence" you can say, "yes I did, you just didn't read the books!"

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Who said you are not a philosophical zombie? You think your experience is special, but it's just your fugging brain doing its job.

I did. Most experiencing creatures do. Do you know what a philosophical zombie is?

A philosophical zombie, p-zombie or p-zed is a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.

What cognitive function does experience arise from?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

What do you study, again? =.=

Physics

Originally Posted by Kromoh

you should have a better grasp on the subject.

I do.

Nah. Referencing consciousness is futile. Neurology is just physics at a more macroscopic level.

Unless you're saying we should abandon science. lul

Yeah let's abandon science lululul.

No I never said anything remotely like that. :l

I'm doing a scientific degree in the hope of going into a scientific career. wtf.

That doesn't mean the "being" breaks any physical laws, you know.

Also, maybe believing you are denying something doesn't (necessarily) mean you are.

I don't think you're actually listening to anything I'm saying. You're so wrapped up in this false dichotomy of 'science and pure materialism' and 'mysticism and dualism' you keep imagining me to be saying things which I'm not. I never said anything along the lines of 'consciousness breaks physical laws'.

Descartes' argument is not concerned with if you are 'genuinely' denying your own existence, it is a simple argument that shows that if you were to make such a denial, it would lead to a contradiction; hence, you exist. I only brought up Descartes as an aside because you seemed to be denying that there is an experiencer associated with your brain.

Now that I've addressed the rather tangential things you decided to respond to, can you please answer the question that my entire post was talking about;

My question is what you - by you I mean the experiencer which is currently experiencing the reading of these words - would go on to experience.

If quantum physics affects anything, then that would be atoms, not human brains. The role quantum properties play in your brain is, contrary to what you said, insignificant, compared to the old models.

Well, if it weren't for quantum physics, atoms wouldn't exist in the first place.

But according to what I've heard it's believed to be true that you can understand the brain with classical ideas.

Wow. I linked you to wikipedia, I cited 3 books. Shut the fuck up.

I guess you're new to academia or just plain common sense.

You can't answer a question by telling somebody to read an entire goddamn textbook, the vast majority or perhaps even all of which is totally irrelevant to the question.

Who said you are not a philosophical zombie? You think your experience is special, but it's just your fugging brain doing its job.

Okay, even if you want to take the rather bizarre opinion that everybody including Xaq is a philosophical zombie; you should still be able to answer the question 'why are you not a philosophical zombie'.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

None of your regurgitated data in this post is relevant to what I said at all. I'm not talking about just any electrons in your head as part of the molecules; I'm talking about information transferring electromagnetic fields. The electrons in a water molecule rarely transfer information, since they are in a stable state. There are thousands of neural spikes occurring in your brain every second, and each one is electrons being transferred in order to pass on information. These are quantum events. The electromagnetic field that surrounds your brain and the rest of your body and allows EEG machines to work is governed by quantum mechanics.

Man, do you even know how neurons work? Potential of action, limiter for impulse, etc etc? Seriously, biological processes were already explained by pre-quantum physics. Which means quantum physics changes nothing about them.

In science, new theories only come to explain old theories on a more microscopic level. I don't think you even realize the order of the difference in size between subatomic particles and your cell membranes and your cell size.

Also, are you really saying water is stable? Seriously? You'd be chocked by the real numbers. A drop of water is much more active than you think, even though you don't see it.

I was arguing that the results of experiments in quantum mechanics are evidence that consciousness plays a fundamental role in our universe since the act of conscious observation has the same or similar effects on wave functions as gravity, electro-weak forces, and strong nuclear forces.

So consciousness plays a fundamental role in our universe? Which pseudo-science book did you take that from?

Seriously, the universe could care less if you know about something or not. Remember you are just an organization of matter, and what you "know" is but proteins reacting in your brain. You may get that special, tingly feeling that you "know" something, but really, that is just emotion, another thing processed by your brain. Emotions cloud your understanding and make the fool of you.

You happen not know know what "observation" is. To observe something is to let that thing influence you, in a way that the influence can be used to differentiate the composition, properties and behaviour of the thing. And the interaction changes the state of the observed thing. To see something is but to shoot photons at an object, let the photons interact with the object, and then receive the photons with your eyes and interpret them.

To "observe" something is to interact with an object in order to produce information. Information is anything that can potentially become a human thought. A human thought is a conformation of chemical and electric chain processes occurring in a human brain.

You think that the problem with observing something is that consciousness affects it. Nah. The problem with observing something is that, to observe that something, you have to interact with it -- and to interact with it is to change it. It's what I explained (and you didn't understand) with the watch analogy -- you can't analyse it without breaking it. It's what the Schroedinger's cat paradox is about -- you can't observe without interacting. The concept of "observation" has nothing to do with human attention or understanding or what you call consciousness. To observe is to interact with the observed and produce information about it.

Putting up links is not an argument. Your wikipedia links did not address the issue at all (have you read them?) and I showed you exactly how your attention link is not enough to explain consciousness. Have you read the books you listed? I know I'm not going to go spend $100+ dollars in order to find out if they even have anything to do with the discussion we are having. This is what is called misdirection on your part. Cite evidence that you know people don't have access to so when someone says "you didn't offer any arguments or evidence" you can say, "yes I did, you just didn't read the books!"

The links did address the issue. Reading the title of the article doesn't mean you read the article. If you'd read them, you'd see they explain every questioning of yours.

Nah, it's not misdirection on my part. It's negligence on yours. I cited books I have read with information about what you asked, and you're accusing me of not providing sources because you don't have direct access to them. And in any case, I also gave you the wikipedia links, with direct access, but you didn't read them. I did all I could, I gave you book references, internet links and I explained things to you -- don't accuse me of not giving you evidence. You're the one beating the dead horse here.

Do you know what a philosophical zombie is?

No. Enlighten me.

What cognitive function does experience arise from?

Several.

I do.

Yeah right.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm doing a scientific degree in the hope of going into a scientific career. wtf.
I don't think you're actually listening to anything I'm saying. You're so wrapped up in this false dichotomy of 'science and pure materialism' and 'mysticism and dualism' you keep imagining me to be saying things which I'm not. I never said anything along the lines of 'consciousness breaks physical laws'.

Yes, you never said anything about mysticism. Well, it's never bad to make sure. I'm arguing from multiple fronts to try to find where your conceptual mistake is. Also, remember your point of view can be a little non-scientific even if you don't realize it. I don't know exactly what you are thinking, sorry, I'm no mind reader. Forgive me if I don't know what your exact beliefs are.

Descartes' argument is not concerned with if you are 'genuinely' denying your own existence, it is a simple argument that shows that if you were to make such a denial, it would lead to a contradiction; hence, you exist. I only brought up Descartes as an aside because you seemed to be denying that there is an experiencer associated with your brain.

Nah. If you believe you are denying, when you are actually doing something you are programmed to do, then, you aren't really denying. In the same way that someone who is forced to kill is not a murderer.

Define "experiencer". I don't know what you mean by it.

Now that I've addressed the rather tangential things you decided to respond to, can you please answer the question that my entire post was talking about;
Well, if it weren't for quantum physics, atoms wouldn't exist in the first place.

Man. Shut up. You don't know beans about which you are talking. Quantum physics is a branch of science. Science is a means for humans to understand reality. Reality would always be there, even if human beings knew no science.

Reality is there. Science only analyses it.

But according to what I've heard it's believed to be true that you can understand the brain with classical ideas.

Bingo.

You can't answer a question by telling somebody to read an entire goddamn textbook, the vast majority or perhaps even all of which is totally irrelevant to the question.

Man. People spend years learning neuroscience. Spend at least a few minutes reading the links I provided you.

Okay, even if you want to take the rather bizarre opinion that everybody including Xaq is a philosophical zombie; you should still be able to answer the question 'why are you not a philosophical zombie'.

Who said I'm not? I am. Just like everyone else. We are all machines, people. Our brains break no physical laws. Our brains aren't special nor different from the rest of the universe. Our brains are made of regular matter, obeying the exact same physical laws, no exceptions nor additions.

Now I understand. Kromoh actually is a philosophical zombie. He doesn't understand what it is to experience something, so obviously he won't be able to understand any argument that assumes experience is real.

Kromoh, I'm not going to play the quote tag game. You haven't addressed any of the questions that have been asked of you, you've simply reasserted your initial claims. If you have any actual answers, please feel free to present them.

Just to summarize; you said yourself that science has no explanation for concsiousness, so obviously no current model of the brain addresses the phenomenon.

You don't think consciousness exists because you lack experience. The rest of us don't so we'll continue to discuss it.

Consciousness plays a fundamental role in the universe. This conclusion is made by many of the main stream interpretations of quantum mechanics and was initially proposed by David Bohm who is one of the fathers of Quantum Theory (he is actually the person who wrote the book by that title). This is not psuedo-science, it is a philosophical interpretation of well documented scientific phenomena made by many of the discoverers of those phenomena. Do some reading about implicate order.

KROMOH

You didn't address my points. Additionally:

Number 1:

If it everything is "just matter" and we are "just machines"..

Then how do you know that?


What's the meaning of studying neuroscience?

How can you know anything about... wait for it...

Spoiler for wait for it....:

NEURONS?

How do you know about proteins in the brain?

How do you know about Protein shakes?

Gatorade?

Vitamin Water? Name anything whatsoever.




It's CONSCIOUSNESS: The capacity for EXPERIENCE. The capacity for knowledge. You may say it's in the brain and the mind (etc.) but that is after the fact.

It's like watching a DVD and saying that the television has no part in it, or rather, that an OBSERVER has no part in it. Frankly, it's dumb.

You will have a hard time denying the existence of consciousness.

Number 2:

I'm also curious who draws the line between when something is observed and when it is not? What is the elaborate meaning of "interaction", as you say it?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Now I understand. Kromoh actually is a philosophical zombie. He doesn't understand what it is to experience something, so obviously he won't be able to understand any argument that assumes experience is real.

Now let me get you to understand one thing. Suppose a true, physical scenario (much like that thing called reality we live in). In a physical scenario, it doesn't make any difference if there is a human that "experiences" something and a human that acts exactly as if he had experienced it. The reaction to an action is what defines the whole thing. Really. Suppose you cut a human and a zombie's arm. The human would feel the pain through his brain. Well, for the zombie to realize the cut and react as if he felt pain, there would have to be an organ sensing the cut and making him act that way. And that organ would be his pain-sensing organ.

Do you get the point I'm trying to say? Both the human and the zombie feel pain. The apparent distinction you put between them doesn't exist. 'Pain' is but a neurological signal that triggers some functions of your brain. You are a machine. How fucking hard is it for you to admit that?

Kromoh, I'm not going to play the quote tag game. You haven't addressed any of the questions that have been asked of you, you've simply reasserted your initial claims. If you have any actual answers, please feel free to present them.

Man, if you still haven't understood what I've been saying and reasserting from the beginning, it's not my fault.

Just to summarize; you said yourself that science has no explanation for concsiousness, so obviously no current model of the brain addresses the phenomenon.

Nah. I didn't say that shit. I said that science has no definition of "consciousness". Which means that, for science, consciousness is a fact yet to be observed. Much like God, or astrology, or astral projection. One can always come with his personal definition of God, saying that God is nature, but really, the definition is as arbitrary as is. Science still hasn't observed a fact a called it "God".

You don't think consciousness exists because you lack experience. The rest of us don't so we'll continue to discuss it.

Make, if you're gonna argue, you must use actual arguments. Seriously. You're doing exactly like those people who claim they saw a ghost. Seriously, it doesn't matter if you think you saw it, your mind is much better at playing tricks on you than you imagine.

Google the term 'illusion of control'. It's a classical example of the fact that you can believe in something without it being true.

Consciousness plays a fundamental role in the universe.

Give me a scientific article saying this. (lul I'm repeating this statement)

This conclusion is made by many of the main stream interpretations of quantum mechanics

YEAH RIGHT... the main stream interpretations of quantum mechanics, along with intelligent design and irreducible complexity.

and was initially proposed by David Bohm who is one of the fathers of Quantum Theory (he is actually the person who wrote the book by that title).

Proves beans.

This is not psuedo-science, it is a philosophical interpretation of well documented scientific phenomena made by many of the discoverers of those phenomena. Do some reading about implicate order.

Religion is an interpretation of poorly understood phenomenons. Your arguments are an interpretation of poorly understood (quantum) phenomenons. I think I smell something funny here.

Originally Posted by really

Wow, that is a big picture.

You didn't address my points.

You didn't give me 1 billion USD. Oh well...

If it everything is "just matter" and we are "just machines"..

Then how do you know that?

Define "know". Man, stop using definitions you get from daily speech. They don't serve in this kind of argument.

Humans were naturally selected to have the (conjunction of) cognitive processes that allows them to simulate models of sensorial reality. This could be loosely interpreted as "knowing something".

You can program a robot to "know" about himself, you know. It doesn't require any magical or transcendental mind to experience things for humans to create mental models about themselves.

What's the meaning of studying neuroscience?

What is the meaning of anything? "Meaning" is an emotional human interpretation.

How can you know anything about... wait for it...

Spoiler for wait for it....:

NEURONS?

How do you know about proteins in the brain?

How do you know about Protein shakes?

Gatorade?

Vitamin Water? Name anything whatsoever.

There's this thing called science, and...

It's CONSCIOUSNESS: The capacity for EXPERIENCE. The capacity for knowledge. You may say it's in the brain and the mind (etc.) but that is after the fact.

FOR THE FUGGING LAST TIME: DEFINE CONSCIOUSNESS, DEFINE EXPERIENCE, DEFINE KNOWLEDGE. Using the terms without a proper, non-ambiguous, and consensual definition is like using words of a foreign language.

It's like watching a DVD and saying that the television has no part in it, or rather, that an OBSERVER has no part in it. Frankly, it's dumb.

Define observer.

You will have a hard time denying the existence of consciousness.

You will have a hard time defining consciousness, much before I even have to try to deny its existence.

I'm also curious who draws the line between when something is observed and when it is not? What is the elaborate meaning of "interaction", as you say it?

Man, that is exactly what I explained in the last post. But you have this stupid mindset that thinks nothing I say addresses your questions. Everything I've said so far addresses your questions. If you think they didn't, you didn't understand beans about them.

Ok, let's explain it again.

An "observation" is not what you're thinking of. It's not an "observer" "observing" something. In science, an "observation" is an interaction -- a physical interaction, carried through physical laws or attraction, repulsion, action and reaction, emission, etc etc. It's basically doing something with the object to be observed, analysing its reactions, and taking conclusions about its possible behavior.

Let's use an analogy to make your understanding easier: science is like a blind person. It must "touch" things in order to acquire information about them. This "touching" can be through a multitude of methods. However, no matter how sophisticated the method is, it's still "touching", and this "touching" can influence the thing being touched, changing it at the exact time we are touching it.

The other analogy is the watch analogy I already explained, and which you ignored. It was made by Albert Einstein himself. He said the atom is a cohesive watch. You can't see the inside, nor observe how it works, without breaking it. But, when you do break it, it stops working. Which means you can never gather information about the inner processes of the watch without making those processes stop. What you can do is try to deduce how the watch worked, by analysing its broken pieces, but you will never be 100% sure. This watch, my friend, is anything science has ever studied.

What is "you" that the mind is playing tricks on?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What is "you" that the mind is playing tricks on?

It was a means of expression. A human can have the belief of something, and can act based on it, assuming his simulated model of reality correctly reflects reality, while it doesn't. In more simple words, a human's model of reality may not copy reality truthfully, and that human's actions will be based on his model of reality, not on true reality (for that is not directly accessible to the brain). To make it even more simple, a human can be wrong, and that's it. Causality let him to being right or wrong. lul

Seriously, you are a machine. I don't know why it is so hard for you guys to accept this (or, in more scientific terms: my brain's model of reality can't correctly predict why it is hard for your brains to include this information in their models of reality).