Tradie detected

Last year some quantum physicist figured out that they can predict the quantum leaps, whatever that means.

idk wtf u talkin bout

people who take anything but a materialistic view of consciousness are a joke imo

i can prove them wrong using alzheimer's

Just because aspects of a phenomenon are detected within a certain model of reality does not in any way justify identifying them as being one and the same as the phenomenon itself. That is the great misconception of scientific positivism. Easily debunked by means of simple logic.

breh i know you have no experience in neuroscience/ psychology, etc.

i didn't read your last post (if you responded) cause i'm positive it was just gonna be more of you talking out of your azz

the article i posted had like 50 problems about it all as well. i'm guessing very few if any read it at all, as it's very long. but nonetheless i covered literally everything you've said

and presented problems to you that are still undefined

I agree with the above. I do think things are sort of fated - people are largely bound by their circumstances, they have limited "choices," and even when making "choices," people aren't really acting of their own volition - what they have experienced thusfar and what is going on in their body/brain is deciding their choice, not some soul or something; there's no man behind the curtain controlling consciousness.

the detection is all u will ever have to work with

for all practical purposes, it IS the reality

you can't even describe reality without the detection

the entire notion of a phenomenon itself is simply part of some idealized model u build to explain what u fuking detected

all we have are detections

I think the thoughts in Sevenlionz's comment are some of the most interesting ideas about the topic at hand. To me, thoughts lacking any real origin is what makes me really not believe in "free will." I first heard it in a Frank Yang video, though I can't find it now.



I think the below are the real punchline to the thread though. Yeah, maybe things are "pre-determined," but your best bet for getting a "good" outcome for yourself) as in, getting an enjoyable/comfortable life where you can help people you care about/others) is operating with the assumption that you can control your destiny to some degree; otherwise, life just seems immobilizingly nihilistic. It's cope, but it's practical.

With that in mind, I think there's also a fine line to toe when talking about say, the difference in how you consider a beggar and a CEO 10k/day. Yeah, it's good and fair to show compassion/sympathy to the beggar because you can't blame them too hard, but removing all expectations that people be good/try and not judging/chastizing them when they fail is a path to a chitty society. Brb not blaming anyone for any wrongdoings failure. Brb no social pressure to not be a piece of chit.

Conversely though, one of the things that annoys me the most on the left is how indignant and holier-than-thou some of them seem to be when somebody does something racist. Like fuk off, you're probably a fairly chitty person too and would be saying racist chit too if you were born in their situation. Call it out, but don't pat yourself on the back on how you wouldn't have done itifyou were in their situation) which you never will truly be). See LordBroly's comment about ordinary Americans committing war crimes and Bill Burr's bit about people chastizing Arnold/Tiger Woods for cheating on their wives when the average Americans calling these celebrities out have never been tempted by constant unlimited poon buffets.
I'm on the fence about assuming peopleshouldbe good though. I'm not fully convinced though that humanity shouldn't just gulp some kool aid and call it a day. Between people being generally chitty and nihilism/none of it likely mattering, humanity's continued existence seems like a hard sell. I try to avoid nihilism, but damn, idk...

/essay

I got an A in neurophysiology, but I'm not a neuroscientist since that field is too soft for my liking. Psychology is a joke. I'm talking about this from a physics POV.

If we're seriously going to debate whether the brain is a physical system then there is no point. It is. I know it is and so do you. We also know consciousness, personality, etc are all properties that emerge directly from the functionality of the physical brain. This can easily be demonstrated by looking at Alzheimer's disease. You can read all about the parts of the brain, such as the reticular formation, that are involved in consciousness and awareness. While we don't have a complete picture yet, it would take an awful lot to show that the hocus pocus bullchit of some externality that influences the entire universe exists just for u, snowflake.

exactly. he seems to be at a step below of the conversation. he's like attaching the phenomenon to the things (items/ objects/ material, etc.) which IS the quantifiable part of it, but not looking at the phenomenon in and of itself. THAT is the tricky part

btw, im not insinuating he's incapable. i'm just saying we're almost discussing different things. you are where it needs to beif the brain were as simple as he's said, we would be a lot further

Using the method you propose, you couldn't and in fact aren't even allowed to make the statements above, wich makes them self-refuting, thus false. They transcend the method for various reasons, one being that they are stated as absolutes. But you are correct that if you are in fact limiting yourself to a certain method, you won't be able to detect anything beyond the method's scope.

Name one nonphysical thing.

He is in tune with a line of exceptional scientific thinkers, who however are horrible philosophers.

it's cause he tries to stick his math head in places where it doesn't belong...yet

Did it ever occur to you that many philosophers are actually bullchitters?

Example: many hail Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment as an argument against strong AI. It's not. He's just unable to imagine the emergence of intelligence for a system. The Chinese brain thought experiment is another example where an idealized consciousness could logically emerge from the individual constituents. In fact, exceptional scientific thinkers, like Boltzmann, thought of this hundreds of years before those retards. (Read about Boltzmann brains.)

Your ideas are easily falsified by the simple fact that the brain is a PHYSICAL object and that Alzheimer's disease fuks your entire sense of self up. You want to believe there is some external soul that influences the entire universe somehow, not subject to the laws of physics. Absolutely insane!

Define nonphysical using the scientific method only.

If things are truly random at a quantum level, then my theory about a person living the same exact life an infinite amount of times isn’t valid.

Things will be different each time, if true randomness exist. If I plant the same tree a million times under the same exact circumstances to an universal scale, every single atom on the universe the exact same, the tree would still grow differently in each lifetime.

Not every single root, every single branch, every single leaf would grow exactly the same and in the same direction. After 100 years, we could find slight differences on the tree, since at a quantum level, some things were different, it’s bound to affect the growth of the tree ultimately.

So determinism still remains true, but there are actually 3 factors that affect every outcome. Genetics, environment and luck.


Outcomes can’t be entirely predicted, but your perspective of them are ultimately out of your control.

You are just matter moving around, reacting to events the way you were always destined to react.


I wonder if at a sub-atomical level, quantum mechanics affect the way we interpret things or create thoughts in our brains... which could potentially lead to different outcomes as well.

Still, out of our control.

Of course many philosophers are bull****ters. That doesn't change the fact that the notion of scientific positivism is very easily debunked.

That which could not be detected by an observer.

You seem to think I am making a claim about the nature of truth itself. I am not. This isn't logical positivism. This is me telling you that you have no idea what reality is because you haven't really thought about the nature of reality enough. I will illustrate this very easily for you. Reality is that which can be detected. Reality is observer dependent, for starters. That's probably something you didn't know.

Even if we would agree that there are only detections, that does not mean we are limited to detections in one model only.

But the statement itself is again self refuting. By using detections only, you obviously cannot make a statement like that.

Good to see this thread is still going. I didn't know so many here held the same/similar views. Interesting to see counterarguments as well.I've seen you post about your brother's passing before and IIRC you've mentioned that you attended therapy after his passing. Do you think that having had a family with the financial resources and understanding of the benefits of therapy helped see you through that time more than your innate disposition/brain? Like you said, those are the kinds of events that can dramatically alter the course of an individual's life if left unchecked...

You are just repeating statements already identified as false.

you should submit your model of replicable consciousness to all the ai start ups. could make a fortune and advance them hundreds if not thousands of years if your model is acquired by a quantum computer

i am positive i could bring you thousands of questions you could not answer, there are a lot itt, but i dont really give a fuk

You keep saying I can't make certain statements. Why? I mean I'm asking how you know anything is real? You know it because you detect it and infer its reality. In fact, that is the only way. And every idea you have ever had, including abstract notions, actually exist as some configuration of chit in your brain in a way we don't fully understand yet but are getting there. I reject platonism completely. I don't see any reason to believe there exists some sort of world of idealized forms of things like circles. In fact, a circle is a mathematical construct whose real physical representation exists only in the minds of humans as a configuration of various neurons that probably associate all the defining characteristics of a circle. Your detection of the emergent idea of what a circle is is probably different from mine but sufficiently similar that we can talk about it. These things actually exist as neural configurations. They aren't like stored in some magical data server external to the universe. They are stored as actual physical systems in the brain. All things you could ever conceive of are detected in a form by you in this universe. That's how you conceived of them. There's really no escaping the fact that you think with your brain.

I want to repeat that I am not making claims about truth. That's logical positivism. I'm making claims about existence here, not logical truth.

The idea that you think with your brain shouldn't be radical or controversial, but it is to you people for some reason. Your brain is a physical system. There is no reason why a fuking configuration of a gas couldn't think, for example, in some emergent manner given this fact. There's no reason to rule out thinking physical systems. Our brain is one. Boltzmann thought of Boltzmann brains as another.

I don’t think therapy helped at all with the loss of my brother. It helped with other things, but not with that. I also went to therapy years after it happened, I think 4 years later.


That was the darkest time of my life though, and that’s when I became an absolute loner.

Somehow made it out though, we all did in a way (my family). Everyone’s gotta move on when facing that kind of thing, and most people do.

So to answer your question, I believe it did dramatically affect my life, but something in my mind helped me use it as fuel or hope for the future.

Tough question to answer tbh, as in, it’s hard to know. Barely remember those times, just have particular memories that I saved.

The Chinese room knows Chinese. The Chinese brain is a self aware emergent consciousness even when all the individual people who are acting as neurons are not individually aware of its existence. These are the answers to those questions, and yes, most philosophers get this entirely wrong because they seem to have never learned about the idea of Boltzmann brains or thought of the mind as a physical system (which we have good reason to believe it is since we know if the brain is damaged, so too is "the mind"). We know your mind began ffs. We can trace you all the way back to a single cell. You had no mind. No "soul". No nothin. You were a fuking cell. A physical system interacted and you got a consciousness out of it. Now you think you're hot chit. You're still a physical system, buddy. When you die, it will all go right back to being just another physical system.

Sorry about your brother. I've also experienced a loss in the family, though it wasn't a sibling. It really is a terrible thing to experience, especially at a young age.

I also really became a loner/withdrawn following the incident. The fact we had just moved to a new country didn't help as I had no pre-existing friendships or social connections. I wonder if having any would have made a difference, as it doesn't seem to have made one for you.

I also do wonder about how effective counseling would have been. I never attended but I would like to think that it would have helped. Like you said, though, it is impossible to know. The only thing I know for sure is that it has had a significant impact on all my experiences since. I agree that it was somewhat of a driving force in my life but I don't think it made me more hopeful.