space_comrade [he/him]

You literally called one of the trailblazers of the entire field a “new age mystic”. I don’t really plan on taking you seriously anymore, thanks for all the kind words tho, take care.

Now stop being a redditbrained contradictory little shit and read my comment.

No, you wrote it all for nothing.

Damn you’re a complete grating asshole, I’m not reading all of that shit but I do know at least this is wrong:

You’re not going to find anyone actually employed in quantum theory or research espousing it.

Eugene Wigner, John von Neumann, Roger Penrose, Brian Josephson, Henry Stapp, Erwin Schrödinger (debatable, but he was questioning physicalism).

I do not have to provide you with definitions so that your stupid ideas make sense.

Damn you’re a feisty one.

In fact you do have to provide definitions, an “observation” in the context of quantum mechanics does not have a consensus definition and the definition heavily relies on your particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. One of these interpretations also includes consciousness, and if you want to be completely certain this particular interpretation is false you need your own coherent definition of consciousness that doesn’t call upon quantum mechanics. You don’t have such a thing, nobody does.

You’re locked in a belief system and you don’t even realize it.

No, you dumb fuck,

Thanks comrade, very nice of you.

You have to define it

No, everybody has to define it actually since it clearly exists and nobody really knows what it is. If you believe with certainty it doesn’t have anything to do with quantum collapse then you also must have a good idea what it actually is, and you just plain don’t.

Personally I’m agnostic about the whole thing and I don’t think any particular idea needs to be dismissed a priori because of entrenched beliefs.

So, by your definition, mystical stuff is just things we can’t explain right now.

My entire fucking point is that nobody can explain it properly and you grasping so tightly onto only one of the possible explanations is you having a strong belief system, same as religious people, not you doing a heckin good science think.

Nothing I’ve seen seems to imply it’s outside of our models.

It literally is tho. There is no mention of consciousness anywhere in either quantum mechanics or general relativity.

So either you give a real answer to their question of what you think consciousness is or you start listing the things you think are conscious until smarter minds can work out what connects the dots.

You haven’t given a real answer either though and neither has anybody else in the history of science, which is what I’m trying to say, nobody has a coherent answer but you’re pretending as if you do. You’re literally just asserting your claims without backing anything up.

We can easily explain how a physical system produces consciousness.

We literally can’t do that at all though, not even close.

Because that’s literally a basic requirment of science.

How? Science is based on making models from empirical observations about the world and yourself, one of these empirical observations is the observation that your phenomenal consciousness actually exists, seemingly in opposition to the physical world, maybe we should perhaps include that fact in our models?

Also, you call it reductive. I don’t think it’s reductive.

It’s literally how that category of metaphysical thought is called, it’s an actual philosophical term.

How does it not fit in our quantitative descriptions?

I mean it just kinda fucking doesn’t. Our physical model of reality is a bunch of mathematical models and there’s no mathematical formula for consciousness yet.

I’d love for some mystical thing to exist, but literally every mystical thing people have believed for tens of thousands of years has been wrong.

But you’re literally experiencing the “mystical thing” right now. The mystical part is the part where you don’t really have a mathematical equation for it and yet it exists. Think of it like “dark matter” where you know it probably exists but you can’t really model it properly.

I’m not sure where you’re going with this really. Why do I need to analyze if every single thing in the universe is conscious or not? Physicalism also doesn’t really have a general answer to the question “is this physical system conscious”. Shouldn’t you do the same work before declaring you know consciousness is fully physical?

Consciousness is just a series of impulses in a system, a system which can go wrong in many ways and is not a fundamental thing.

You can claim that all you want but you can’t really back that up. Nobody has anywhere near a coherent account of how a purely physical system produces (or equates to) subjective conscious experience. If your answer now is “well science will figure it out one day for sure” then you have a belief system and you aren’t actually thinking scientifically.

Why should science be forever married to a reductive physicalist account of the universe?

It doesn’t make it useful to consider it though.

Why not? My own consciousness is literally the one and only thing I have direct, ineffable evidence of existing. Unlike God, you actually have proof of your own consciousness existing, the same consciousness that doesn’t really fit anywhere in our purely quantitative descriptions of the universe. I think that’s reason enough to give the idea some credence.

Some hypotheses shouldn’t be entertained because they require so many strange assumptions they’re essentially useless and just a waste of time

The only “strange assumption” I’m making is that my consciousness actually exists.

If the conscious observer thing were true, what would it decide is consciousness? Would it require sapience? Sentience? Does it happen for dolphins? Apes? Monkeys? Mice? Tardigrades? What level of synapse connections is it waiting for to decide that’s enough? What about humans born without a brain? Can they not see anything? This hypothesis requires so many weird assumptions that it’s less than useless.

What’s so weird about any of those questions/assumptions? A consciousness-based interpretation of quantum mechanics would need any conscious observer, that would include dolphins since we’re pretty sure they’re having conscious experiences.

I guess you could say it all collapses when an actual consciousness checks what state things are at, but that’d be a rediculous claim to make.

Would it? We now know with the recent experiments with Bell’s inequality that quantum mechanics can’t be reduced to a local hidden-variable theory, doesn’t that at least in theory leave space for consciousness? Sure you could go with superdeterminism but currently that seems equally unfalsifiable as a consciousness-based theory.

I use sonicare too it’s great but you don’t really need the top end models, the tech inside is the same as the lower-mid end models it’s just some marketing bullshit.

Chatgpt is just Cortana with better marketing. AI isn’t smart, it’s just algorithms producing a facsimile of language via pattern heatmaps. What was Cortana if not just an earlier version of the same thing?

Well no, not really IMO. Cortana as far as I know wasn’t based on LLMs as we know them today, it was a way older method of NLP. You’re right that on a high level it’s pretty similar but the underlying technology is qualitatively different IMO.

Yeah tbh if you paid for the cat toy more than $5 you’ve almost certainly wasted money. Mine gets bored of most toys after a few days except for a few banger toys he still uses, but those also cost like $5.

Not sure if that’s true for table tennis. Like yeah if you’re just barely starting out sure get the $10 paddle but pretty soon (maybe even within a month or two) you’re gonna want a better paddle if you want to be at all serious about it.

Electric toothbrushes. Don’t get the cheapest one either, get a mid range one from a good brand but the top end models of the good brands are just scams, they just look a bit nicer and have some shitty “AI powered” app you’ll never use.