space_comrade
@space_comrade@hexbear.net
- Comment on double slit 7 months ago:
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.
- Comment on double slit 7 months ago:
Now stop being a redditbrained contradictory little shit and read my comment.
No, you wrote it all for nothing.
- Comment on double slit 7 months ago:
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, Henry Stapp, Erwin Schrödinger (debatable, but he was questioning physicalism).
- Comment on double slit 7 months ago:
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.
- Comment on double slit 8 months ago:
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 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.
- Comment on double slit 8 months ago:
So, by your definition, mystical stuff is just things we can’t explain right now.
But a few comments ago you said physicalist science actually can explain consciousness, why the backtracking?
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.
- Comment on double slit 8 months ago:
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.
- Comment on double slit 8 months ago:
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 they do.
- Comment on double slit 8 months ago:
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.
- Comment on double slit 8 months ago:
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.
- Comment on double slit 8 months ago:
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”.
- Comment on double slit 8 months ago:
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 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.
- Comment on double slit 8 months ago:
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.
- Comment on double slit 8 months ago:
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.
- Comment on double slit 8 months ago:
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.
- Comment on GitHub Desktop or Git CLI? 11 months ago:
GitguiI is pretty great too if you need a bit of interactivity. It’s bare bones and no bullshit but can still do like 90% of what all the other fancy tools can do.
- Comment on Duality of Japan 11 months ago:
Also racism and misogyny.
- Comment on Your server owner is now banned from participating on lemmy's Github 1 year ago:
Quite juvenile behavior from the devs.
The constant closing and reopening the issue was a bit weird but I didn’t really see any hostility or toxic behavior, except from you getting pissy about it out of nowhere.
- Comment on Banksy Encourages Fans to Shoplift From Guess Since Company 'Helped Themselves to My Artwork Without Asking’ 1 year ago:
Banksy is a complete fucking poser, true, but also shoplifting is good.