How simple are people?
-
@NoeticJuice "If everything is built up of individual particles, then, for there to be consciousness, that consciousness would be an attribute of each particle."
This is a compositional error. Many macroscopic properties (wetness, elasticity, temperature) emerge from organized interactions of parts even though no part singly bears them. Current neuroscience and complexity theory treat consciousness likewise (as an emergent, system level phenomenon) without assigning it to each constituent particle
"If placing the particles near each other combines their consciousness, then there's some kind of interaction happening outside the limits of the particles."
Standard physical interactions (electromagnetic coupling, chemical bonding, synaptic transmission) already lie outside any single particle yet remain fully within physical law. No extra layer is required other then forces and the relational structure they generate.
"If particles didn't combine consciousness in any way, then our kind of consciousness would not exist in a world only consisting of particles."
this is a False dichotomy: either particles each have consciousness or they “combine” it. A third option (I mentioned this in part one aswell) is that consciousness is an emergent property of certain organized information processing networks
"If particles that touch each other transmit something from their consciousness to the other particle, then, again, there's something else than just those particles, some other moving factor."
No solid scientific support exists for particles transmitting “consciousness.” What they transmit are energy and information via physical forces. The emergence of mental states from neural computation requires only these well documented exchanges
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
it doesnt make me uncomfortable but i believe we as humans have reached and found out the lowest level we can in our universes materials which are the atoms we havnt found one thing which isnt composed out of protons ,electrons and neutrons(not including the stuff which makes up protons electrons and neutrons which we also have discovered).
It probably does because you're resting on woo to cope with it. The standard model is incomplete. There is no unified field theory.
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
The burden of proof is on you.
I'd take her hint if I were you lb.
I cannot search for something I do not believe exists or have never seen any proof of. Neither can you (again, in my opinion—I’ll be happy to be proven wrong)
While you're busy with sports, others are busy with science.
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
how can one "ask" god. and if you know how to ask god, how do you bypass the question of which god to ask if there are so many to choose from
E-motion is a conversation. Lie on it at your peril.
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
The emergence of mental states from neural computation requires only these well documented exchanges
lol
-
@ThinPicking As I said before, I'm not here to argue, I'm here to have a productive debate. So, as I mentioned, I'm happy to listen to your ideas about why I'm wrong or where my position might be flawed. But saying lol and making comments like "While you're busy with sports, others are busy with science" doesn't help me understand your stance
-
@ThinPicking My opinion (which I’d be happy for you to prove wrong) is that we've come as close as necessary to understanding the fundamentals of our universe to recognize that the soul is a belief, not a fact
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
@ThinPicking My opinion (which I’d be happy for you to prove wrong) is that we've come as close as necessary to understanding the fundamentals of our universe to recognize that the soul is a belief, not a fact
"Scientific" theories and experiments that you've never experienced yourself aren't facts, they're beliefs.
Feeling something isnt a belief, if you have a specific feeling and you call it a certain word such as soul, because the meaning/definition of it match your feeling, you have a soul
-
@random what is the feeling you will describe as the feeling of a soul
-
@lobotomize-me it might depend on the person. If you eat better foods including more raw foods, more sun exposure, less porn, less alcohool, you Can start to experience energetic states and feelings you have never experience before or not in a long time. Some of these energetic feelings you might associate with soul energy, some with divine energy
-
@random 1.all the habits you mentioned prevent harm or improve dopamine baseline.
2. i asked what does it feel like in your opinion and you told me the ways to achieve a divine feeling / soul energy feeling -
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
@random 1.all the habits you mentioned prevent harm or improve dopamine baseline.
2. i asked what does it feel like in your opinion and you told me the ways to achieve a divine feeling / soul energy feeling1 who Cares? These are beliefs in top of that, you care about facts
2 i answered, i Saïd it might vary depending on the person, be specific if you ask what i my self specifically felt that i associate to "soul".
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
This is a compositional error. Many macroscopic properties (wetness, elasticity, temperature) emerge from organized interactions of parts even though no part singly bears them. Current neuroscience and complexity theory treat consciousness likewise (as an emergent, system level phenomenon) without assigning it to each constituent particle
You are right about the compositional error. I'd need to think more about whether or not it applies to (any form or level of) consciousness. We can change it then --> How could consciousness emerge from particles? Or we could just ask how can any particles interact at all.
Standard physical interactions (electromagnetic coupling, chemical bonding, synaptic transmission) already lie outside any single particle yet remain fully within physical law. No extra layer is required other then forces and the relational structure they generate.
What they transmit are energy and information via physical forces. The emergence of mental states from neural computation requires only these well documented exchanges
What are physical laws and forces? How about energy and information?
From what I remember, physical laws aren't really anything in themselves. They are just patterns people have observed and made into rules. The rules don't do anything, but we can use them to predict things.
The forces appear to function outside the limits of the particles themselves. They are not the particles they affect. So what are they? If we believe that they too are composed of particles, we'd have to come up with new forces to explain their interaction, which then are made up of more particles again. Particles all the way down ad infinitum without ever getting to an explanation. It makes more sense to think of forces as something other than particles. For anything to interact with each other, a common medium is needed.
Similar thing for energy as with forces. Are they more particles?
When something gains information, it's a change in its state, isn't it? But if the particles are a single indivisible units, not composed of anything else within them that could change, then how could information be transmitted?
To clarify, I'm not arguing for the reality of the soul here. I'm just saying that particles aren't the most fundamental layer of reality.
By the way, I can understand wetness, elasticity and temperature, but I don't see how subjectivity can emerge from purely objective phenomena.
-
@random wait so if I understand correctly, you agree with me that the soul is a subjective matter and not something that can be objectively identified in every human?
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
My opinion (which I’d be happy for you to prove wrong) is that we've come as close as necessary to understanding the fundamentals of our universe to recognize that the soul is a belief, not a fact
We've come as close as necessary to make it a tangible scientific hypothesis chap. Stick around.
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
As I said before, I'm not here to argue, I'm here to have a productive debate. So, as I mentioned, I'm happy to listen to your ideas about why I'm wrong or where my position might be flawed. But saying lol and making comments like "While you're busy with sports, others are busy with science" doesn't help me understand your stance
lol
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
@random wait so if I understand correctly, you agree with me that the soul is a subjective matter and not something that can be objectively identified in every human?
Objectivity doesn't exist. Reality is what each person feels.
So the soul exists in the reality of some people, and may not exist in the reality of others -
@random said in How simple are people?:
Objectivity doesn't exist. Reality is what each person feels.
So the soul exists in the reality of some people, and may not exist in the reality of othersSatan-coded waffle.
@random said in Raypeat = infertility psyop?:
"relativism" Can be harmfull.
Schizo.
-
@ThinPicking Not only is the idea that the objective doesn't exist incoherent, its also self-defeating.
-
@jamezb46 said in How simple are people?:
@ThinPicking Not only is the idea that the objective doesn't exist incoherent, its also self-defeating.
Very coherent, there is no experience without a subject/person to experience it, all your thoughts and feelings happen inside you, so when you think about the idea of “objectivity” it happens inside you, a subject/person. so objectivity doesn't exist because you never experience an object without being a subject, your perception is always influenced by your experiences, your feelings, your instincts. It does not exclude having empathy and considering your perception of other feelings
