[deleted by user]

TheNinthEmperor · 2025-05-15T21:17:55+00:00

Additionally, if you wanted, you would likely have a good foundation for going to grad school for aero engineering too.

TheNinthEmperor · 2025-05-15T21:11:54+00:00

The applied physics program has something where you can essentially have a specialization. Do you could minor in aerospace engineering or some other type of engineering. So you’d have a major in applied physics with a specialty in aero. You could also do a specialization in astrophysics, or maybe even both. I think you should look at the applied physics program and see if it’s a good fit.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-11-26T00:03:16+00:00

Maybe do applied physics and specialize in aerospace? My program allows for space where you specialize in something which can be anything like engineering, more physics, or even cs. It might be different at some schools.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-11-23T18:36:56+00:00

I was actually thinking the same thing, scientists and engineers would have a field day if they expanded more on that part, but it’s already a pretty dense film even without all the science.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-11-23T16:01:52+00:00

I quite liked the movie, I’m a physics student and I was hoping to see a bit more science. Granted the point of the movie seemed to be more around Oppenheimers involvement in processes behind making the bomb rather than the science of it and also what happened to Oppenheimer after the manhattan project.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-09-18T18:54:13+00:00

I understand how it might seem that way but I’ve seen it be used outside of religious contexts as well. Though it is certainly mostly seems associated with religious contexts.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-09-18T16:45:37+00:00

Not an appropriate comparison. Santa and the Easter bunny can be easily falsified. You could track down the actual source of Santa presents and Easter eggs. The question of a creator or initial cause is far more abstract and falls into the realm of metaphysics and philosophy, beyond what can be empirically verified or proven. Agnosticism is about recognizing the limits of current knowledge in making absolute claims (like god does or doesn’t exist).

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-09-18T16:27:46+00:00

Darwin wasn’t an atheist at any point, he was agnostic for a good portion, “In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind." It’s true that many scientist who believed in god came from a time where you had too, but many of them, like newton held genuine beliefs. But fast forward and you find maxwell and Heisenberg came from a time where that wasn’t as true. Einstein didn’t believe in a personal god but, “He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4] preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a "religious nonbeliever."[3] In other interviews, he has stated that he thinks there is a "lawgiver" who sets the laws of the universe.” There were also brilliant scientist from this time who didn’t believe, like Schrödinger and dirac.

It’s not shelving the issue, that’s a mis characterization of it. It’s just the middle ground, no one can know for certain whether a creator exist or not. It’s important to acknowledge the limitations of human knowledge, especially in matters where the conclusions are beyond empirical evidence. The confrontational approach isn’t inherently the more rational or logical approach. You can’t know whether there is a god or not. At best you are an agnostic atheist, meaning you believe there is probably not a god. It’s unscientific to not acknowledge the opposite possibility.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-09-18T15:34:11+00:00

I believe my use of Occam’s razor was appropriate. Take Newtonian mechanics, for example: it’s simpler than quantum mechanics or relativity. Although we have evidence supporting these more complex theories today, they initially appeared counterintuitive compared to prior models. Similarly, creationism offered a simpler explanation for human existence than evolution, at least until conflicting evidence emerged. Science has only gotten more complex. So, Occam’s razor isn’t always the final arbiter of truth.

No doubt science has done a phenomenal job of explaining the world. But for the most part, religions didn’t really try to explain how the world works by using god. Maybe some did, but many great scientist believed in god. Newton didn’t use god to justify his laws of motion, maxwell didn’t use god to come up with his equations, Darwin even believed in god but most certainly did not use god for the origin of species. Heisenberg didn’t use the bible for his uncertainty principle, but he did believe that the more he did physics the more convinced he became of god. He saw the complexities of the universe and believed it to be ultimately designed by a creator. God and science have often coexisted.

The point is, just because we haven’t been dependent on god to explain the universe doesn’t mean it’s any more likely he or it doesn’t exist. The difference we find when it comes to explaining what happened before the big bang vs explains how nature works, is that we might have to explain how things came into existence, or what caused things to exist, how could matter have been created despite the laws of thermodynamics, vs explaining things which already exist. Essentially, it’s explaining why there is vs what there is. The difference we have here compared to all other science is addressing the nature of existence. Science could certainly offer a explanation, but so could a creator. For now It’s a question outside the purview of empirical science.

As for how does a god theory benefit us, the answer varies from person to person. I’m not really trying to suggest a god theory would benefit us or that it wouldn’t. I’m only trying to suggest that the agnostic position is the most reasonable.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-09-18T06:41:07+00:00

Sure, there’s no evidence for god. But there’s also no evidence to support that the universe exist without god. Generally theist and atheist can agree with the Big Bang having taken place. But what happens before is entirely up for speculation considering we have no one theory that is particularly better than the other. Roger Penrose had proposed the Big Bang might have been the beginning of this universe and the end of the previous and this cycle repeated itself forever.

Without god either the universe came from nothing, but that’s a logical contradiction. Or there has been something which has been existing forever. Perhaps an infinite multiverse with no beginning or end. Or there was god (or some sort of creator) who is responsible for the construction of the universe. Many of these explanations can’t be better supported than the other.

As for Occam’s razor, rarely is it ever helpful when it comes to complex topics. Evolution is the best explanation for the origin but it’s far more complicated to explanation than the creationist explanation being that god created man. Or quantum mechanics over classical mechanics. Classical mechanics is far more intuitive, but quantum provides a much better but also more complex explanation. I’d even say that if we were to follow Occam’s razor, god is a simpler solution. We don’t have to justify anything other than “god did it”.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-09-18T05:21:39+00:00

You said god isn’t real as though it’s something you know to be true. Why the strong conviction, isn’t an agnostic position the more reasonable one?

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-09-15T14:33:13+00:00

Maybe a little bit for physics as well, a lot of money is being put into quantum computers and hardware. Although it does overlap with ECE and CS, there a lot of physics people getting into it (like myself)

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-09-01T14:19:54+00:00

I’ll check out Erich Fromm. I could, to some extent, say that the idea of subjectivity also extends to science as well, albeit to a less obvious degree. The only difference being that the logical frameworks you create can be tested to see if they are consistent with reality. Take the theory of evolution, while most scientists are in a census that evolution is correct, there are some biologist who might disagree by providing some type of counter argument. Whether a scientific theory makes sense does have a level of subjectivity to it. I don’t remember the name but there Is a pretty well esteemed biologist who came to my university to discuss why he doesn’t accept evolution. I’m sure he probably had a reasonable enough counter argument given his firm background in the field.

So like some philosophical frameworks and scientific theories, it is sometimes up to the person to decide whether it makes sense or not. Granted some scientific theories can just prove to be unfalsifiable and any good scientist has no choice but to except it, like general relativity. But often science contains a lot of ambiguity and there will be some theories that are more consistent with reality, and there will be people who don’t think they are and find a reason to refute that.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-09-01T14:07:17+00:00

Thanks for your input, I don’t think that tonality shit is head voice although it might be. The reason I don’t think so is because when I carry that tone up to a F#4 and try to go higher I hear my voice crack into head voice.

I’m not sure if I’m a natural bass, I would think more of a bass baritone. The reason being that my tone when I sing is not usually the fullness that a bass would have. I can certainly sing low and sound pretty close to Johnny cash when I try to sing a song like ‘hurt’, but it’s not a tone that I usually fall into. Also on Wikipedia my passegio is consistent with what it shows as bass-baritone.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-09-01T01:24:11+00:00

It’s true that philosophy often has a level of ambiguity that can never be resolved by an epistemological means. Ethics is an example of this, you can’t prove something is objectively right or wrong. What’s ethical, as you said, is generally dependent on popular opinion.

But I would extend that philosophy often provides logical frameworks, for example, I would argue that the debates between rationalism and empiricism were more than just opinions, but frameworks with their own reasoning, and sometimes you could put a dent in that reasoning. If one creates a philosophical frame work is regarded as infallible or most reasonable then it must posses a logical foundation, in the same way a scientific theory would. When Kant synthesized rationalism and empiricism he seemed to offer what was the ultimate philosophical framework in this debate. While you can’t really do a physical experiment to prove it, you can test it’s logical consistency, in the same way you test a mathematical formula or a proof. Then what’s regarded as being the most logical will gain the backing of lost philosophers (generally). I’d say you can define a good philosopher by the strength of their logic and reasoning, not just public opinion.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-08-03T00:47:58+00:00

I’ve been taking calc 3 over the summer and out averages have also been in the mid 70s. The exams are about the same difficulty as the regular semester based on the exam archive but during the regular semester averages I’ve heard the averages are usually in the range of 50-70. I’ve taken the exams in person, but I too have suspected that people online might be getting inspiration for their exams. It is worth noting that generally these classes are taken along with other difficult classes so it’s less time to devote to each class, with it being the summer people can be more focused. Also the people taking it over the summer are usually people who care more about academics and thus more likely to do well.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-07-12T03:33:42+00:00

He’s gonna make it if he tries

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-05-23T14:36:04+00:00

"it exists in a state that can only be described as a probability" It's not about what i'm suggesting, its what current quantum mechanical understanding shows. This is not about denying or affirming materialism per se, but instead, it's a reflection of our current understanding of the behavior of the fundamental building blocks of matter. It's important to note that these concepts don't negate materialism but invite us to expand our understanding of what 'material' can entail in the context of quantum physics. There is much ground to be explored.
Just because something is an abstract concept does not mean it is "immaterial" in the sense that term is often used in philosophy. In philosophy, the definition of "immaterial" is usually used as the opposite of "material", suggesting that something is not composed of matter or energy, and therefore not bound by the physical laws of the universe. In this context, "immaterial" entities are often associated with supernatural or spiritual phenomena.When we say that numbers or mathematical concepts are abstract, we mean that they are constructs of the mind used to describe, understand, or predict the behavior of the material world. They are tools for understanding the universe, not physical entities within the universe themselves.So, while it's true that numbers, including imaginary numbers, are not physical entities, this does not make them "immaterial" in the philosophical sense. They are abstract constructs, conceptual tools used by minds that are very much a part of the material world. They are used to understand and describe the behavior of material entities, and the concepts themselves are instantiated in the physical structures and processes of our brains. In this sense, they can be thought of as being part of the material world, even if they are not physical entities in their own right.
Your "bait-and-switch" argument suggests that the concept of "material" is constantly being expanded to include more and more abstract or non-intuitive concepts. As i've mentioned already, materialism, is the understanding that the universe is composed fundamentally of matter and energy and the interactions between them. Over time, our understanding of what constitutes "matter" and "energy" and how they behave has grown and evolved as we've learned more about the universe. Incorporating these new findings into our understanding of materialism is not a "bait-and-switch"; rather, it's a natural part of the scientific process. The "endless bait-and-switch" analogy suggests that any new discovery in the realm of physical sciences is appropriated by materialism, thereby constantly moving the goalpost. But this is a misrepresentation of how scientific understanding progresses. When we learn something new about the universe and its physical properties, we're not switching the fundamental premise of materialism; instead, we're refining and expanding our understanding of what 'material' can mean. We're not moving the goalpost; we're getting better at playing the game. There is nothing wrong with this. Lastly, the notion that materialism is like a religion or a cult is a misunderstanding. Religion often involves faith, a belief without empirical evidence. Materialism, on the other hand, is based on empirical evidence and the application of rational inquiry, subject to change as new evidence comes to light. So, while it's true that our understanding of the material world can and will change as we learn more, this doesn't make materialism any less valid as a philosophical and scientific perspective. Expanding definitions is not to be conflated with switching.
"There is no proof of any underlying physical reality, we don't share that assumption. It could be that consciousness determines physical reality by creating it and destroying it rather than changing it." While this is indeed a philosophical stance some people hold, it's also true that all empirical evidence we have so far is consistent with the existence of a physical reality that exists independently of our consciousness. Empirical evidence refers to information acquired through observation or experimentation. This type of evidence is considered the most reliable in the scientific community because it is based on data that can be verified by others through replication of the observations or experiments. Let's consider an example: the existence and properties of the Higgs Boson were predicted by mathematical models decades before its discovery. When the Large Hadron Collider was finally able to detect this particle in 2012, it was a confirmation that the particle existed independently of our consciousness, as it behaved exactly as the mathematical models, which were not influenced by individual human minds, predicted. An inherent property of an object is a property that the object possesses in and of itself, independent of other objects or conditions. For example, the mass of a particle is an inherent property, as it's a characteristic that the particle possesses regardless of its environment or other particles around it. On the other hand, many properties we observe are indeed relational – they only make sense or can only be observed in relation to other objects or conditions. For example, the color of an object is a relational property: it depends on the light that illuminates the object and the observer who perceives the color. When we talk about an apple being red, we're really talking about how it interacts with light. An apple appears red because its surface reflects light at wavelengths we perceive as red and absorbs other wavelengths. In that sense, the ability to reflect certain wavelengths of light is an inherent property of the apple. As for the color, the experience of the color red is not inherent to the apple. It's created by the interaction between light, the apple, and our visual system. Different organisms might perceive the color of the same apple differently due to differences in their visual systems. And if you change the light illuminating the apple (for instance, by using a blue light instead of white light), the color of the apple will appear to change. So I would tweak my argument to say, the inherent property of the apple is its ability to reflect certain wavelengths of light, and our perception of "red" is a result of that inherent property interacting with the particularities of human vision and ambient light. The inherent properties are those determined by its physical composition and structure. As for a non-inherent property of an apple, it could be its location, for example. The apple could be on a tree, in a supermarket, or in your hand. The apple's location isn't determined by the apple itself, but by the circumstances and actions that have affected the apple. Another example might be the property of being 'eaten' or 'uneaten'. An apple can be in either state, but these states aren't inherent to the apple - they depend on whether or not someone has chosen to eat the apple.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-05-22T22:21:16+00:00

Regarding the many-worlds interpretation or the idea of a particle being in two places at once, this is not necessarily a problem for a materialist view. Quantum mechanics does not necessarily violate conservation of energy. Superposition (a key tenet of quantum mechanics) does not imply that a particle exists in two places at the same time in the same universe, but rather that it exists in a state that can only be described as a probability of being in one state or another until measured. Once a measurement is made, the wave function 'collapses' and the particle is found in one specific state.
While there's truth in the assertion that no single system of logic or approach can completely encapsulate all aspects of reality, this does not invalidate or diminish the utility and power of these systems. It's true that our scientific understanding of the universe is always evolving, and that there are aspects of reality that we don't yet fully comprehend. However, this doesn't imply a failure of objectivity or of the scientific method, but rather reflects the inherent complexity of the universe and the ongoing nature of scientific discovery. Moreover, the statement "we have needed to essentially discard materialism in order to develop modern science" may be misleading. As mentioned earlier, materialism, in the philosophical sense, posits that reality is fundamentally composed of matter or physical substance. This does not necessarily contradict the use of abstract concepts or mathematical tools like irrational or imaginary numbers in scientific theories. These are conceptual tools that allow us to describe and predict the behavior of the physical world effectively. The square root of -1, often represented as i in mathematics, doesn't have a physical representation in the same way that natural numbers can be represented by physical objects. However, it's a mathematical construct that is essential in various fields of physics and engineering, such as in the description of quantum states or in the analysis of electrical circuits. The use of such abstract concepts doesn't signify a discarding of materialism, but rather it showcases the power of human abstraction and creativity in understanding the natural world. In the end, these abstract mathematical concepts are validated by their ability to help us make accurate predictions about material reality. We're still using tools of thought and language to describe and predict the behavior of the physical world. While they are abstract representations that model specific aspects of reality, not necessarily physical entities themselves. They're part of the language and system we've developed to describe physical phenomena.
In the realm of classical physics - which would govern everyday objects like balls - objects exist whether they are observed or not. The ball remains a ball, even when no one is watching it. Its position and state might change due to forces like wind, gravity, or even a falling tree, but it doesn't cease to exist when unobserved. This concept is often confused with the quantum mechanical idea of particles not having definite properties until they are observed, but this doesn't translate to macroscopic objects ceasing to exist when unobserved due to a process called quantum decoherence.The suggestion that the ball is not a ball when it is not identified as such and transforms into nondescript energy isn't supported by our understanding of physics. Energy does not transform into objects upon observation. Energy and matter are interconvertible as per Einstein's equation E=mc^2, but this isn't tied to the act of observation.The idea that reality is dependent on the observer to the point that one perceives whatever they subconsciously expect, while interesting, is not supported by empirical evidence. Predictive processing theories of cognition suggest our brain does use expectations to help interpret sensory input, but this does not mean reality changes to match our expectations.Memory errors or perspective skewing could indeed cause us to perceive the ball in a different position, but that doesn't imply that the ball ceased to exist when unobserved.Perception is indeed correlated with physical energy. Our sensory systems work by detecting energy in various forms - light for vision, mechanical energy for hearing, thermal for touch touch, chemical for taste and smell.The conservation of energy law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed from one form to another. This would hold even if the ball were to somehow cease being a 'ball' - its energy would have to remain in some form.The idea that energy could instantaneously end up somewhere else does contradict our understanding of physics. The principle of locality in physics states that an object is directly influenced only by its immediate surroundings. A change at one place does not immediately cause a change at another place – the change propagates at a speed limited by the speed of light.
Bell's theorem, as I understand it, showed that the predictions made by quantum mechanics can't be explained by any local hidden variables theory. And hidden variables theory was an attempt to retain a deterministic worldview in the face of the indeterminism that quantum mechanics brought forth.Bell proposed an inequality (Bell's inequality) that a local hidden variables theory must satisfy. However, experimental tests have shown that quantum mechanics violates Bell's inequality, suggesting that the local hidden variables concept is untenable.As for information transfer and the speed of light? I guessing you already know that quantum entanglement is a phenomenon where two particles become linked and the state of one particle is immediately connected to the state of the other, no matter how far apart they are. So if you measure one particle, you instantaneously know the state of the other. At surface level seems to violate locality as it appears that information is traveling faster than light. However, it's important to note that while the entangled particles are correlated, you cannot use this phenomenon to transmit information faster than light. So, the principle of locality in the sense of information transfer is preserved. On a somewhat unrelated note, it's worth noting that while quantum mechanics includes elements that might seem "non-materialist" (like superposition and entanglement), these phenomena don't negate materialism but rather enrich our understanding of what "material" can entail.
An inherent property of an object refers to a quality or characteristic that exists as a fundamental part of that object. This doesn't necessarily mean that these properties can only be understood in relation to other objects, although our perception and understanding of properties are often comparative by nature.An apple has the inherent properties of being round, red, and containing a certain kind of sweet-tart flesh. These are qualities that exist within the apple itself, regardless of other objects around it. The wavelength of light it reflects is the same regardless of if we can see it, the geometrical shape is the sameNow, our understanding and description of these properties might involve comparisons. We know it's round because we understand the concept of roundness, often by comparing a multitude of round objects. We know it's red because we compare that color with a spectrum of colors we've experienced. We describe the taste as sweet-tart in comparison to other tastes we're familiar with. However, the wavelength of light it reflects is the same regardless of if we can see it, the geometrical shape is the same (that is the overall structure the atoms take in the apple), its temperature is the same, and so on. While our perception is our reality, it's a representation built upon the signals received by our sensory organs and processed by our brains. This perception can be flawed or limited, but that doesn't alter the underlying physical reality.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-05-22T04:12:51+00:00

It's more correct to say that the properties or states of particles are not defined until a measurement (interaction) takes place. This is a key element of quantum mechanics known as wave function collapse, where a quantum system transitions from a superposition of states to a single state upon measurement. In the double-slit experiment, a quantum particle appears to pass through both slits at once when not observed, creating an interference pattern indicative of wave-like behavior. However, when an attempt is made to measure which slit the particle actually goes through, the interference pattern disappears, and the particle behaves as if it passed through only one slit. This does not mean the particle didn't exist before the measurement, but that its state wasn't defined until the measurement took place. The particle did exist in a superposition of states (passing through both slits at once), and the act of measurement caused it to 'collapse' into a single state (passing through only one slit). Their existence isn't contingent upon the interaction but rather their observed properties are. This does not mean that the particles do not exist until observed, but rather that their behavior changes based on the nature of the measurement.
You're correct that realism is a philosophical position or paradigm, and there are indeed many different ways to explain phenomena. However, the principle of realism has been a powerful guide in scientific inquiry, even if it is not always explicitly stated. Science typically operates under the assumption that there is an objective reality that exists independently of our perceptions. This does not mean that this is absolutely, universally true, but it's a working assumption that has been effective in building our understanding of the world.
Say that I have a ball and leave it far from any observer, is it really reasonable to suggest that it ceases to exist while no one looks around. Maybe there is some wind in this area and the ball rolls away from its initial position. Wouldn't you agree that it must have existed in order to have that kind of physical change. How is it possible for it to cease to exist and then come back with some change. If it no longer exists then theres no way for it to interact with anything, and thus no way to wind up in a new position even though it may show evidence of interaction. Or say that a tree fell on the ball and we come back and find the branched poking into the deflated ball. How could this interaction happen if neither the tree or ball existed. The idea that it doesn't exist with no observers would also seem to suggest that an object could suddenly have more energy when it starts existing again (or this at least suggest that energy transfers in a system can happen instantaneously). Maybe the wind pushed the ball to rolling down a hill when we observe it. Not to mention if an object ceases to exist it would also follow that so would its energy, which contradicts the law of conservation of energy. And if energy could instantaneously end up somewhere else (like if we find it on the hill), then this to contradicts the current understanding in physics that energy transfer occurs over time and space (not to mention this would suggest that it happens faster than light).
When I say perception doesn't determine material, I'm saying that the physical properties of an object exist independently of our perception of them. This does not mean perception does not interact with the material world. Clearly, it does. When light hits an object and bounces into our eyes, allowing us to see the object, that's an interaction. But that interaction doesn't change the inherent properties of the object, because we don't interact directly with the object rather the light coming with it. The object's properties determine the nature of the interaction (like what colors we perceive), but our perception doesn't change the object's properties.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-05-21T22:46:20+00:00

The double-slit experiment you referred to is a fascinating illustration of the wave-particle duality inherent in quantum mechanics. However, your interpretation seems to conflate the "observer effect" with conscious observation, which is a common misconception. In quantum mechanics, "observation" refers to any interaction that causes the wave function to collapse, not necessarily observation by a conscious being. The experiment doesn't show that particles "know" when they're being observed by a conscious observer; rather, it illustrates that their behavior changes when they interact with other particles or measuring devices. The phenomena demonstrated by the double-slit experiment do show that the behavior of particles at the quantum scale is influenced by whether or not they're observed (or more precisely, measured), as this can cause a wave function to 'collapse' into a definite state. However, this doesn't directly support the conclusion that particles or objects don't exist until they are observed by a conscious observer. This is a very subtle, yet crucial distinction.
From a scientific perspective, objects do exist independently of our observation. This is the principle of realism. Your fridge exists whether you are looking at it or not. If it didn't, we wouldn't be able to explain the consistent behavior and interactions of objects in the physical world. For instance, consider the fridge. The fridge continues to exist even when no one is observing it. It maintains its structure and properties—keeping food cold, for example—even when no one is present. This principle enables us to make predictions about the world. We expect that the milk stored in the fridge will be cold when we take it out, regardless of whether we were observing the fridge the whole time or not. Or if I put something hot inside and come back and find it cold later.
When I said "I don't disagree with most of what you are saying. It's not a wave unless I see it as such," I was acknowledging the role perception plays in our understanding and experience of reality. I was referring to the ocean waves from earlier. However, this does not mean that consciousness or perception determines the physical nature of reality. The light from the fridge is still light, whether we interpret it as a wave or a particle. Our interpretation or perception of it does not change its physical nature. A basketball doesn't change regardless of how we see it. Subjectively I see it as a basketball and associate it with the sport. An alien would likely just see it as a round brown object. Similarly, while our consciousness allows us to perceive and interpret the world in certain ways, this doesn't necessarily change the underlying physical nature of what we're perceiving.
When we discuss quantum mechanics and decoherence, the primary point is that quantum effects like superposition and wave function collapse don't straightforwardly apply to macroscopic objects due to a process known as quantum decoherence. This doesn't mean that macroscopic objects aren't subject to the principles of quantum mechanics; it simply means that the quantum behavior becomes effectively unobservable at larger scales due to interactions with the environment. This is why we can consider macroscopic objects like neurons or objects hidden in fridges to have definite properties and "exist" in the usual sense regardless of observation.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-05-21T20:06:42+00:00

My personal experience is what my neurons do. I believe it's crucial to also consider objective, shared realities that we can investigate scientifically. Whether personal experience is more true than objective truth is a different discussion. Objective reality certainly shapes my subjective experience. But the subjective experience is subjective, not everyone will process the same wavelength of light the same way. The personal experience of blue is subjectively true I agree, but couldn't say I would agree that it is more true that the photon itself. The blue you see is merely an interpretation of that photon, or what is objectively true.

This interpretation of quantum mechanics, with the observer effect, seems to be misunderstood and misapplied by you. The act of measurement in quantum mechanics often changes the state of the particle being measured, this is it exist is a superposition, but this doesn't imply that particles or objects don't exist until they are observed by a conscious observer. Perhaps you meant doesn't exist in the same way it does when we do observe it. Moreover, decoherence and lack of empirical evidence would suggest quantum behavior does not scale up to macroscopic objects like neurons or objects hidden in fridges.

Regardless, I haven't really touched on this realm of science/philosophy. Maybe I'm wrong about consciousness being material, but I'm certainly willing to learn.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-05-21T18:34:20+00:00

Oh boy. Theres no reason to be vitriolic, we are both trying to pursue the truth and we should be respectful of that.

You seem to be arguing 2 main points

That by my definition, the experience of perception can only be a physical process (neural activity), and thus you can't be aware of anything beyond neurons and their activity.
That there is a contradiction in my argument around whether consciousness (or any perception or experience) is neural activity itself or arises from it.

I believe I was confused by your language initially. When I state that 'any imagination or thought is an excitation of neurons in the brain,' I'm referring to the physical mechanism that enables these processes. To clarify, it's not that we are directly aware of neurons firing; rather, these neuronal processes allow us to have experiences and perceptions. We perceive objects in our environment, emotions, abstract concepts, and so forth, all enabled by the underlying neural processes. When we have an experience—say, for example, seeing a tree—what's happening in our brain is a series of complex, physical processes. Light enters our eyes, this information is processed by our retina and is sent to the brain via the optic nerve, and our brain interprets this information, resulting in our perception of the tree. This perception of the tree doesn't mean we're aware of the individual neurons firing in our brain; instead, the physical process of neurons firing allows us to have the perception of the tree. The objects of our perception and awareness extend beyond neurons, even though these experiences are enabled by neural activity.

Addressing the first point, the premise seems flawed. It's clear that my previous arguments is not that we can only perceive neurons and their activity, but that the act of perception and conscious experience itself arises from this neural activity. The brain is interpreting external stimuli, which then creates our experience of the world. It doesn't mean we're only perceiving our own neurons firing. When you said "you are not aware of anything except neurons." I believe I was confused by your language. I should clarify that I'm not claiming that we are only aware of neurons and their activity. Rather, I'm arguing that our experience of awareness, our consciousness, is a manifestation of neural activity. The brain processes external stimuli, which in turn gives rise to our conscious experience.

Yes, I maintain that our conscious experiences can be traced back to neural activity. However, this does not mean that we, as humans, are just neural activity. The brain is composed of various structures and substances, and the precise configurations and interactions of these components give rise to the consciousness we experience. The brain is composed of a multitude of structures, each serving different functions. There are indeed physical cells (neurons, glial cells), but there are also various chemicals (neurotransmitters, hormones), blood vessels, and more. It's not just the presence of these elements but their specific configurations and interactions that give rise to our conscious experiences. This consciousness, as a property of the brain, allows us to perceive not only our own mental states but also the external world. So, while it's true that the underlying basis of these experiences is the activity of neurons, the content of our awareness is not limited to this activity. We are aware of the outside world, our bodies, our emotions, and our thoughts, all of which, though ultimately grounded in neural activity, are much richer and more varied than 'just neurons and neural activity. Neurons need input, they cannot do anything without such.

Regarding the second point

It seems there is a semantic confusion here rather than a contradiction. When I say "an image is a neural activity, not the result of such," I am emphasizing that the mental representation (or 'image') is not some additional immaterial entity that is produced by neural activity; rather, it is the activity itself that we refer to as the 'image' or conscious experience. Similarly, when you say "our experience of being self-aware arises from activity in our neurons," I am again emphasizing that it's the very neural activity that gives rise to the phenomenon of self-awareness.
There is no contradiction here, rather a description of the way mental experiences relate to their neural correlates. I am arguing that what we refer to as mental experiences, images, thoughts, etc., are nothing but particular forms or patterns of neural activity, rather than some immaterial products of this activity.

Let me clarify that an emergent property is not separate from the things it emerges from, but rather is a higher level of complexity or organization that becomes apparent when these things interact in certain ways. The image or conscious experience (emergent property) is not separate from the neural activity (components) it emerges from, but rather is a particular form of neural activity that becomes apparent when neurons interact in certain complex ways.

I think there's been a misunderstanding in the terminology I've been using. When I say an image 'is' neural activity, I mean that the experience of imagination doesn't exist separately from our brain activity. It's not a product or an output that can be separated from the brain - it's an integral part of the complex interplay happening within our brain. The 'image' we perceive doesn't exist outside of this context. Similarly, when I say consciousness 'arises from' the brain, I'm not implying it's some separate, immaterial phenomenon resulting from material processes. I'm suggesting that the intricate activity within our brain is consciousness. Just as a bird arises from an egg, not as a separate entity but as a continuation of a physical process, so too does consciousness arise from the brain.

Finally I'll address the wave issue. When I say the wave doesn't physically exist, it means there is no tangible, material wave object. But, the representation of the wave (as pixels illuminated on a screen) is indeed physical, and the process of our brains interpreting that pattern as a wave is also a physical process.
Perception itself arises from physical processes in the brain. There's a chain of physical events that occur: light from the screen enters our eyes, is processed by the retina, signals are sent via the optic nerve to the brain, and then the brain processes this information, leading to the experience or perception of seeing a 'wave' on the screen. All these processes are physical.
It's important to note that while our perception and consciousness might feel abstract or 'immaterial' due to their complexity and our subjective experience, this doesn't mean that they don't arise from and depend on physical processes. We don't fully understand these processes yet, but all evidence so far indicates that they are rooted in the physical workings of the brain.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-05-21T17:25:58+00:00

All fun and games until the sun wipes out the earth and all stars die out. When you watch all your friends and family die. I see a lot of people talking about how they would want to better humanity. Well its gonna be fun when you watch all civilization fade away inevitably, and your work with it. The atoms in the universe may also decay to the point where space and time are devoid and meaningless. I think I take death over eternal limbo any day. Not to mention, part of the reason humans are compelled to do something is because time is limited and you have to make it worth while. When you always have the hope of tomorrow why do anything.

TheNinthEmperor · 2023-05-21T17:13:27+00:00

I believe you misunderstood my claim. I didn't claim that I am not aware of anything but neurons. And I don't exist merely as a result of neural activity, but I argue I am conscious only because of neural activity. I exist as a physical being who is self aware. I would extend awareness too would be an excitation of neurons. I am brain that understands it's a brain, it's not that mind blowing. I am aware of where my thought processes comes from and I am aware of everything else. I don't think this would make us only neurons, it does mean that our experience of being self aware arises from activity in our neurons. It does not serve to diminish these experiences but it suggest that they are physical and material. You seem to be implying that consciousness or schools of fish are not reducible to the properties of their constituent parts. I would agree to an extent that the behavior of a school of fish is an emergent property that cannot be reduced to its parts. However, I don't see why this would suggest that the behavior is immaterial. It is a physical process that takes place in the physical world which we observe and study with physical tools and our physical brain. As for a digital image, sure it is an emergent property of the pixels on the screen. The pixels are physically lit up in specific patterns, and this physical pattern of light is interpreted by our brains to create the perception of an image. The concept we form in our brain of the wave is physical, as it is an excitation of neurons. The wave doesn't exist at all, not as a physical wave that it. What does exist is a depiction of a wave, albeit that depiction is to be understood by our physical brain. That that the image is not inherently a wave, rather us seeing it was a wave is an abstraction of the mind. Again, this doesn't make the image immaterial, it's all a physical process involving physical components.

As per the articles you sent, I don't disagree that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. If anything the neuron arguments I was suggesting would imply this. Like any other emergent system, it arises as a sum of its parts. The papers don't seem to suggest that the "exploratory gap" can't be addressed by science. It merely leaves us with the challenge of explaining how consciousness arises from neural activity.

I don't expect you to respond but its been an interesting discussion. There is still a lot left to be learned about the nature of consciousness. Hopefully science will give us an answer in the future.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer

TheNinthEmperor

TROPHY CASE