Are you trying to say that everything including physical sensations and stimulus and all sensory is the result of...

im quoting nobody

is tha twaht you're trying to say?

math equations are abstraction from the real world and our world is just world in the way it is. How do you also know that animals don't experience the world like we do?

you can say the same to every other human if you want to be nitpicky and the world exists in the way it is not by a math equation. The "real" stimulus and the "real" pain is also a collection of chemical reactions causing something to "Emerge" just like how bunch of chemical movements cause cell to reproduce and flourish. It's not that complicated.

>it's not that complicated
What do the chemicals cause to emerge that makes it "real"?

the bunch of electric signals and numerous chemical components come together. Those are our brain chemicals and the holistic brain itself's molecules and the atoms coming together like how numerous atoms create stars and cause something else to emerge.

how do you know that animals don't have a much stronger limit on their thoughts preventing them from having an imagination or simply taking a step back and thinking in a meta fashion or being happy in the same complex manner

But things coming together doesn't cause "something else" to emerge...

what do you mean by a "limit"? Is a orange having a "limit" to being red like a apple?

As animals often show us that they have ability to react to the enviornment like us, it's quite probable that they probably can be happy just like us. Most of mammal's emotional brain is also often the same so we could assume that they probably feel the generally same emotions as we do.

they have boundaries, they can't think in words and form story like thoughts

It does. Look at how molecules and chemical reactions caused lipids and complicated mechanisms to form with vast amount of new rules.

For example, natural selection or altruism wasn't ingrained in the physical laws in the nature but it emerged from the complicated collection of molecules.

electrochemical stuff seems unrelated to "real observational existence" so how can real stimulus and genuine feeling be the product of electrochemical stuff?

They communicate with each other using sounds so it's reasonable to believe they think in their own "words".

yes but the arrangement of molecules made such a thing possible in a trivial sense because that is just like the rest of their interactions but just in an ordered fashion, but the fact of molecules creating something not related entirely as a completely seemingly irrelevant byproduct is very specific and odd right?

to be honest, i think what i am saying only applies to me alone because i am the happiest person ever so maybe i am only talking from my perspective, it is clear that animals are not the same as people otherwise they would have invented lasers like people have and they would have been doing post calculus math too
but my real question is this

in my opinion i think animals are much more "controlled" or less "free" than people, for example even a single sound compels them much more than a person, i feel like they act out of much more simple planning but i feel like people take longer time to plan their actions in more unexpected ways

Sure those are complicated "new rules" types of interactions, but doesn't "realness" seem to be on a different dimension all together?

it's obvious that animals are not people as they have different brains as us. But you have to remember that humans didn't have reading or lasers or whatever even when they had same intelligence as us.

The human consciousness was hardly an irrelevant byproduct but an result of billion years of natural selection and numerous random events of physical/atomic changes. Human intelligence and brain isn't just a sudden leap from retardation to something but a progressive and often random small increments leading up to something as we see animal's skull sizes diversifying throughout history. Talking about how molecules don't look as if they are directly influencing our consciousness would be like talking about how rainfall should be some weird event apart from material things just because quantum mechanics and laws that apply to atoms are hardly relevant anymore.

I mean sure, it is emerging something new in those reactions, but what else could it emerge of the same scale as realness, are you telling me that chemical reactions are simultaneously creating something equivalent to realness that isn't realness but it is equivalent in the sense that it is just as absurdly "strong and new"

i already know what you are saying but why do you believe it's true for sure? I mean, can consciousness then also create something on a higher scale by emerging something new from consciousness?

Why should those new rules be considered as something like that when it's more of an evolution from what was more simpler than some complete break from the simpler forms?

Depends on which animal you are talking about as dolphins can coordinate things very well. Also how is it possible for animals to be "unfree" or more "controlled" than humans when they operate on a totally different view of things? Calling them unfree for doing that to a sound would be weird as they had followed what their brain said just like what us are doing. Is a more cautious man somehow more unfree when that is ridiculous for obvious reasons? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to reject the absurd notion of freedom as an individualistic thing?

yes I do believe it as it is the most rational explanation just like how evolution and gravity is rational for evidence that exists now. What do you mean by creating something on a higher scale? elaborate futher

i said free with quotes, but i think the freedom was uh, a bit complicated, i think i got something mixed up, that, well, uhhh, don't worry about it.

Well, philosophically speaking, all you really KNOW is what you see alone, so every single rule or concept is based upon your consciousness, so you are not looking from the ground up rather from the sky down. So because of how easily a person can be deceived (very easily) so if normal thoughts are the rock in front of you, then how do you know that math isn't just the walls of the cave, and more things exist even beyond that but you could never know of them ever in any way ever? yet.

REAL is REAL, and feelings are REAL so how can math, which is simply rules of interactions and logic, create "real"

because math is more fundamental than even physics, physics is really trivial and specific and not very unified or simple

like is it even possible to ever adjust your apparatus to have the means to see *some* things? Of course deception can be worked around, but can it really?

And how do you explain how numbers and math can become something REAL, because REAL is different than the emergence of "new rules."

I used to imagine things like what you have written on your post like how all rules are based on our consciousness like being in a dream or in some alien matrix when I was in a kindergarten school all the time. But there is no way to know or prove that sort of thing so it's quite meaningless to care whatever we are in a dream or not. Even if we are somehow in some alien/dream/matrix/unimaginable entity's "false" reality, the rules and abstractions are still true on this "false" reality whatever this "reality" is. We can't obviously know 100 percent but it's possible to get quite close to whatever "reality" is.

math is more of an abstraction of reality in how humans perceive it. For example, there are equations about a falling raindrop but none of them truly could correctly describe a raindrop. Math is more of an useful abstraction of reality than something that's inherent in holistic "reality" itself.

mathematics is still man-made at the end as it isn't inherent to nature itself. I could make my own system of logics right now for example with anything.

numbers and math isn't "real".

What prevents them from describing a raindrop where do they fall short of describing it?

I mean, my real biggest problem is that my french celestial girlfriend has opened a door to me of true 100% euphoria, and i loathe and cannot accept such a thing ever being non-existent because some animals aren't able to feel it.

So do you really have an answer as to what makes consciousness not only exist, but what makes consciousness THE standard for the verification of ALL information including all of these theories that were built by people with their consciousness and verified by their consciousness? That is what makes it different.

as there is no such thing as a raindrop in a "perfect" state for the equation to be applicable. Nature is always messy.

conscious exists in the same way of how animals came into existance from small molecules through evolution. Consciousness was the standard for all of those information as we are the ones who are getting all of this information but the laws of physics are likely to be the same for aliens with different system of consciousness as they are largely same across the world.

no like really, to me, it's completely unacceptable that a thing would not be in THAT condition at all times it's just the absolute ROOF/PEAK of all conditions. Even I'm not in it at all times but when I am oh boy. I was a few minutes ago I can say that.

you really explain yourself but i just cant understand how something neutral like physics can "hurt" or "please"

it's not only animals. The people who can't feel the holistic experience includes all of humans except you as all of our consciousness are different in one way or another,

For example, physics and math does not include a definition for "should" but consciousness DOES

well what i mean is,
physics says "it could do this"
math says "it will do this"
but only consciousness says "you should've done that"

Could you elaborate more?

Only through consciousness can something be "unacceptable" or also "necessary" which is worrisome. Although I am on the necessary side because I am super happy.

Physics does not have bad or good.
The defining factor to all people's behaviour for the beginning of people to now is "bad vs good" that's all anybody ever talks or cares about ever when they aren't doing science.

Something can actually really exist such that it is NOT acceptable, literally BAD
but also GOOD or NEEDED/NECESSARY things exist too

and these aren't even theoretical they are self-evident occurrences...
what in PHYSICS/MATH can cause something like THAT to happen ?

Well it's same thing as how random microbes got subjected to darwinian laws even through they were basically complicated nanomachines. By the ones with traits or luck surviving, it has created a difference in the kind of lifeforms and this rule that wasn't existant cause rise of things that are extensions of it

consciousness is much more messier than that and that is still irrelevant. math and physics don't explain our consciousness in the same way how quantum mechanics can't explain spaceships.

>How do you also know that animals don't experience the world like we do?
Well, we know that some animals see more colours than us.

Something that CAN happen can also simultaneously be something that SHOULDN'T happen, That is a crisis.

But an even bigger concept is that WOW I love my french celestial girlfriend.

what does physics and math have to do with our consciousness that was shaped with numerous other things? Do you expect the quantum mechanics and theory on physical powers to explain how a microbe got to act in a certain way completely?

That is correct. But the general part in our brain that dictates emotions and thinking are existent in many mammals so it's not like our consciousness is completely separated from them.

But is there any explanation about consciousness yet? I mean, something that SHOULDN'T happen CAN happen, which is not a good concept to exist. But it's okay because I love my french celestial girlfriend very much a lot.

What does have to do with consciousness then? And how?

the explanation about the consciousness is that it's a holistic phenomenon arising out of electric interactions between neurons and the holistic set of brain. There is no reason to say otherwise,

So you really think it's a subjective representation of the holistic interactions in the brain?

they largely don't as consciousness isn't a physical or a mathematical thing as the concept of it isn't something that's physical. For example, symbiotic relationship between trees and fungus is more of an abstract thing that has little to do with physical laws themselves.

Thanks for the 171 odds of 1 in 1000
thanks for the timestamp 21 odds of 1 in 60
thanks for the 203 odds of 1 in 1000

but really though that is the most simple answer is that really what you think that it is? Could you even conceive it were something else?

yes. Why should it be otherwise when it's no different from things that compose the stars and the planet except that it's in a different shape and composition?

Oh believe me I already understand what you are trying to say what I really want to know is your reluctance to believe in something less reasonable or likely (although anything's still possible).

I can conceive many other things like "spirits" or whatever but those are largely baseless. Why is our consciousness somehow separate for no reason?

Well your logic is sound and you believe in exactly what I would have guessed you believe in I think, but you don't really think about "something more" often?

Thanks for the 4 by the way.
But when does subjective become objective? Something subjectively experiencing something bad or good is also objectively bad or good is it not?

because it is objective that something "bad" is happening in a subjective manner. So something objectively bad happens too?

I had thought of "something more" numerous times when I was a kindergarten like some inconceivable entity or something i don't understand manipulating or doing something away from my consciousness from me all the time just like you.

But then I realized those are worthless as they can't be proven and are largely irrelevant. Also even if this world is false and whatever thing people like muskrat claims, who cares? The experiences and the research that we made on this world or something was still genuine with it;s own internal logic regardless it was false or not and the claims of some "spirit" or "matrix" are as credible as a madman rambling about pony god.

objectively bad things can't happen. "bad things" can only happen inside a certain internal logic that is manufactured.

(or good).
well the pony god ramblers aren't always wrong
what if that statement of yours was wrong?

Of course doing science can produce correct or seemingly (internally) correct results but it doesn't guarentee you are actually right about anything at all even

So within that internal manufactured logic, something "objectively" bad can happen?
That internal logic is a universe of its own so it's not different from the external world in that way, bad or good things can happen there?

Thanks for the 79 odds of 1 in 100.

pony god ramblers might not be always wrong but their ramblings on pony god is worthless. My statement might also be wrong but it has evidence behind it.

yes it can. But bad and good are merely man-made in the same way something metaphysical isn't physical and how green can't become an equation.

isn't it bothersome that some (maybe fabricated) relative-system's definition of bad can actually exist? Because I am displeased by others being displeased, and well uh, here's the point,

you think that nobody has free will and that if the brain is deterred by something then so will the consciousness because the consciousness is the brain?

but more importantly, it is good that a relative system of good can exist

free will vs no free will is a delusional viewpoint.

It would be really helpful for our discussion if you bothered to read this quite interesting/short article. I know that it could be overwhelming but it's less than 2 pages.
ruthlesscriticism.com/freewill.htm

well they're ramblings are only worthless so long as they are always wrong which is potentially not always the case... i mean sure, believe in what you want but keep an open mind to the less likely as well

Well I think that's a distraction from the real argument which is "are all human actions predictable and determinable based on conditions that can be understood" or "is the prior false" that is the real question of free will, it is garenteed to be this way 100% or is it not possible to truly predict or know some shit related to the details of people's decision making with accuracy lol.

I was just assuming that you think it is possible to predict all the details about people's decisions and predict their actions from input no differently than predicting a chemical reaction.

But I mean even if THAT were true it doesn't mean that other things aren't true.

well it's obvious that human actions are not predictable completely. But technically, all things in this world are not completely predictable,

thanks for the timestamp 4

keep in mind, if something can be conceived is it possible that which can be conceived as being true can also actually be true? all statements that are considered true are also statements that can be conceived to be true that are also backed with evidence... lol.

Exactly, and I said it that way because I already know science considers some things unknowable right now.

And I mean, the argument that free will really makes is "is there something *greater* 'determining' the things that can't be predicted" regarding human decisions? Now, if you can't predict it with science then technically there is something greater, but the concept of free will insists that it is specifically something that is distinctive to a person that is also unpredictable about them.

Actually, we do know that certain things in a quantum level can happen with a certain percentage like how we could approximate the possibility of dice rolling.

>And I mean, the argument that free will really makes is "is there something *greater* 'determining' the things that can't be predicted" regarding human decisions? Now, if you can't predict it with science then technically there is something greater, but the concept of free will insists that it is specifically something that is distinctive to a person that is also unpredictable about them.

by the way wait for few minutes until I formulate another response

Anyways ttyl keep an open mind anything is possible haha lol.

Oh yes, I do know that too already. I do know these things you are talking about already, you know the distribution but can't determine the causation of an individual instance yeah yeah yeah I already know that.

but the point is that you can't predict a particular instance of quantum randomness? Or can you?

and in that case what "is" quantum randomness determined by?
Each instance *must* be determined by *something* right? It can't be determined by "it needs to have this percent distribution" alone.

finally, such an argument that it's all just subjective from the brain's physical perspective could have literally been made in ancient times so it's not a new idea that you are just able to make that claim now because of science or something like that.

Also, keep in mind that ANYTHING is possible.

it is just in the way it is. No additional explanation is possible as there isn't one.

we can't

>Popular thought experiments involving the question of “freedom or determinism” are no better: “But you really have to eat, one is not free in that case …” – Well yes, that’s why everyone wants to so much! And is so free! That is already a ridiculous theory: it takes the same content of the will, eating, as an indication of unfreedom when it is carried out, and as an indication of freedom when it is not carried out.

>If freedom of will is the ability to abstract from all the content of the will, to do without, then this freedom also presumes just such determinism. Thatʼs when one wants to answer the question – about the reasons out of which the will gives itself its content – with general reflections about the will.

>In the end, the parties to the dispute still refute their opposing positions through their dispute. The determinist attempts it at least with arguments and does not fiddle around with the genes or “milieu” of his philosophical opponent, thus assuming in practice that what a person thinks and does is due to his access to reasons. And the man of freedom, who likewise argues, thereby reveals that what the will is able to determine is definitely something familiar to him: namely, theoretical information about how things are in the world. Nothing would be more absurd than to want to convince one another of something if everyone always only wants what they want because they want it.
Sorry for being late. I had been responding to numerous other threads.

Thanks for the 4.
Well I mean the point is that you are being pretty dogmatic, what if in exactly 67 years from now today somebody figures out what causes quantum randomness and they can predict what you just said "we can't" to?

>dogmatic
that's quite a buzzword

> what if in exactly 67 years from now today somebody figures out what causes quantum randomness and they can predict what you just said "we can't" to?

maybe. But maybe not. We don't really know for now and there's little point in talking about those things until they are discovered. It's like 2 of us talking about some fictional entity in fictional planet that both of us don't know about. The discussion goes nowhere.

the discussion doesn't go no where it just prevents i mean, you realize that in ancient times they thought that science had already gone as far as it could ever possibly go?

For example, if you didn't had a computer and a advanced space technology, how would you be able to know or prove the existance of black hole or even talk about it? Same goes for us when we are talking about those hypotheticals, There is nothing we can know about so the discussion achieves nothing.

i already know your logic and understand your rationales already.

But if I used Einstein to explain the rate of expansion of the universe and I said "we already understand the speed of expansion of the universe based on this" what you would say?

I would say we would need validation for his theories as hypotheticals without theories merely stay as hypothesises. We could validate that by measuring the CMB with orbital satellites but we can't know with a mere theory.

Yeah, but you haven't found a pattern in the quantum probability distribution but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist and that does mean the conversation goes nowhere but the point is to stay freethinking.

we actually found a pattern and how quantum probability is distributed based on multiple factors.

But how can we talk about something that we both have no idea on? Without evidence to prove something, it's relevant and important just as me screaming a black pink circle actually controls the entire world and the world is actually a meat on a stick and how it operates without a single evidence.

what's the pattern and factors?

preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/07/24/why-probability-in-quantum-mechanics-is-given-by-the-wave-function-squared/

i mean that sort of gives the impression that nobody can know anything i mean is it possible for an entire car made of particles to teleport randomly to the other side of the galaxy just so unlikely that it's virtually impossible but possible? If position is a probability density... that's literally like admitting that nobody know anything at all lol.

But we do know that how probability will work like.It's like how we know that getting striked with a lightening while being outside is negligible through analysis.

Such events like what you described happening is kind of an event that will probably not happen for multiple trillion trillion times of our universe's lifetime.

that's a pretty weird current conclusion though