420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Acid has made me no longer human and I hate it by William Brillystock - Mon, 22 Jan 2018 04:59:55 EST ID:7sMeuPDd No.884903 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1516615195706.jpg -(63078B / 61.60KB, 850x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 63078
I had some rather profound acid experiences and now i'm pretty sure were in a matrix. I have nothing to say to people anymore because its all I can think about. People are like little machines that express everything they are in everything they do. It hurts to even think like this. It has no benefit to me because I'm a simple machine in a chamber of reflection too. I am seemingly incapable of true awareness and it makes me want to just go into a tiny box of a narrow consistant world perception like everyone else does because character is nothing if you're merely observing the world from the frame of either reflective morality, or us just being animals/machines, or us just being programs. God help me.
>>
Basil Crummershaw - Mon, 22 Jan 2018 05:01:20 EST ID:8nT+kdWV No.884905 Ignore Report Quick Reply
welcome to the life of a psychedelic user
>>
Emma Blackstock - Mon, 22 Jan 2018 06:16:32 EST ID:ncWy+tY+ No.884908 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884903

This reminds me of mckennas machine elves. Everything is a machine, they make gifts for you, We're so glad you're here!
>>
PRIMER - Mon, 22 Jan 2018 07:03:15 EST ID:LNhUkeCL No.884910 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Everything you are saying is true, however, dwelling upon such themes becomes dissatisfying and empty.

Perhaps true awareness is not a realistic goal at the current moment. It is merely a thing to strive for and not some kind of binary goal. Among those who have achieved true awareness, I do not think that many of them would be able to describe their experience in terms that are meaningful for others.

Take some time to think about your own emotions. What is your current emotional state?

Identify what you are feeling and then find a way to do something that makes you feel alive.
>>
Alice Disslestock - Mon, 22 Jan 2018 07:15:03 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.884912 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884903
I came to the realization that we are automatons before I even used psychedelics. If you read up on the topic of free will you'll see that chances are we're simply along for the ride since the predetermined motions of particles in our brains dictate our every move.

The likelihood that we are in a simulation is extremely high, because as soon as we have the means to do so, we will be creating our own simulations, meaning we are probably somewhere in an endless string of simulations within simulations within simulations. But the simulation that we're in is, for better or worse, the "reality" that we are stuck in.

It's easy to lose yourself in these grand themes when you've been thinking about existence completely differently all your life up to a certain point. But remember, these things were true before you even realized them. Even your realization was part of a predetermined path that lead to you having the psychedelic experience that you had. The best you can do now is make peace with this newfound information and integrate it into your life in the most optimal way you can.

The way I think about it is, the fact that you can even ask these questions and come to realizations like this is a cosmic gift. Have you ever wondered about the fundamental question - why is there something rather than nothing? The universe could have just as easily not existed, or our simulation of it could never have been run in the first place. Or, we could have been in a simulation in which the initial parameters were such that life could not evolve in the first place. A staggering amount of factors had to be just right for you to be able to see, hear, taste, feel and think. And on top of that, you happen to belong to the one species on Earth that evolved to have (some) intelligence and is on the very top of the food chain. For 99.9% of all animals, mere survival is a daily concern and humans have made life relatively comfortable for themselves.

The alternative to the life you have right now is just complete darkness. Not even darkness, nothingness. Forever. That, to me, is a much worse fate than experiencing several dozen years of consciousness before finally fading away. Enjoy the ride.
>>
Fucking Claddleshit - Mon, 22 Jan 2018 08:09:33 EST ID:LywZUfmH No.884914 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>hurr durr we're all flesh robots that move matter and energy around until they reach the average age of 80 and they break down

Yes, and? What's so bad about it? Not like you can fucking change it. Grow the fuck up kid.
>>
Augustus Bipperfodge - Mon, 22 Jan 2018 08:49:36 EST ID:gGfevY0h No.884915 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884903
Comp sci major here.
Ai is kinda bs. Even Neural networks actually dont mimic neurons because computers just work in states of on or off. Neurons work bio chemically, which means they have an infinite level of strengths of charges when reacting to stimuli.
So, people aren't machines. They are bags of chemicals but you knew that from the start anyways.
>>
Alice Disslestock - Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:37:25 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.884917 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884915
>what are floating point numbers

There are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1. Neural networks aren't just binary systems, each node is weighted with a floating point number between 0 and 1 which means a neural network can in theory represent an infinite amount of states, which you really should already know, being a CS major and all. They don't actually have infinite capabilities in practice, since the amount of memory for storing these numbers is limited. Obviously a neural network isn't a 1:1 replica of the brain's neurons, but that's beside the point. It mimics what we need it to mimic.

Not only that, but your statement about how the brain works is completely wrong. Neurons don't have electrometers in them, so they don't actually detect a range of charges. They simply have a threshold voltage of activation which means an action potential will either trigger a response or it won't. 0 or 1. The other way neurons communicate with each other is neurotransmitters, which at the most basic level also comes down to binary states. An individual neuroreceptor will either have a neurotransmitter binding to it or it won't. Again, 0 or 1. The sheer amount of synapses in the brain is what gives it power over a neural network, because a neural network has a comparatively tiny number of nodes.

Considering modern science has all but proven the lack of free will, humans and all other life are basically extremely complex automatons, which is a type of machine. Saying that living things are biological machines is as good a description as any for what "life" is. The only way we aren't machines is if you only consider man-made apparatuses machines, hence the distinction biological machines.

Having written all that though, I don't see how the topic of AI even relates to the OP.
>>
Caroline Sanderville - Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:50:10 EST ID:IrvzGmx3 No.884926 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884903
Read Spinoza, you'll find peace there. He also figured out free-will is an illusion but there is still much we can do and live for.
>>
Augustus Bipperfodge - Mon, 22 Jan 2018 17:41:34 EST ID:gGfevY0h No.884941 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884917
There is so much wrong with your post. Mainly neurons are not either electrically stimulated either on our off. They have different levels of on and off to which the brain responds accordingly. The brain is a chemical computer that doesn't just calculate in binary or quantum states but infinite states. Floating point numbers don't matter and floating point numbers have fundamental bugs which is why computers screw up things like simple subtraction (which computers can't do actually)
There is all sorts of misinformation going on about the relationship between neural networks and computers. Mainly because of ibm but it's getting absurd.
http://approximatelycorrect.com/2017/03/28/the-ai-misinformation-epidemic/
Or just type this into Google.

999999999999999 - 999999999999998
Enjoy the answer
>>
awe !!vVWR8L52 - Mon, 22 Jan 2018 17:59:01 EST ID:ZgfrcNMJ No.884944 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884941
I think a big miscommunication and problem in computer neural nets vs brain debate is that people assume that just because a brain can and does function as turing machine it follows that that's the only thing that it functions as and therefor consciousness and all other functions of the brain are also a product of a turing machine which in my opinion is the big source of confusion in this theme.
>>
George Shakeforth - Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:35:31 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.884950 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884941
>Mainly neurons are not either electrically stimulated either on our off

Jesus Christ can you please stop pulling bogus claims out of your ass? An action potential has a threshold at which it gets activated, which is around -55mV. It is quite literally a binary system. If the voltage doesn't meet the threshold, there will be no action potential generated and no signal will be sent. If the voltage is above threshold, it still won't result in a stronger signal. If the stimulus is strong enough, the number of action potentials that are generated will increase, which is equivalent to sending a bunch of 1s one after the other, but at no point does any part of the brain measure the exact strength of an electric charge and respond accordingly.

And yes, I know floating point operations give rounding errors because of the way decimals work in binary,thank you for the CS 101 lesson. But floating point numbers are still used extensively and inseparably in all manner of computer programs. Neural networks in particular depend on them entirely, so simply saying that "AI is bullshit because computers only work as on or off" is ridiculous. Sure at the level of individual bits it's either a 1 or a 0, but that's exactly how a brain works and look what it can do with all those bits.

Information theory says that the most basic "fabric of the universe", as cliche as that term is, are in fact the universe's version of bits. Basically infinitesimal vexels that are either "on" or "off". Many interesting phenomena can rise out of fundamentally simple rules due to emergence. Everything can be broken down into zeroes and ones.
>>
George Shakeforth - Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:39:08 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.884951 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884950
And also, again, nothing in the OP relates to either neural networks or AI. He just said he thinks we're in a simulation. Different topic completely.

nb
>>
Reuben Blibblestan - Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:44:03 EST ID:7sMeuPDd No.884960 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1516675443650.jpg -(233477B / 228.00KB, 600x750) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>884951
we are in a simulation even if this is the base reality and god isn't real.

I'f god is real he really wants us to see his shoddy structuring of this universe
>>
Eliza Blodgewudge - Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:46:49 EST ID:Aai7sG2P No.884963 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1516679209431.jpg -(45711B / 44.64KB, 529x351) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>884903
but... we are in a matrix?
>>
Cyril Minnerridge - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:01:39 EST ID:NtYYQF19 No.884966 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884950
You're wrong, I provided sources as why you are wrong. I have developed applications in using assembly and studied neurology as a biochem minor and my mother is a doctor. You are just regurgitating nonsense by either people who don't understand neurobiology or people who don't understand comp sci. My guess is that your weakeness is biologically in nature because your misunderstanding seems to come from neurology, not comp sci although you seem very stuck in the algo style of programming from your rhetoric.
Either way, everything you think about ai and the human brain is incredibly wrong. Your understanding of how a neuron works is incredibly wrong. I don't mean to insult you, there is a lot of this nonsense that is popularized but even if you know assembly and try to copy some fundamental actions of a neuron you realize that you are trying to imitate multiple processes that even quantum computers are incapable of. So, no, we are not robots even if that makes you feel emotionally secure which seems to be why you are so angry by your responses.
Ai is garbage, ai hasn't replaced a single job. The innovations you see in ai are not innovations in ai, it's innovations in data processing. That is to say, We have lots and lots of cheap data and processing cheap data has gone down. The actual usable algorithm have remained stagnant. Just the quantity of data increased and ai researchers have been marketing the new influx of user data as some sort of Holy belief that they have the key to all of life's questions. They don't. Amazon still suggests you big items you already bought because computers are massively dumb and if you give them massively dumb questions. They are extremely good. But the simplicity complexity to a question breaks even their ability to do addition.
Humans are not robots. Google the subtraction problem off you don't understand what I'm saying. It is simple for a human to solve but even Google finds simple questions complicated because computers are not brains and the greatest human like thinking in ai is just compiling and organizing human brain data.
>>
Reuben Blibblestan - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:51:36 EST ID:7sMeuPDd No.884969 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884966
this seems like a lot of ad hominem
>>
Cyril Wossleway - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:13:33 EST ID:puFGdArN No.884972 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884969
This seems like you don't understand what "ad hominem" means. When did they attack the character of the poster rather than the content of the post?
>>
Eugene Nuvingchut - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 05:34:14 EST ID:IrYc4Rzj No.884979 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884972
he just said "ur wrong" over and over and that he doesnt need to explain why, thats a "strawman" logical fallacy, not only that, he brings up a bunch of irrelevant points, meaning he also is commiting a "red herring" logical fallacy.

It truly is funny when people think they're making an intelligent response, but end up saying some really stupid shit, it's just a wall of illogical text, with a bunch of insults towards the other persons intelligence.

>ahm biochem manor and my moms doctor xd im automatically right n ur wrong xd
>also heres a bunch of irrelevant statements which do nothing to refute your statemsnts
>im so smart!! xd!!

people like this are the pinnacle of a joke on this site
>>
Cyril Minnerridge - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 05:51:52 EST ID:NtYYQF19 No.884980 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884979
I provided a link, I explained how the person was wrong. I could go further but it would require for me to explain how a switch works, a relay works, how that relates to gates, what a half calc works, how a half calc makes a full calc how you use a full calc to subtract, etc. Then explain how a neuron works, how electrical potential works, etc. Etc. Etc. It's not in a scope of a forum post or my personal interest to explain in that level of detail. So I tried to find the source of his misunderstanding rather then explain assembly and neurobiology 101 course in the context of a single post and estimate that the person I was responding to could use my source and references to determine for themselves.
If they need further references I can provide them but in short. A brain is nothing like a computer.
>>
Cyril Minnerridge - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 05:54:24 EST ID:NtYYQF19 No.884981 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884979
I provided a link, I explained how the person was wrong. I could go further but it would require for me to explain how a switch works, a relay works, how that relates to gates, what a half calc works, how a half calc makes a full calc how you use a full calc to subtract, etc. Then explain how a neuron works, how electrical potential works, etc. Etc. Etc. It's not in a scope of a forum post or my personal interest to explain in that level of detail. So I tried to find the source of his misunderstanding rather then explain assembly and neurobiology 101 course in the context of a single post and estimate that the person I was responding to could use my source and references to determine for themselves.
If they need further references I can provide them but in short. A brain is nothing like a computer.
However, it is very irritating for people like myself who work in the industry to have to deal with people who estimate that anything is possible with computers and you just need to "nerd harder" to essentially impossible questions which may have made me sound less professional.
>>
George Shakeforth - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 06:24:38 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.884982 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884966
I'm not even going to read your next posts if you just start them off with lies. There was no source provided for your incredibly stupid opinion about how neurons work, just a link to a blog post criticizing the spread of false information about AI. I'm not even guilty of any sins described in that post. And you demonstrated in a nice little cute way how rounding errors work with floating point numbers, assuming I didn't already know that. The main point I'm arguing is about brains working in binary at the lowest level, which you simply can not argue against without just sounding like an idiot.

You're downright ignoring my post. Maybe Google what an action potential is, how it gets triggered and how the frequency of action potentials encodes data about the strength of the stimulus. What does the -55mV figure mean to you? You're just making an appeal to authority "hurr my mom's a doctor", but clearly your understanding of the topic is about 0. You keep parroting the same shit with literally nothing backing you up. I didn't want to bring this up earlier because it's a lazy way to argue, but I'm a biochemistry major and I know how a brain works much better than you do, which has been demonstrated multiple times over now. But of course your very first post ITT was "Comp Sci major here", as if you were going to bring anything valuable to the topic at hand. Enjoying your first year at college?

You keep going back to the topic of AI even though it wasn't even related to the topic. I'm guessing you just wanted to flaunt your very limited knowledge on that topic so when computer simulations were mentioned you went "hey, AI is also a topic that's related to computers, maybe I should start talking about that!". Just because AI isn't replacing every job out there doesn't mean it's bullshit. It's funny how you're dissing your own major by saying one of the most important technologies being developed at the moment is bullshit. AI is mainly used for big data analysis which does make it better than humans in a limited amount of tasks.

>>884980

>A brain is nothing like a computer

A brain is a computer. It takes inputs and gives outputs. In the middle of that, computations happen. It even has a frequency at which it runs on and a needed voltage to power its processes. You seem to be looking at all of this on a very superficial level. Just because a brain is a mass of tissue and your PC is a bunch of metal doesn't mean they're not both computers. Maybe we shouldn't even be calling quantum computers computers because a qubit represents more states than 0 and 1 and therefore doesn't fit into the traditional definition of a computer that uses bits to do calculations and store data?

>hurr Google uses floating points in their calculator to speed up the process, thus proving the brain isn't a computer

Oh the naivity.
>>
Cyril Blottingbad - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 06:28:37 EST ID:7VI7ceh3 No.884983 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884979
He said you were wrong at the top of the post and never again. I get the feeling you're a little salty that someone can actually talk circles around you.
>>
George Shakeforth - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 06:31:07 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.884984 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884972
Aloso, can't believe I missed this, but

>they

We see your name, moron. We see both of those posts are yours. Is it your literal first day on /psy/? You'll fit right in.

Again, nb.
>>
George Shakeforth - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 06:32:51 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.884985 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884984
Whoops, actually I'm the moron for once here. Fucking Cyrils everywhere. Ignore this.
>>
George Shakeforth - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 06:41:22 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.884986 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884983
That wasn't even me, though. Some othor anon called him out for ad hominem. And while I didn't see a lot of ad hominem, there was certainly lots of strawman in his post. That anon is far, far from talking circles around me.
>>
Thomas Sebberstone - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:13:34 EST ID:Yd/IpVQu No.884998 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1516742014192.png -(22898B / 22.36KB, 524x366) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>884982
neuronal responses are graded - scaling with stimulus strength.

Its often useful when thinking of neurons to think of it from a few perspectives: individual neuron from a cellular/molecular level - e.g. the types of ion channels in a particular event; the single neuron response over time (many neurons fire continuously or change responding over time); and at the level of a neuronal population (population code). Whilst its true that individual neurons are on or off (all or nothing), the properties of the neuronal response at all three of those levels can produce very different types of signals corresponding to very different behavioural responses.

A clean example is some touch receptors. The individual firings of these neurons is a pretty consistent spike, but certain classes of touch receptor fire continuously in response to continuous stimuli, some only respond to changes in stimulus etc. So the pattern over time of those neurons is not binary (e.g. the bursts), and the population code of the groups of neurons that respond together is definitely not binary.
Computers, however are binary which is why things like rounding numbers errors happen which is fundamental to the design of a circuit but you don't in a neuron.
Because a brain...
Isn't a computer...
>>
Nathaniel Blythehall - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:31:12 EST ID:LywZUfmH No.885004 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884998
A brain is a computer. It's an object that... wait for it... computes. Even the simpelest organism with a brain can do computations. It can determine its position in relation to its surroundings. Therefore it... computes.
>>
awe !!vVWR8L52 - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:57:05 EST ID:ZgfrcNMJ No.885006 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885004
A hammer is a nail hittin device. It's an object that... wait for it... hits nails. Even the simplest jolly african-american with a hammer can hit nails. It can drive a nail into a wooden board. Therefore it... is a nail hitting device.
>>
awe !!vVWR8L52 - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 19:30:36 EST ID:ZgfrcNMJ No.885008 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1516753836642.jpg -(1832111B / 1.75MB, 3648x2052) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>885006
in reality i use it as a dogshit dildo on my ass
>>
Shitting Clavingdotch - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 22:47:01 EST ID:kHr3Wug9 No.885014 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1516765621155.png -(863659B / 843.42KB, 1016x535) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
faggot
go read VALIS or something
>>
Matilda Buncocke - Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:17:35 EST ID:h03hjzTp No.885016 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884998
Implying potentials aren't analog
>>
Celine Bardwater - Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:25:52 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885027 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885016
The potential is analogue, the spike isn't. It's like an analogue signal triggering a digital one. The end result is still digital.
>>
Ebenezer Bobblewater - Wed, 24 Jan 2018 20:21:36 EST ID:gKvH2xf9 No.885062 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Congrats now you get to pick a personality instead of using one that has been imprinted on you.

Read Timothy Leary's "The Psychedelic Experience" for information.
>>
Jack Clullylick - Wed, 24 Jan 2018 20:57:49 EST ID:IQgIgds1 No.885066 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1516845469893.jpg -(141296B / 137.98KB, 900x1333) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
modify your programming ;)
>>
Nicholas Fisslepen - Wed, 24 Jan 2018 23:27:45 EST ID:AutokdI7 No.885077 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885027
>>884998
As I pointed out before. Your brain isn't analogue or digital. You're just putting your own terms on something that it is not.
Your brain constrained no information, data, rules, software, knowledge, lexicons, representations, algorithms, programs, models, memories, images, processors, subroutines, encoders, decoders, symbols, or buffers. We are not born with them, and we do not develop them. Our brain does not process data
We don’t store words or the rules that tell us how to manipulate them. We don’t create representations of visual stimuli, store them in a short-term memory buffer, and then transfer the representation into a long-term memory device. We don’t retrieve information or images or words from memory registers. Computers do all of these things, but brains do not.
A computer being a brain is a metaphor. Nothing more.
It is based on a faulty syllogism – one with two reasonable premises and a faulty conclusion. Reasonable premise #1: all computers are capable of behaving intelligently. Reasonable premise #2: all computers are information processors. Faulty conclusion: all entities that are capable of behaving intelligently are information processors.
It makes as much sense as to say you're brain is a hydraulic pump or an engine. This is why you can't find where information is stored on a neuron or a cell, but you can find where information is stored on a computer. Because unlike a brain, a computer stores and retrived information. A neuron and a cell does not. When you remember something, your amygdala, medial temporal lobe, anterior and posterior midline, and visual cortex all work in conjunction to reimagine something.
When a computer retrieves information, it is stored on a chip, tape, etc. And if that that area is damaged, it is gone or is retrieved wrong.
Your brain didn't do that. If you damage a cell of individual neuron no pertinent information is technically lost. Why? Because it's not a computer. The data isn't STORED anywhere.
So to build a brain computer, you would have to make a computer that can store data without physically writing data. you can't use circuits, wire or metal. You would need biology, in which case, you aren't building a computer. You're building a brain.
Action potential works similar to digital in the sense that the spike is either on or off. Internal to the neuron, everything works via biochemical pathways, which are somewhat similar to analog. Neurons also perform internal electrical signal integration in an analog fashion.
Or how about this, stop trying to compare a brain to a computer. I could use this same metaphoric rhetoric to make it seem like a brain is anything. A brain is a vat of chemicals, a brain is a car engine, etc. And can just fall back on "if we had a complex enough x. We could make a human like brain"
In reality, the brain is biological and to build a brain you need biology.
I think I made my point.
The point of my post was to let op know that people aren't machines so he doesn't need to freak out so Damn much.
>>
Eugene Bedgefuck - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:00:18 EST ID:uxJE+Itk No.885091 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884903
Humans are simply machines, we are complex chemical equations!

There is only 2 sciences, physics and taxonnomy
>>
Angus Claycocke - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:00:41 EST ID:1FxfDjqs No.885094 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885077

>When a computer retrieves information, it is stored on a chip, tape, etc. And if that that area is damaged, it is gone or is retrieved wrong.
Your brain didn't do that

Actually, our brains work EXACTLY like that. Have you even taken developmental psychology before? Our brains work exactly like a computer works, and our brains are very literally organic computers.

This isn't up to interpretation. This is observational fact. Seriously, go take a few psychology courses at your local college and get back to me.
>>
Albert Girrymet - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:10:40 EST ID:XEVB6EuQ No.885095 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885094
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Seriously, go take a class in lick my hairy balls, you scharlatan.
>>
Angus Claycocke - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:42:03 EST ID:1FxfDjqs No.885097 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885095

You spelled charlatan wrong. You might want to go back and take remedial English while you're at it.

But, I'd rather you killed yourself. I'm not remotely joking. The world would be far better off without somebody like you. So, deep down, from the heart, I wish you would do us all a favor and end your pathetic life.
>>
Reuben Bruttingdine - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:07:34 EST ID:tnQJ5CS+ No.885099 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885097
kekekwk salty boi
>>
Basil Bangershit - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:30:01 EST ID:LWB1PdD8 No.885100 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885097
Biggest fag on the board
>>
Molly Dongerstock - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:21:35 EST ID:W+Epe/gI No.885102 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885097
>implying scharlatan is not the german word for charlatan
nb
>>
Jesus Christ - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 17:41:57 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885107 Ignore Report Quick Reply
lmao I love this topic
>>
Ian Bunstone - Thu, 25 Jan 2018 23:14:43 EST ID:XEVB6EuQ No.885133 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885097
Lol. I am bilingual, you mad schoolboy.
>>
Rebecca Pockville - Fri, 26 Jan 2018 03:38:59 EST ID:gGfevY0h No.885140 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885094
I already explained how your brain stores memories neurologically. I don't need to take a psychology class. Psychology doesn't even address neurobiology to even discuss the topic. Give up, you don't know what you're talking about and are just embarrassing yourself now.
>>
awe !!vVWR8L52 - Fri, 26 Jan 2018 06:29:04 EST ID:ZgfrcNMJ No.885141 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885140
>embarrassing yourself
>420chan
pick one
>>
Hedda Mellerwag - Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:41:56 EST ID:Pggyg789 No.885144 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885097
now THAT is edgy
>>
George Pockfield - Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:35:30 EST ID:msFURYAE No.885215 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885094
>literally
>EXACTLY
>This isn't up to interpretation. This is observational fact

I don't know why I'm even indulging this but if you genuinely believe this you're the one who needs to take some more psychology classes. From your posts it seems like you've taken one or two psychology classes non-degree seeking and now you think you're hot shit, presenting half-truths and misconceptions as incontrovertible because it's what YOU think and you're so smart right?
>>
David Hidgeshaw - Sun, 28 Jan 2018 20:07:38 EST ID:LywZUfmH No.885227 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885215
He's still right though. Just like damage on a data storage device can corrupt data, damage to specific parts of the brain can corrupt data.

My mother had a stroke last year around this time, and one bloodvessel ruined all her stored memories for automated left-leg and left-arm movement. Nothing else was damaged, but she had to relearn walking and tasks that require two hands.

The brain is functions just like digital data storage. You damage one bit of it, and that memory is gone.
>>
Nicholas Dammlewill - Sun, 28 Jan 2018 21:24:46 EST ID:RmHz9EU4 No.885231 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885215

Considering my information comes directly from University text books and peer reviewed scientific documents, some decades in the making. Sure. Have at.

You're free to believe as you wish. The truth exists whether you think it or not.

Our brains operate exactly as computers do. Anyone with a basic understanding of psychology and brain anatomy ought to know this.
>>
Nicholas Dammlewill - Sun, 28 Jan 2018 21:33:13 EST ID:RmHz9EU4 No.885232 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885231

For anyone who didn't know, the two largest branches of scientifically supported psychology are behavioral psychology and I/O psychology. Most branches of psychology are wholly dependant upon observable variables in the physical structure of the body. Psychology deals primarily with the anatomy of the brain, its physical structure, and how it relates to the functions of the body.

Would anybody like to clarify how exactly the brain is not like a digital computer?
>>
Fucking Sollychet - Sun, 28 Jan 2018 22:25:53 EST ID:yK3BWFSW No.885233 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Psychology deals primarily with the anatomy of the brain, its physical structure, and how it relates to the functions of the body.

I thought this was being called neurology?
>>
Henry Dremmertack - Sun, 28 Jan 2018 22:35:21 EST ID:G/mTuIC8 No.885234 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885233

Neurology deals with the nervous system in particular. Psychology deals with the actual lobes and glands in the brain, AND psychology covers the entire structure of the nervous system, somatic and all.
>>
Polly Hocklestock - Sun, 28 Jan 2018 22:47:15 EST ID:msFURYAE No.885235 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885233
>Psychology deals primarily with the anatomy of the brain, its physical structure, and how it relates to the functions of the body

You're thinking of neuroscience. This has always been a semantic argument though, I was focusing on your wording because I'm here for petty squabbling not actual debate.

No actual psychologist would say the "brain as a computer" model is PERFECT
>>
Henry Dremmertack - Sun, 28 Jan 2018 22:51:32 EST ID:G/mTuIC8 No.885236 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885235

Does anyone actually come here for any reason beyond petty squabbling and one-upping other's idea of the meaning of ego death?

To be fair, I'm in constant communion with the void. I am leagues above ordinary people's understanding of the function and purpose of experential being.

You'd be daft in attempt to raze the astuteness of my observations.
>>
Fucking Sollychet - Sun, 28 Jan 2018 23:03:22 EST ID:yK3BWFSW No.885237 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Shemale porn is best porn.
>>
Barnaby Bunwater - Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:22:27 EST ID:9XZy/yw8 No.885251 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884912
Has anyone never considered the fact that, if you create a simulation in a simulation the computer that drives the original simulation would have to work atleast twice as hard? I fear that one day when we will be capable of creating simulations the entities that simulate us will pull the plug because of computing power constraints
>>
Reuben Drozzlespear - Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:42:27 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885252 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885251
I've considered it and also thought about the "pulling the plug" scenario in case our overseers see that we're about to create a simulation, but I'm not sure if that's how it works.

You see, if we really are in a simulation then our creators had to sit down when they were creating this universe and decide on a fixed number of particles that their computer could smoothly run. Then they implemented the rule that particles can't be created or destroyed, so there's a constant number of particles in the simulation that their computer has to run. While making our own simulation we're merely arranging these particles spatially in a way that allows our new simulation to be run. So technically, if the computer that we're running on already has the power to run each individual particle in the universe, the simulation within a simulation that we're creating shouldn't put extra strain on it since we aren't actually adding new particles to the universe, just rearranging them.
>>
Awe' !!vVWR8L52 - Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:14:16 EST ID:ZgfrcNMJ No.885253 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1517238856363.jpg -(61226B / 59.79KB, 480x564) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>885236
>>
Reuben Clungerstone - Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:30:46 EST ID:koz7quY1 No.885254 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884903
how pleb do you gotta be to freak out over this. Thats how it always is. Free will is a joke, the universe is a simulation but to me its fairly obvious? whats the big deal?
>>
Awe' !!vVWR8L52 - Mon, 29 Jan 2018 11:24:44 EST ID:ZgfrcNMJ No.885255 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885254
Everything Begins with a choice
>>
Archie Brobbleford - Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:15:47 EST ID:QOZ3N9pT No.885259 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885255
Define choice
>>
Awe' !!vVWR8L52 - Mon, 29 Jan 2018 17:53:16 EST ID:ZgfrcNMJ No.885261 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1517266396658.gif -(1896256B / 1.81MB, 540x540) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>885259
Choice is a decision which definition you are assuming about reality or in other words which truth you believe or which branch you branch out into.

I do not really understand it. But it makes sense to me that choice would be a choice and I understand the paradoxical nature of such statement but that only reinforces the sense of being onto something IMO. Plus from very personal and hands on experience I know that the plot thickens and then the plot thickens and then the plot thickens...
>>
Nell Nublingfoot - Mon, 29 Jan 2018 19:22:08 EST ID:LywZUfmH No.885264 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885255
Well not really. You have a choice, yes. But you do not have free will. Your choice is already predetermined by your personality, education, upbringing, emotional state, time of day, physical fitness, etc. Your consciousness simply isn't aware of the myriad of subprocesses influencing its decision making so it feels like you have free will.
>>
Charlotte Manderspear - Mon, 29 Jan 2018 22:22:51 EST ID:ZO3+Ubbb No.885267 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884903
Kind of ironic that so many psychedelic users actually narrow the way they think rather than expanding it like they so often claim. OP can only think about his super legit observation that like, everything is like, the matrix, man.
>>
William Tillingridge - Tue, 30 Jan 2018 04:38:21 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885279 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1517305101137.gif -(21272B / 20.77KB, 250x180) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>885261
To me, the word choice implies picking the option you think is best out of several, free from outside influence of any kind. But there's no such thing as free from outside influence because at the end of the day the laws of physics govern us as well as everything else. I don't think our choices actually branch out the universe each time we make one because that would mean the universe has to branch out not only for our choices but for just about any physical process that happens, individually.

It makes more sense to me that there is a flow of energy and matter that has been propagating through the universe since the big bang and everything is part of this energy flow, including every choice everyone has ever made or will ever make. Life, evolution, intelligence and ultimately what we think of as choices are all emergent properties of simple rules about how waves/particles behave at the most fundamental level.

Google "the game of life". It's a good example of how extremely simple fundamental rules can cause relatively complex higher level behaviors. gif related.
>>
Nell Nublingfoot - Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:38:52 EST ID:LywZUfmH No.885280 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885279
You might want to change "wave of energy" to "wave of information".
>>
William Tillingridge - Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:25:03 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885281 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885280
I didn't even say "wave of energy" anywhere, I just said "energy flow". But yeah, if information theory is to be believed, energy and matter are both higher-level manifestations of what is fundamentally information so wave of information is a good way to put it.
>>
Nathaniel Cunnerwater - Wed, 31 Jan 2018 02:53:22 EST ID:GgvVMNoP No.885291 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885267
its not narrowing, its the truth dumbass
>>
Clara Druvingwon - Wed, 31 Jan 2018 06:53:17 EST ID:gLwkaVCK No.885296 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1517399597905.jpg -(1764699B / 1.68MB, 2560x1575) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>884903
>true awareness
What do you imagine true awareness is? If you knew everything and were everything and were "one with God" or whatever, then you wouldn't be yourself. As a human being you get to look at one "slice of the pie" at a time. Maybe an unenlightened person in their "tiny box" as you say is looking at a smaller slice of reality. But now that you have experienced "higher consciousness" I don't think it's wise to try to close Pandora's box again; it's already been opened and you have to deal with the consequences. The challenge before you now is learning to integrate and interpret your psychedelic experiences and knowledge into your life such that you can be happy and positive and satisfied on all the different levels (social, spiritual, etc. - think of Mazlowe's hierarchy of needs) Believe me, I had a lot of mental struggle trying to incorporate my psychedelic experiences into a cohesive worldview, and it can be quite difficult at times. I guess you constantly thinking about it is your mind trying to come to terms with the massive shift in perspective. But it is possible to figure it out and achieve inner peace I think, so hang in there.

I guess specifically you might consider thinking about what it means to be "real" or not, and also consider that if there was no order or causality to our world (which you interpret as us being machines), then it would be chaos, a jumbled nonsensical mess with no structure. It's up to you how to. Maybe try meditation and clearing your mind of all images or interpretations of reality (with or without acid). You seem to be fixated on concepts like "nothing but" "merely" "simply" etc. But there is another side to the coin you can look at too. See if you can find it. In my feeling, enlightenment involves not only looking at both sides of the coin, but also looking beyond the coin itself.
>>
Clara Druvingwon - Wed, 31 Jan 2018 06:56:53 EST ID:gLwkaVCK No.885297 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885296
>Mazlowe
Maslow*

>It's up to you how to.
It's up to you how you interpret it. You can look at the same thing in despair and detachment, or you can see the beauty in it and revel in it.
>>
finn the human - Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:49:33 EST ID:Bnrrb4H0 No.885304 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1517431773414.jpg -(115776B / 113.06KB, 440x388) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>885267
OP here I don't even care about the matrix hypothesis
the Issue for me is that we are machines whether this is the base reality or not. If God exists, he too is a machine based off numbers. Everything is math and everything is a machine. In a way this planet is a machine. This human experiment is a machine. Time is a machine. Everything is just numbers and distance. The stars in the sky are already dead. Time is relative to distance so we live in a physical 4th dimensional box of time and distance. Our minds are chambers of reflection. Every thought only reflects back on us. Everything we are is merely epigenetics and DNA (Our brains and DNA are nothing more than silly puddy being imprinted and formed only through the factors of this floating rock covered in over sized bacteria). Consciousness is just patterns. Whats the difference between you and yeast? the grass between your toes? Grass has 20% of your DNA and DNA is literally all we are.

So anyone who actually cares about the matrix hypothesis is a fucking narcissist. Your'e just a program whether you are a program in a machine or not. If there is a place outside the matrix, its just as based on reflective meaning and numbers and (in the broadest term conceivable) machines as this place.
>>
Henry Bardbury - Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:24:56 EST ID:fGKPSWaf No.885308 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885304
well you seem to have it all figuredd out so why the guck are you making these lame ass threads you crazy bitch
>>
Sidney Sannergold - Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:24:24 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885309 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885304
All these realizations are something countless other have had, especially with the help of psychedelics. I agree with most of what you're saying but what does that change about your life exactly? You're still a dopamine addict and your machinery will still guide you towards experiences that increase the release of dopamine. If your machinery does a good enough job your life will be good and you will call yourself happy. If not, well, tough luck.

But realizing all these things shouldn't dictate the rest of your life. There are many people aware of the same things that you are now aware of that are just living their lives as usual, because what's the alternative? Killing yourself because existence is becoming more clear to you? Existence is still fucking awesome my dude.
>>
Archie Duckwell - Wed, 31 Jan 2018 21:22:35 EST ID:W/ehbKps No.885314 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885304
The truth is you are partially correct. We have much less free will than we like to admit.

If we did not have the protection of higher forces, then we would all have gotten ourselves killed by now.

We are morons compared to the omnipotent mind (obviously). And it desires to teach us and discipline us so that we may make proper decisions which lead to an objectively better life (based on our "programming" of tribal human beings).

At the end of the day you can complain about nature's mystifying mechanisms, or you can accept the blessing that is life, and the beauty that stems from these protective mechanisms that are, and always will be in place until the omnipotent mind brings humanity to the brink of self awareness (loving your neighbor as yourself, as we are all connected, this is basic physics).

Though this force loves you and wants to see you grow, it also hates disobedience. Fearing God (which is nature) is the beginning of knowledge.

This is something we all go through, best to fill yourself with good intentions, as your picture says.
>>
Archie Duckwell - Wed, 31 Jan 2018 21:27:11 EST ID:W/ehbKps No.885315 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885314
Also, your hang up on "machines" seems to reveal a lot about yourself.

I would say you are upset with your own mechanical traits, as well as those around you. No sweat, it is something we all feel, especially in this fast paced turmoil of human technological advancement.

Maybe find some different friends who aren't about "dopamine chasing". And most importantly change yourself, discipline your mind and find peace within. I know you can do it.
Who knows? You do. Follow your heart and discover the "programming" that was instilled in your DNA before the creation of time.
>>
Nigel Benkinnore - Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:08:48 EST ID:gLwkaVCK No.885316 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1517454528270.jpg -(940502B / 918.46KB, 1794x1346) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>885304

Where do you think the laws of physics, numbers, patterns, space and time, etc., come from? Why is there something instead of nothing? Why are we in this particular universe with these particular laws and not some other variant? Why is it today and not yesterday or tomorrow? Why are you yourself and not someone else? You can go deeper still.
>>
Basil Lightfoot - Thu, 01 Feb 2018 09:42:47 EST ID:k31EUPbW No.885337 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885304
There's a hack to escape the machine into nirvana but deconstructing your math-made mind.
>>
Eliza Peblingfoot - Thu, 01 Feb 2018 14:14:48 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885347 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885314
>much less free will

We have no free will at all. Your rambling about a supposed omnipotent force is making me feel stupid for even being here and reading your post. In what way do you reckon that this force is manifesting itself and protecting ourselves from ourselves? How would we have destroyed ourselves were it not for this amazing conscious force? How come my life is going great despite me being disobedient to this force? Is it going to punish me later on?

I always find it amusing that people who believe in any sort of deity, be it god or whatever label you choose to put on this invisible yet omnipresent and omnipotent force, give it such humanly attributes. You're anthropomorphizing the object of your belief without even realizing it. As if something all-knowing and all-powerful would have vengeful tendencies. "You disobeyed me and now you'll pay!". It's no different from the idea of a bearded grey-haired god that will roast you in hell for eternity for not believing in him. I don't have free will anyway, so disobeying your omnipotent nature god or whatever you call it wasn't even my choice to begin with. Punishing me would make no sense, and so me being fearful of it would make no sense either.
>>
Albert Nickledock - Thu, 01 Feb 2018 16:58:56 EST ID:8UyqE0Wk No.885358 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884903
everything is machine?
everything is everything dude, when you believe in everything you know it all.
>>
MyNameiS THE - Thu, 01 Feb 2018 17:00:53 EST ID:8UyqE0Wk No.885359 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884903
everything is everythings everything that is within everything in everything, machine is just another manifestation of everything, not everything by itself but it is at the same time cause everything is everything lol
>>
MyNameiS THE - Thu, 01 Feb 2018 17:01:40 EST ID:8UyqE0Wk No.885360 Ignore Report Quick Reply
everything is everythings everything that is within everything in everything, machine is just another manifestation of everything, not everything by itself but it is at the same time cause everything is everything lol
>>
John Midgebury - Thu, 01 Feb 2018 18:42:32 EST ID:ZgfrcNMJ No.885372 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885347
we were made in the image of god sir it only makes sense
>>
Archie Gucklechid - Thu, 01 Feb 2018 19:41:24 EST ID:LywZUfmH No.885380 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1517532084442.jpg -(64263B / 62.76KB, 403x403) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>885372
If so, that's some god to worship.

I'd say we fucking murder the fucking cunt and build a better, faster, nicer, smarter and more powerful artificial god out of his fucking corpse.
>>
finn the human - Thu, 01 Feb 2018 20:01:51 EST ID:yqz4F47o No.885383 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885380
but would it be a good god?
>>
Archie Gaddlehud - Thu, 01 Feb 2018 22:58:30 EST ID:W/ehbKps No.885388 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885347
You are right, you lack wisdom because you despise instruction.

You ask for help, and yet are so ingrained in your "poor me" mechanical delusion that you fail to see my point.

We are a product of nature, which largely controls us, but this is not a bad thing as our true nature is benevolent. There is no need for anthropomorphize anything as we are a part of nature, we are nature ("the machine").

I think you are projecting your own lack of prospects, spiritual discipline and love in your life. I hope you find healing soon, maybe drop acid in nature next time friend.

Amor vincit omnia (as in moving toward a state of entropy).

Life, consciousness, and time itself is structured as a story. There is a beginning and and end. I hope you decide to live a cool story instead of the bullshit your spraying out rn

lol
>>
Betsy Shittingway - Thu, 01 Feb 2018 23:18:07 EST ID:oXKWFcKY No.885389 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1517545087256.png -(656003B / 640.63KB, 528x495) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>885097
Being this mad talking about computers/brains on a psychedelics board on the internet.
>>
Frederick Dugglewit - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:24:10 EST ID:FRhVZSEm No.885391 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1517549050736.gif -(1226186B / 1.17MB, 400x225) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>885097
lmao what a fucking loser
>>
/サイケデリックな/ - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 01:44:51 EST ID:wK5qGHJ/ No.885394 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1517553891505.jpg -(1422737B / 1.36MB, 1275x1650) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
"'The generative law of the All was the First Mind;
But the Second was the effused chaos of the First:
In the third place the Soul received a law, and began to operate. †
Whereupon She (the Soul) enveloped in the figure of a fawn,
Struggles with Death, suffering a probationary penance.
At one time, invested with royalty, she beholds the Light;
At another, cast down into misery, she weeps.
Now she weeps and rejoices;
Now she weeps and is judged;
Now she is judged and dies.
When shall her deliverance be?
The wretched one
Hath entered, as she strayed, into an evil labyrinth.
But Jesus said: Father, suffer me;
She in quest of evil (or, the chased of evil ones) upon earth
Wandereth about, destitute of Thy Spirit:
She seeketh to escape from the bitter chaos,
But knoweth not how to pass through.
For this cause send me, O Father!
I will go down holding the Seals,
I will pass through all the Æons;
I will reveal all the mysteries;
I will manifest the forms of the gods; ‡
And the hidden secrets of the holy way
I will teach, giving unto them the name of GNOSIS.'
>>
Sidney Biffingfuck - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 03:13:56 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885396 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885388
I'm not even OP, I'm not asking for help from a fried hippy nut

>the bullshit you're spraying out

I assume this is referring to OP's posts but holy shit dude take a look in the mirror, you are bullshit manifested. Your whole post reeks of New Age pseudowisdom that actually doesn't mean shit.

>drop acid in nature

Almost all of my trips have been in nature. Not everyone is so weak minded that a trip in nature will convince them nature is a conscious omnipotent superbeing. You're just taking the concept of an abrahamic god, applying it to nature and calling that wisdom. If it makes you happy then all power to you but anyone with a grain of reason in their head will dismiss your advice so it's not very universal.
>>
Sophie Drubberhood - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 04:43:39 EST ID:ZgfrcNMJ No.885399 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885396
you both are not even close to the truth of the matter, just sayin'
>>
Sidney Biffingfuck - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 05:09:02 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885403 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885399
Enlighten us then, oh great wise one.

lmao
>>
Basil Bardham - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 06:02:23 EST ID:I24R9tiJ No.885407 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>I had some rather profound acid experiences and now i'm pretty sure were in a matrix. I have nothing to say to people anymore because its all I can think about. People are like little machines that express everything they are in everything they do. It hurts to even think like this. It has no benefit to me because I'm a simple machine in a chamber of reflection too. I am seemingly incapable of true awareness and it makes me want to just go into a tiny box of a narrow consistant world perception like everyone else does because character is nothing if you're merely observing the world from the frame of either reflective morality, or us just being animals/machines, or us just being programs. God help me.

For fucks sake. We are motherfucking machines. Life IS biological machinery. Think of how even 5MB of storage space took up an entire fucking WING of a building in the 50s and how now, we have USB sticks the size of a thumb with 250GB of storage. Think of that process continuing until you have competing at the molecular level. That's the fucking cell. We are beings made up of trillions of chains of microcomputers that give rise to everything you are, everything you experience.

Your pain doesn't stem from the realisation that this is the nature of life, your pain stems from what you think your existence should be like. Instead of being grateful to exist to begin with, you are demanding something from it that it is not. Instead of appreciating the fact that nothing might have existed at all, that no life might have existed at all, that a conscious species like ours might not have existed at all, that you might not have existed at all to be gifted with the gift of EXPERIENCE, you lament the absolute ingenuity of nature to give rise to the lifeform that is you.

What an absolute waste. Every single millisecond of your existence is already a fucking miracle. Who gives a fuck if you're in the matrix, in a dream, in a real universe, if your entire life is a hallucination or if it's real, it doesn't make a difference. It's an experience, an experience that might as well not have existed at all.

Would you rather never have experienced what it's like to exist, or get to experience it through the intricate machinery of genes, evolutions, cells, atoms, molecules, dimensions and whatever the fuck ever?
>>
Sophie Drubberhood - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 06:15:38 EST ID:ZgfrcNMJ No.885410 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885403
my very name implies wisdom and so with authority i speak on these matters "Nature in all it's myriad of ways of manifesting is reflective of the structure of reality of existence and the structure of god himself, thus being in nature reinforces the neurological pathways of being in harmony with nature, not considering it as something to be conquered and dominated but a library of knowledge on how the universe and dao plays out in our plane of existence" In other words observe to learn
>>
Sidney Biffingfuck - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 06:50:25 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885412 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885410
>my very name implies wisdom and so with authority i speak on these matters

What?

Ignoring the arrogance of that sentence, the rest of your post is yet another episode of New Age pseudo-wisdom. There seem to be countless definitions of "god" at this point so the word is pretty much meaningless unless you elaborate on it further. You might want to work on your observational skills because nothing about my posts suggests that I'm not learning by observing. I have huge respect for nature but I don't need to personify it as "god" in order to respect it. You're assuming that just because I don't see sentience in nature I'm some nature-defying robot who spends no time in it and is trying to "conquer" it.

This sounds like something a 16 year old high school kid believes after trying acid for the first time and becoming like super woke, man. Save the forests from the evil capitalist corporations! You'll never win against nature, puny human! Yeah, no shit we won't win against nature. It's still just an unfolding and inherently physical process. No sentience to be found. Viewing nature scientifically doesn't make it any less powerful or beautiful.
>>
Sophie Drubberhood - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:29:48 EST ID:ZgfrcNMJ No.885413 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885412
>What?
Sophie - google it and be amazed.

Count your blessings man, you are lucky i'm still responding to you.
>>
Sidney Biffingfuck - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:37:27 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885414 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885413
Yeah, never mind providing any arguments, I'm just so damn lucky you're responding. Thank you, o lord. What a quasi-enlightened joke of a person.
>>
Shit Sushkodge - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:42:00 EST ID:+H+bPUCk No.885416 Ignore Report Quick Reply
everyone who posts on this board is like, someone at a certain point in my own experience, and man its funny to see yall interract this way, from the skeptics to the spiritual dudes, i been there kek, its like our interractions are parallel to neuron interractions, we each represent the moment of our lives, as they go on
>>
Sophie Drubberhood - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:42:42 EST ID:ZgfrcNMJ No.885417 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885414
look man, i'm trolling what do you want me to provide arguments for here?
>>
Sidney Biffingfuck - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:43:20 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885418 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885407
Just want to add that this reflects my views on this topic almost entirely. Existence is a fucking miracle even after you realize you've been thinking about it the wrong way. Be careful with that opinion though, apparently calling life biological machinery triggers some people here because it makes them feel not as special about themselves. How dare you compare my automatic complex processes to those of a complex machine? Heresy!
>>
Sophie Drubberhood - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 08:06:17 EST ID:ZgfrcNMJ No.885424 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885418
i am so glad you clarified what your views are exactly. It makes a world of difference mate
>>
Sidney Biffingfuck - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 08:21:33 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885428 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885424
That wasn't even related to our previous discussion, "mate". You brought that down to the level of "I was just trolling man", which was as good a time as any to just let the whole thing go. Continuing this reply chain is just an exercise in futility. Can I please respond to other anons ITT now? Thanks.
>>
Sophie Drubberhood - Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:30:32 EST ID:ZgfrcNMJ No.885462 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885428
you are a party crasher mane, as you can see no one besides me is even last bit interested in your horseshit spewing pseudo-intellectual homecooked ramble. You should be happy I give you the little attention that you get, observe the master and stay in your place buoi.
>>
Alice Chongerfield - Wed, 07 Feb 2018 23:01:38 EST ID:D6U04bpZ No.885702 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885227
>The brain is functions just like digital data storage. You damage one bit of it, and that memory is gone.

That's fundamentally untrue.
>>
Henry Nickleham - Wed, 07 Feb 2018 23:04:31 EST ID:gKvH2xf9 No.885703 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885702
Yup. The brain is a quantum computer that does not operate on binary.
>>
Henry Nickleham - Wed, 07 Feb 2018 23:04:31 EST ID:gKvH2xf9 No.885704 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885702
Yup. The brain is a quantum computer that does not operate on binary.
>>
Hugh Siffingbun - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 04:08:35 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885707 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885462
Faggot.

>>885703
You are wrong. Go learn what a quantum computer is and how it works.
>>
Hamilton Buffingmit - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 07:41:11 EST ID:LywZUfmH No.885717 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885702
Then explain why my mother had to relearn walking? The stroke killed off several memories key to automated walking, that information was gone, it had a physical location.
>>
Henry Niddlechire - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 09:30:45 EST ID:4B5jqg57 No.885728 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885707
I know how a synthetic quantum computer works.

The brain being a quantum computer is a valid theory to explain conciousness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
>>
Henry Niddlechire - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:03:08 EST ID:4B5jqg57 No.885737 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885717
I never said anything to the contrary. I said the brain operated at a quantum level instead of binary.
>>
Esther Gillyhall - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:08:16 EST ID:c6WpDnDx No.885738 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885737

My brain is holographic.

You cannot argue against it.
>>
Henry Niddlechire - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:39:49 EST ID:4B5jqg57 No.885739 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885738
That's because I agree maybe? That is one of the quantum brain models.
>>
Esther Gillyhall - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:48:03 EST ID:c6WpDnDx No.885740 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518119283383.jpg -(8082B / 7.89KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>885739

i can literally walk on corn flakes and you wouldn't know i'm there..
>>
Henry Niddlechire - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:12:35 EST ID:4B5jqg57 No.885741 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885740
Lol what
>>
Hugh Siffingbun - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:22:36 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885742 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885737
There is literally no evidence that suggests the brain functions on a quantum level. The people making these claims haven't the slightest clue what quantum mechanics and are trying to explain consciousness through a theory they don't understand.
>>
Polly Huzzleham - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:25:10 EST ID:MFGUwYNE No.885743 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518121510007.jpg -(128811B / 125.79KB, 600x270) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>885742
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>>
Simon Puppershaw - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:27:29 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.885744 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885742
intredasting
>>
Esther Gillyhall - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:28:00 EST ID:c6WpDnDx No.885745 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885742

I get quantum entanglement you tangle with me I'll entanglement
>>
Henry Niddlechire - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:17:13 EST ID:4B5jqg57 No.885748 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885742
The people who proposed this all have phds in physics or psychology.
>>
Samuel Sacklewock - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:45:59 EST ID:TlKlb5xN No.885749 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Had those same feels after tripping like 50 times in 3 or so years. It's been a couple of years since then for me now and I feel pretty normal again. Take this as a sign to stop.
>>
Samuel Sacklewock - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:49:33 EST ID:TlKlb5xN No.885750 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also, the amount of masturbation in this thread is incredible, even for /psy/.
>>
Henry Nickleham - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 17:42:50 EST ID:gKvH2xf9 No.885751 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885750
At least the butthurt here will only ever be mental. over in /stim/ it's literal butts in pain.
>>
Augustus Claybury - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 18:09:38 EST ID:sLjdozOb No.885752 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885751

dont forget about them constipated /opi/s and hemorrhoid-riddled /hooch/s
>>
Martha Bardcocke - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 19:54:26 EST ID:LywZUfmH No.885758 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885748
Which if you didn't know has nothing to do with how the brain works. If you have a Phd in physics, you know nothing about the brain. If you have a Phd in psychology, you only know things about the mind, NOT the brain.
>>
Ernest Blacklock - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 23:16:51 EST ID:gKvH2xf9 No.885760 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885758
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5681944/#
>>
Fanny Cuggledock - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 02:50:17 EST ID:Lx6Oe64q No.885770 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885742
is it made of the same matter as everything else? then yes it is, if what makes the brain is operating at a quantum level, then it is operating on a quantum level
>>
Albert Cecklewell - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 03:10:10 EST ID:lbQu/kY8 No.885771 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885095
> appeal to authority is a logical fallacy
Elaborate. Im interested.
>>
Shitting Goodwell - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 04:41:35 EST ID:4v/35Dau No.885777 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518169295753.jpg -(159246B / 155.51KB, 786x576) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Maybe you should lay of the acid for a while mate. You've got a whole eternity to not be human, don't waste this short spectacle tripping yourself out man, even if you rattle a few screws loose you're far from braindead yet.
>>
Hugh Clayshit - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 07:12:17 EST ID:Lo6EIL+S No.885783 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885771
It's a fallacy because John Locke said so.
>>
Frederick Buttingbury - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 08:35:06 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885784 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885770
That's not what people mean. Obviously quantum mechanics lie at the foundation of all matter, but the point is, the brain doesn't have any control over QM effects in order to do its operations. Similarly, a classical computer doesn't use QM phenomena to compute even though it's made of matter which, as you said, is subject to QM. Quantum computers need almost absolute zero temperatures in order to operate, because the particles they use as qubits are extremely unstable in their superpositions and tend to "snap" to either up or down spin in any warmer temperatures. The brain is far too warm and noisy to have any control over such delicate quantum states.
>>
Jack Mavingsure - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 08:38:21 EST ID:OYTfOhPJ No.885785 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518183501734.png -(121514B / 118.67KB, 234x302) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>885784

Ehhh?
>>
Hedda Pussleville - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 09:24:30 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.885788 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885784
Consciousness acts like QM phenomena I think, because QM phenomena is the real physics, the macro physics are just a pragmatic approach which is a butchered version of QM, it's not the REAL physics, just like Newtonian physics might be useful, but are fundamentally wrong.

>implying the brain would function anything like human made quantum computers using cubits and all.
The brain doesn't even need to create a binary code to use and process information, it can use a language of it's own, like pathway reinforcement, furthermore, the brain has access to infinity(because our consciousness obviously does), so this is all oldskool as fuck.

Since our brains are obviously tightly interlinked with consciousness I'm pretty confident the QM phenomena must play a role in the brain's function.
>>
Martha Bardcocke - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:06:20 EST ID:LywZUfmH No.885791 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885770
You do realise that the simple fact of quantum processes collapsing as they become "observed" completely invalidates the idea of a quantum brain?

You need fucking vacuum chambers INSIDE your brain to avoid "observation" from happening, because EVERY ATOM IN YOUR BRAIN is constantly being "observed" by neighbouring ATOMS. Because your brain is composed out of complex organic molecules.
>>
Hedda Pussleville - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 12:23:07 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.885797 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885791
that makes sense
>>
Eugene Creshdock - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 13:25:28 EST ID:I24R9tiJ No.885798 Ignore Report Quick Reply
God damn I love this fucking board. Just look at this fucking thread, look at all the insane amount of scientific, philsophical, human, existential, biological, fucking whatever content here.

And not only is there content, it's all in response to a cry for help.

Don't ever let this board die you fucking faggots.
>>
Frederick Packlenat - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 13:38:55 EST ID:iF+G6NS1 No.885800 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885798

/psy/ has long been known as the best board on this site, glad you're having a good time.
>>
Hedda Pussleville - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 16:14:46 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.885803 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518210886389.jpg -(20040B / 19.57KB, 599x419) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>885798
I'd say psy is more naked and raw than most other boards and if you aren't easily offendable you're gonna have fun here. if your looking for bros tho go to opi or dis if you are looking for the dark side of the batshit crazy go to del and if you are looking for the scum of the earth try crops.
>>
Martha Dunnerhog - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:27:02 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885828 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885788
The point wasn't that the brain operates in binary, the point is that all quantum mechanical effects collapse in conditions like the inside of the brain (i.e. warm conditions). The brain can't take advantage of any quantum mechanical phenomena because that would require particle stability in superpositions and the brain doesn't provide the environment for it. Be it quantum computer or quantum brain, for any system to make use of QM to do any operations it needs to stabilize and isolate the particles which is practically impossible in a warm, noisy organ. You'd just have a bunch of particles interfering with each other and collapsing each other's wave functions, making them useless for any sort of actual structured process.

You're calling classical physics a butchered version of quantum mechanics and while I see your point with that statement, I prefer to call it an approximation of the macroscopic manifestations of quantum mechanics. Neither classical physics or quantum mechanics currently give us the full picture of how things actually are. Both are approximations of how the universe really works. But the approximations in classical physics are obviously serving us well enough at macroscopic scales that they allow us to make great technological advancements. The way a classical computer works, for example, relies solely on our findings in classical physics so calling it just a butchered version of QM seems a little harsh. If you want to use the word butchered, then both classical physics and quantum physics are butchered versions of how the universe behaves at different scales.

There is currently no reason to believe the brain uses quantum mechanics in a structured way to operate. All evidence is pointing in the opposite direction, in fact. People just want to explain mysteries through this exciting, enigmatic theory called quantum mechanics, even when there's barely any connection to be made. Both consciousness and quantum mechanics are mysterious and full of unknowns so it's tempting to try to explain one through the other. In the words of one famous neuroscientist, you might as well invoke pixie dust in the synapses to explain consciousness. I can sit around and think of theories about how the brain works all day but without any evidence all these theories will fall flat.
>>
Albert Nettingsudge - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 08:45:29 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.885835 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885828
>The point wasn't that the brain operates in binary, the point is that all quantum mechanical effects collapse in conditions like the inside of the brain (i.e. warm conditions). The brain can't take advantage of any quantum mechanical phenomena because that would require particle stability in superpositions and the brain doesn't provide the environment for it.
Stopped reading right there. You don't understand what you are talking about. QM isn't limited to the principles applied to IBM QComputers.
>>
Albert Nettingsudge - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:06:59 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.885836 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885828
what you are arguing is fundamentally irrelevant to the discussion and I don't feel like discussing it's relevance at this point because the original discussion is more interesting. Nothing personal.

>Be it quantum computer or quantum brain, for any system to make use of QM to do any operations it needs to stabilize and isolate the particles which is practically impossible in a warm, noisy organ.
That is quite ridiculous to claim, but if you are really convinced of that I;m interested to hear your reasons why.
BTW I wouldn't consider the brain just a turing machine (even though it does function as such) which I gather you imply by using the word "operations"

>The way a classical computer works, for example, relies solely on our findings in classical physics so calling it just a butchered version of QM seems a little harsh
No they work on logical systems and the hardware is just an adaptation to the logical architecture that uses a few simple principles of electricity and physics.

Yes QM is not the ultimate physics, but it's much closer to reality than classical physics and because consciousness acts according to the laws of physics as well (physics which we don't understand much about yet) I think it's safe to assume that fundamental physics would be closer to how consciousness works than perceived macro manifestations and approximations of those fundamentals.

>There is currently no reason to believe the brain uses quantum mechanics in a structured way to operate.
I wouldn't agree, but for the sake of argument I will say: nor is there vice versa.
I think it makes sense to try to employ physics to explain the mechanics of consciousness rather than just our subjective experience or philosophy. In all honesty I think physics are in accordance to how consciousness works mechanically and thus by learning more about physics we gain insight into consciousness.

>you might as well invoke pixie dust in the synapses to explain consciousness
Exactly my thoughts, but I call it neurotransmitters.
>>
Albert Nettingsudge - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:18:12 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.885837 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885836
Arguing that consciousness is more in accordance with classical physics instead of QM is a bit like arguing that a piece of metal is one solid chunk and not a bunch of particles and mostly empty space, because you can ask most people and they would confirm that, nevermind that if you look at it more closely the evidence seems to point otherwise. Or like arguing that the sun is going around earth because that's what we are able to perceive, nevermind the calculations that you can do that show the reality to be otherwise.

Consciousness is obviously interlinked with how the brain works.
>>
Barnaby Clibberstock - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 11:46:47 EST ID:izM3TLET No.885845 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884960
>his shoddy structuring of this universe
>shoddy
The conceit in this statement. i can't even...
>>
Martha Dunnerhog - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:01:13 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885848 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885835
If you want to use quantum mechanical states in any structured way, you need your particles to be stable. Heat makes them unstable. If you don't want your quantum states to just collapse into an incoherent mess, then you need absolute zero temperatures or near vacuums, which the brain doesn't provide. Doesn't matter if it's a computer or not.

I'd like to hear your explanation how exactly the brain is supposed to take advantage of quantum mechanical effects, being the warm, wet organic mess that it is.

>>885836
>That is quite ridiculous to claim, but if you are really convinced of that I;m interested to hear your reasons why.
Read about wave function collapse and the observer effect. Learn about all the potential causes of wave function collapse and how the brain is full of them. If you can't reliably keep your particles in quantum states then they are useless for any mechanism that relies on them.

>No they work on logical systems and the hardware is just an adaptation to the logical architecture that uses a few simple principles of electricity and physics.
I said classical physics, didn't I? How are principles of electricity and physics not classical physics? What are you even talking about here?

>Yes QM is not the ultimate physics, but it's much closer to reality than classical physics and because consciousness acts according to the laws of physics as well (physics which we don't understand much about yet) I think it's safe to assume that fundamental physics would be closer to how consciousness works than perceived macro manifestations and approximations of those fundamentals.
QM and classical physics are equally as "close to reality" as each other. They are both imperfect and they both work in their own scale and completely fall apart at the opposite scale. Just because QM works at a tiny level doesn't mean it's "closer to reality". If it was a more complete theory it would be applicable to scales higher than subatomic ones. We have two partial theories that we're trying to merge into one. If classical physics were inferior, we'd be throwing them away.

>I wouldn't agree, but for the sake of argument I will say: nor is there vice versa.
Literally all the mechanisms of the brain that we found so far rely on classical physics. Action potentials and neurotransmitters are in the realm of classical physics. There is NOTHING resembling evidence that the brain uses quantum mechanics to do its thing. I repeat, NOTHING. All there is are half-baked pseudo-scientific hypotheses which are all useless because there is absolutely no proof, no evidence backing them up. This is why it's the equivalent of pixie dust. I can think of a thousand bullshit explanations for consciousness, but why would you have any reason to believe me if I don't have evidence? I don't even know what you're trying to say with "nor is there vice versa". Ever heard of burden of proof? If you make a claim you're supposed to prove it. It's not up to me to prove that you're wrong. This is such basic stuff but here I am explaining it for the fifth time in this thread alone. Google "Russel's teapot". Interesting thought experiment.

>Exactly my thoughts, but I call it neurotransmitters.
Are you actually equating all our neuroscience research regarding neurotransmitters to pixie dust? Jesus Christ.
>>
Albert Nettingsudge - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:12:17 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.885850 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885848
clueless
>>
Albert Nettingsudge - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:14:21 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.885851 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885848
>Ever heard of burden of proof? If you make a claim you're supposed to prove it.
Is it just me or do people who say this the most also seem to be the biggest hypocrites you are likely to meet?
>>
Martha Dunnerhog - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:25:02 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885855 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885851
What claim did I make that you need proof for, you absolute fucking idiot?
>>
Martha Dunnerhog - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:27:03 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885857 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885851
Also, let me repeat a part of my post that you obviously missed, retard:

>I'd like to hear your explanation how exactly the brain is supposed to take advantage of quantum mechanical effects, being the warm, wet organic mess that it is

Let's hear it. Maybe this will be news to you, but replying "clueless" to my post isn't an argument, you incredibly stupid fucking cunt. The idiocy this board attracts is fucking beyond me
>>
Albert Nettingsudge - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 14:56:13 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.885858 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885857
chill man, i cannot explain to you how the brain uses qm effects to produce what it produces, but if you reread my posts you might see where my argument lays. I know I'm stupid, but trust me when i say I understand this better than you. Anyway I don't think it's worth for us to discuss this cause our fundamentals are to far apart to be worth bridging. You need common ground to communicate effectively and we just have too little. no hard feelings bro.
>>
Martha Dunnerhog - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:56:30 EST ID:v/mGMdFW No.885862 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885858
>but trust me when i say

No thanks.
>>
Angus Tootham - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:31:58 EST ID:o4rXP6wf No.885870 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885858

I have a very hard feeling. The both of you can touch it. Actually I'm forcing both of you that touch my hard feeling. With your softest body parts.
>>
Phyllis Blottingkun - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:23:48 EST ID:g2jUooXP No.885879 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>884903
You need to remember that everything in life is meaningless and hat that fact is actually incredibly empowering. There's literally NO POINT to life and the universe is going to eventually collapse on itself so unless we somehow figure a way to travel between universes/realities literally everything you've ever known and ever cared about will not exist at some point in history and literally everything anyone has ever done would have been forgotten.

BUT the reason this is an empowering fact, is that you now are free to basically be selfish. I struggle to not have a bit of a moral compass but basically Buddhists have it right. Just live life to YOUR satisfaction and making people YOU care about happy.

If you're a person who believes in the collective consciousness (I do) then we exists as purely a way of the universe experiencing itself, we exist for pleasure.
>>
Phineas Nummlehood - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 05:40:00 EST ID:+l/XAaHK No.885886 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885879

That's such a blanket statement. It sounds more like you've come to that conclusion with no evidence and are just wearing it as a coat of armour and an excuse for the fact that you haven't been able to come up with anything more meaningful.

Not only that but you fundamentally misunderstand Buddhism.

Seriously man, you have really dropped the ball here. This is a COP OUT!

Do better next time.

GET IT DONE!
>>
Doris Brunderstock - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 06:07:44 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.885890 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885886
i think you misunderstand phyllis cause the main points that he's given make absolute sense to me.
>>
Oliver Drasslechut - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:35:37 EST ID:ncWy+tY+ No.885905 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885890

Well its flawed fundamentally yeah? how can life be meaningless when you create meaning?

I understand what he means, hes just gone about it in a round-a-bout way. you create your own meaning and you are part of life. Life has meaning and in Phyliss case its to make the people around them happy whilst being selfish, which is okay with me.
>>
Jack Sippershit - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:56:03 EST ID:Xur/+spk No.885918 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885905

The YOU just cam across as sort of bedside book of zen and strict routine buddhist phonecalls calander on a swiss mountain where you're just sort of lying on a polythene bag type of thing, not that I'd not.

Not that you can always tell from the language of a post.
>>
Awe !!vVWR8L52 - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:40:17 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.885921 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885905
There is only two meanings to life, whether you assign meaning to life or you assign meaninglessness to your existence.
>>
Henry Ginninghatch - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:51:47 EST ID:uTE9KTDT No.885922 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885921

Deep
>>
Awe !!vVWR8L52 - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:05:59 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.885923 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885922
thanks m8, worked hard on this one.
>>
Augustus Tillingstock - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:25:15 EST ID:ncWy+tY+ No.885930 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885918

yeah especially when some people fail to use language in a way that is coherent.
>>
Esther Moblingshit - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:51:49 EST ID:8c9Gxfkn No.885976 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>OP going through existential crisis for no good reason and two maggots arguing about some tangentially related shit for like 30 posts
Never change, /psy/
>>
Eugene Sushstone - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:59:54 EST ID:uTE9KTDT No.885977 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518613194810.jpg -(36078B / 35.23KB, 480x269) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>885976

Shut up!!!
>>
Rebecca Cedgeford - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:03:32 EST ID:MZnefVCv No.885980 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885976
>two
lmao look at this faggot who can't count
>>
Jenny Sedgeheck - Thu, 15 Feb 2018 09:21:04 EST ID:J5GCXfz+ No.886006 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>885980
Two is subjective bro nothing is real my professor told me
>>
Phoebe Fottinghood - Thu, 15 Feb 2018 23:56:45 EST ID:gKvH2xf9 No.886022 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886006
Not even two atoms is two specific things..

BRUH


BRUH...

bruh...

goddamn shit the bed
>>
Beatrice Bardhall - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 12:46:45 EST ID:kOl2Xbc2 No.886092 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>tfw just experienced the "oh shit, life is a simulation" trip
Feelsbadman
>>
Awe' !!vVWR8L52 - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 15:08:27 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.886097 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886022
bruh... hahaha
>>
Doris Pallymire - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 16:37:34 EST ID:ncWy+tY+ No.886103 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886092

The guy who programmed us was named god, god is actually an incredibly common name in his world, like "john" is for us.
>>
Awe' !!vVWR8L52 - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 16:44:21 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.886104 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886092
not that bad, cause it doesn't change anything.
>>
Eugene Sedgestore - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:04:02 EST ID:tAxDa8QG No.886105 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886104

I find that the realization that none of this actually exists quite often changes things for people.
>>
Sidney Bleblingstire - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:26:39 EST ID:7OBsp/5q No.886106 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886105
How does reality being a simulation negate its existence, exactly? Nothing would actually be how you think it to be, but that's literally the case regardless of whether this is a simulation or not. Perceptions are flawed by the nature of the system they are an emergent phenomena of.

I mean, what's the most discovering that reality is a simulation can mean for your daily life? I think this flawed notion of reality being a simulation negating the fact that we actually exist comes from people's conceptualizations of a simulation being too stuck in a human context.

Hell, even if reality were a simulation that was being run by even human beings, we'd still actually exist within their existence in the form of information... the latter of which is already true when assuming reality isn't a simulation. Fundamental particles and discrete packets of quanta n shit, my nigga.
>>
Awe' !!vVWR8L52 - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 17:41:57 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.886107 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886106
the problem is when people put things into piles of real and not real, good or bad, deserving and undeserving, instead of validating everything as a legitimate and valuable choice/ mode of existence. Because it creates cognitive dissonance and freaks people out when psychedelics open the flood gates and they realize it's all bullshit. Yeah everything is an illusion, that's the nature of existence itself, but since everything is an illusion then everything is just as real as well since illusion cannot be defined without reality being on the other pole, dunno if this makes any sense, but what i'm trying to put to words is that if EVERY thing is illusion, that very fact makes everything equally real. I don't see anything to fuss about.
>>
Edward Clossleweg - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 01:54:28 EST ID:5mJnGAUg No.886114 Ignore Report Quick Reply
/psy/ discusses philosophy and the gods laugh
>>
Basil Clayspear - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 07:21:28 EST ID:RNAi26CY No.886122 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519042888703.jpg -(38412B / 37.51KB, 260x334) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>886114
>>
Esther Binningnot - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:17:03 EST ID:2n6D8qNT No.886134 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886106

It doesn't negate it's existence at all, but if you're claiming that the discovery of this existence being a simulation doesn't change a person then you're daft.
>>
Esther Binningnot - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:25:57 EST ID:2n6D8qNT No.886135 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886134

This is beyond a simulation. None of this is even happening. Nothing exists, or ever has, or ever will. THAT is the true nature of... existence. Inexistence.
>>
Basil Clayspear - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:30:00 EST ID:RNAi26CY No.886136 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519065000703.jpg -(134474B / 131.32KB, 639x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>886135

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYzRzHwHGKs
>>
Rebecca Bondledock - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:03:31 EST ID:7OBsp/5q No.886137 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886135
Fuck it's like I'm not even reading your post right now man, whoa
>>
Esther Binningnot - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:10:39 EST ID:2n6D8qNT No.886138 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886137

This guy gets it.
>>
Sophie Pockspear - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:38:32 EST ID:ncWy+tY+ No.886139 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886137

You're awesome. i hope you know that.
>>
Walter Handlespear - Tue, 20 Feb 2018 03:07:12 EST ID:I24R9tiJ No.886147 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886135
This guy doesn't get it.

It does exist because even if it's a simulation, something gives rise TO that simulation. You're experiencing the product of something, and that experience exists, whether it's a simulation or not.
>>
Sophie Chushpin - Tue, 20 Feb 2018 04:44:32 EST ID:RNAi26CY No.886151 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519119872975.jpg -(83098B / 81.15KB, 640x359) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>886147

Of course it exists, just not as a tablecloth.
>>
Awe !!vVWR8L52 - Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:44:56 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.886158 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886147
I will have to respectfully disagree on this one, because you see if you take the simulacrum to be something that gives rise to existence, then where did the simulacrum itself spring from? You've guest it - the void.
>>
Charlotte Shittingford - Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:23:05 EST ID:pJjP5BYv No.886203 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886158
You're obviously misunderstanding the point. Read that post again carefully.
>>
Charlotte Diblingpeck - Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:17:44 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.886204 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886203
I;m just rambling in an attempt to make someone laugh mate.
>>
George Blunderdick - Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:09:30 EST ID:zs4z693H No.886210 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886147

I figured the point was that it's paradoxical. "Existence" does not exist, yet here we are. Nothing exists, yet there is something.

The idea that anything exists is an illusion
>>
Isabella Heshshit - Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:39:19 EST ID:I24R9tiJ No.886211 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886210
Then the illusion exists. If the illusion didn't exist, then it wouldn't be an illusion and existence would be just what it is.
>>
Hannah Coffinglad - Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:58:49 EST ID:vh5a9G4H No.886212 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519329529545.png -(423746B / 413.81KB, 479x321) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>886211

does existence exist or not?

This debate is really going places.
>>
David Pitthood - Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:56:53 EST ID:CLQrfjz3 No.886213 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886210
what is toast?
>>
James Worthingdale - Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:59:55 EST ID:4B5jqg57 No.886214 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>886213
Baby just butter me, just butter me... Some more!
>>
Charlotte Diblingpeck - Thu, 22 Feb 2018 16:04:00 EST ID:W69QLDMJ No.886215 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519333440599.jpg -(5139B / 5.02KB, 200x199) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>886212
Nah, dude, if existence existed I would be able to imaginate pure void like right now...


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.