There is no beauty without light

light is objectified knowledge

notl like, your every day experience of light as some vague mystic notion of """knowledge""", but knowledge as light. How you live and understand a world of matter, as phenomenon.

that's a good point actually and I will have to reconsider my views

you have accomplished this on Veeky Forums tell your family

I'm not sure what you mean. People born completely blind have an imagination, so if you meant that light is literally necessary for imagination to function, that's obviously not true.

>Asserting that music requires human production
>Asserting that beauty requires either observation or intention

Yeah, you're basically incorrect here in every assumption you've made about how the human brain works

Beauty exists only in the eye of the beholder, it's a completely subjective, purely psychological phenomenon like all value judgements.
Depending on your definition of music I suppose it doesn't have to be created by a being with the intention of making music, but it's an arbitrary concept completely defined by human beings anyway.

I'd argue that any sentient life can define what is music as compared to noise.

That's actually my point.

We inherently have an ability to harness the light for imagination. The physical aspect of it, photons or what have you, that's only for the surface reality. But the action of physical light, in my opinion, it's purpose to illuminate for discernment, I don't see that as different from how the imagination works.

For me, the only way your statement would hold any significant weight is if the brain was needed to continue to experience consciousness. When there's enough reports of people being clinically dead on the table, only to be revived with memories that coincide with the time lost at their documented death. Of course science can't explain this and any explanation of actually happened is just theory, but nonetheless, these people are claiming there was no "shut off" so to speak.

Excellent, I guess brain damage doesn't exist then because your state of consciousness and memories are clearly decoupled from your brain. I recommend you for a frontal lobotomy so you can demonstrate your supreme distinction between physicality and consciousness.

Or you're confusing the medical definition of "dead" with the definition of "brain dead" which are two separate and distinct things. One of which often but not always precedes the other.

I'm well aware of brain damage and it's effect on motor skills, but no, I don't think the brain is the source of the consciousness. The brain if anything, is just an electric circuit board to translate our intentions, in my opinion.

I mean from your stance, you're saying we don't have independent thought outside of a piece of meat lol. Which I understand why you would think that, "only believe what I can see"....But yeah, no lol. I don't think that's the case.

Granted though, my only way to refute this with any form of evidence, if you can even call it evidence, is the numerous accounts of people being clinically dead but never experiencing the documented death, aside from not being about produce a heart beat...they recall the experience as if nothing even happened at all. Basically describe an absence of a "shut off" so to speak.

But what about beautiful music?

There isn't anything without light.

All matter is ultimately a consequence of the interactions of massless particles, i.e. photons.

What about music?

>I'm well aware of brain damage and it's effect on motor skills
And it's effect on memory, and it's effect on mental development...
You have clearly never met someone who has had severe mental impairment.

Hell let's make it even easier, alcohol acts on the receptors in your neurons, a sufficient quantity of alcohol causes memory loss. Unless alcohol is somehow mysteriously interacting with your "non physical" notion of consciousness as it contains the transcendental property of being able to touch your very soul... then your argument is basically bullshit.

Hell, a good enough hit to the head knocks you unconscious, funny that.

>aside from not being about produce a heart beat
Your brain still functions for a while after your heart stops beating, hell you can continue breathing for a good 5-15 minutes after your heart stops beating, again there is a distinct difference between having no heart beat and being brain dead.

Conversely you find that people who do go temporarily brain dead do experience a "shut off" during which they have no memories.

Sure m8, I'll just ignore neurtinos, quarks, gluons, higgs bosons, W+, W- and Z bosons and pretend that the only force is EM.

Certainly while the universe would not be the same, you can still quite happily form atomic nuclei without EM, and you can still conglomerate them using gravity, though chemistry wouldn't exist.

Everything you mentioned is a massive particle.

What do all massive particles, by our current projections, decay into?

>Everything you mentioned is a massive particle
Wrong, quark mass is indeterminate, neutrinos are theoretically not massive, and at most one member of their family is.

>What do all massive particles, by our current projections, decay into?
Also wrong, by conservation of weak hypercharge you can get objects that do not decay into photons, though low energy annihilation events do preference them, you can also get the u- u+ -> u+ u- channel rather than u- u+ -> gamma.

Simply set the A tensors in the standard model lagrangian to 0 and proceed as normal, photon decays get prohibited and everything else proceeds as normal. What photons have the most control over at the physical scale are secondary effects (electrons no longer couple to atoms except via the weak force or gravity).

*Sorry, a correction, gluon/quark mass is indeterminate, you can construct models with massless gluons or you can mix the masses

Lol trust me, I understand your stance, you don't need to repeat yourself. And I'm well aware of the significance of the role the brain plays in relation to motor skills and general awareness.

But ironically, I don't believe the brain is the source of consciousness. Not until I see it lol. Or experience it for myself. But I fully understand why some people would believe that, because again on the surface it appears that way.

But again, people have been clinically dead for hours, not minutes, I even once read a video about some russian dude who was dead for 3 days and woke up in the middle of an autopsy lol, and was still able to retain an experience and recall it from memory. Granted though, there is no science to support this.

Excellent, then we'll go from there

> I don't believe the brain is the source of consciousness
Excellent, then rather than claiming to "understand my argument" you can attempt to refute it. Once again, if the brain is not the source of consciousness explain how a sufficient blow to the head knocks someone unconscious as opposed to say, a hit to the chest or the knee?

>But again, people have been clinically dead for hours, not minutes
Once again, you happily ignore the distinctions in the definitions of death; just as a person may be brain dead while clinically alive (and are often called vegetables) you may be clinically dead while your brain is not. You are intentionally confusing these definitions.

>I even once read a video about some russian dude who was dead for 3 days and woke up in the middle of an autopsy
I'm not going to ask how you read a video, I'm going to ask for any amount of documentation about this event rather than an anonymous source.

So from your own argument, your stance is that even though the evidence points towards the brain being the cause of the state of "consciousness" you chose to believe likewise with no verifiable evidence for this stance.

Thank you for confirming your position and bringing something other than unsubstantiated opinions to the discussion.

>There is no beauty without light.
Not only is beauty an artificial concept invented by humans, and subjective, but people find it in things that have nothing to do with light, such as sound or stories. Thinking sound requires light to exist, or claiming that a creature could not evolve to find beauty in sound without light, is an odd claim.

>Even in physics light is something special.
No more special than gravity, magnetism, time, or space itself.

Nice poetry you got there though, bub.

how to smallpost?

>There is no beauty without light.
Sound

Shhhh, don't disturb OP's onthological worldview with dirty science.

History fag here.

I didn't understand any of this but it sounded bretty cool. Thanks user.

Beauty is not subjective, facial symmetry amongst other qualities are signs of previous genetic health. Beauty is that which is more resistant to death and decay, more ordered.

Only those who stand to benefit from the subjectivity of beauty argue for its subjectivity, but in practice there is a pattern of preference which cannot be denied.

youtube.com/watch?v=W7tW93b3RYA

Autism Speaks

>his power level is so high ill just call it autism to disregard it

Go ahead, dont listen to Satyr, he doesn't care, he actually prefers it that way.

youtube.com/watch?v=QyX1bcpuK7s

>anime
>epin science
>jaded dismissal of anything that doesn't see the world in black and white beep boop autism

"Color" is a concept invented by humans because it refers to the parts of the spectrum only we can see, doesn't mean it doesn't refer to something. Fuck off with this undergrad shit. What a lame

Literally meaningless to say the brain is the source of consciousness and that's the end of it. About as meaningful as saying the stomach is the "source" of digestion.

Brains give rise to consciousness but don't define consciousness. THAT brains give rise to something called consciousness is the issue here, that there is something like consciousness to speak of. your reductionist drivel does nothing but confirm materialists can never have actually insightful discussions on anything, they just repeat the same bullshit we already know like the kid at the dinner table who won't stop talking about Pokemon because he just got into it

Why are we glorifying visible waves of electromagnetic radiation now?

The olfactory bulbs are the only sense organs with direct projections to the amygdala (rather than routing through the thalamus like all the others) which may be why smell elicits such intense emotuons/memories

>Even in physics light is something special

What do you mean by this? Light is subject to the exact same laws other forms of EM radiation are subject to, and the photon is no different in general than other bosons.

Adding on to this: So in a sense, you are incorrect in your comparison between sound and smell as only smell has the neurophysiological evidence to support the phenomenology you describe.

Speed limit of the universe.

God I can't wait til this smarmy pseudo-profound reductionism dies a much-needed death

But user, blind people still can listen to beautiful music.

the assertion wasn't that it was the same as smell, but that it was similar in that it works without a visual (light-based) bias, through the auditory cortex. and to elaborate - when you divorce sound from the visual bias (i.e. when you listen-back to a recording of a place you were at but are no longer at the place) you hear things your conscious brain wasn't aware of at the time, but are still familiar because all those background details were there, and were passing through the brain, but were being filtered-out of your consciousness so as not to overwhelm your focus attention. the specific experience is very dissimilar to watching a video and photo of a location, and it causes you recall things in a very unique way.

>muh reductionism
It's the truth.

>Speed limit of the universe

Gravity is also limited to c. Nothing unique about light.

>Reductionism is bad and evil

>implying a weak-ish form of property dualism isnt the only useful way to conceptualize the universe

>dualism

Yeah, no. There is no conceivable mechanism for a nonmaterial "substance" to interact with a physical one, dualism is pure magic.

I said property dualism, not substance dualism

Literally the same thing. There are no "metal objects", they exist as patterns in physical brain or on physical books.

The actual, immediate experience of light is prior to any conceptualization of it.

Telling someone who is awed by play of light in a cathedral "it's JUST electromagnetic radiation" says nothing but "this thing you are experiencing is just what we happen to call electromagnetic radiation in the sciences."

Scientific nomenclature has the unintended side-effect of sterilizing and mechanising everything it refers to. Light in a scientific context is not the "truth" (though certainly part of it) of light anymore than a readout of the elements that compose my body is truly me.

Go outside you cretins

I highly reccomend you read up on the "consilience" debate in the philosophy of science, specifically, w/r/t vertical consilience. I happen to side with Fodor (I usually vehemently disagree with him on cogntiive science issues, however) who argues that ontological consilience != epistemic consilience.

Heres a good article on the matter: lrb.co.uk/v20/n21/jerry-fodor/look

>Everything is physical perhaps, but surely there are many different kinds of physical things.

How does this contradict anything I said?

Also consilience seems pretty pointless, yes you can in theory model complex events such as human cognition using nothing but physics but why would you want to when this would tell you nothing new and would in any event be impossibly hard in practice?

>Also consilience seems pretty pointless, yes you can in theory model complex events such as human cognition using nothing but physics but why would you want to when this would tell you nothing new and would in any event be impossibly hard in practice?

This is what reductionism is. Where you not supporting reductionism a few posts ago?

You're exactly right. Vertical consilience *is* pointless, and thus so too is reductionism. Fodor is arguing here that a phenomenon (e.g. consciousness) can emerge from a lower level of organization (neurons, etc), but may not be completly related in an epistemological sense, at lease not in a way intelligible to humans. In other words, somethings in this crazy beautiful world of ours are 'emergent,' and out attempts to reduce them are futile.

>Where you not supporting reductionism a few posts ago?

No, I don't hold any philosophical positions. Everything we have discovered so far is physical, that doesn't mean everything that exists is physical because we haven't discovered everything that exists yet (and probably never will / can).

>In other words, somethings in this crazy beautiful world of ours are 'emergent,' and out attempts to reduce them are futile.

This is the mainstream view of science. Emergent phenomena are not studied in terms of their ultimate source because doing so is beyond our mental abilities. This doesn't mean they don't reduce in such a way, if we were gods we could absolutely interpret everything in terms of physics in a useful way.

>This is the mainstream view of science. Emergent phenomena are not studied in terms of their ultimate source because doing so is beyond our mental abilities. This doesn't mean they don't reduce in such a way, if we were gods we could absolutely interpret everything in terms of physics in a useful way.

Tell that to neuroscientists.

Why? They study the brain using brain-scale equipment, nothing inappropriate about it.

what about a beautiful smell?

y-you mean like freshly powdered pussy

that's a pretty cruel thing to do to a cat

>>

Because some neuroscientists seek to understand the mind by just looking at the brain, when in reality this is a category error produced from the application of a greedy reductionist philosophy

the mind is the brain dummy

>Because some neuroscientists seek to understand the mind by just looking at the brain

The mind is what the brain does. You can get a lot of understanding about how hormones work by studying the endocrine system, there will be things you don't illuminate thru such an approach, such as how it actually feels to experience an adrenal rush, but it's still a valuable approach. Neurscience works hand in glove with clinical psychology to tackle the very large and difficult problem of how the mind works, it doesn't claim to be the be all and end all of the subject.

A brain is necessary, but not sufficient for a mind

To study minds you need to study brain-body-environment systems, which few neuroscientists let alone psychologists do.

I don't think you know any neuroscientists. You have to study biology and chemistry before you can study neuroscience, they're very well aware of the context of their discipline.

I've studied Neuroscience for the past two years and the discipline is intellectually bankrupt with regards to matters of the mind

>I've studied Neuroscience for the past two years

Yeah sure you have.

youtube.com/watch?v=5031rWXgdYo
youtube.com/watch?v=uqU9lmFztOU

Note how these are videos 10 and 11 in this undergrad course, you need to know a whole lot of biology before you can tackle neuroscience.

>intellectually bankrupt with regards to matters of the mind

That's because it's the study of teh brain, not of the mind. Do you accuse endocrinologists of being "intellectually bankrupt with regards to matters of love"?

>Yeah sure you have.
Well, I cant argue with that.
>Note how these are videos 10 and 11 in this undergrad course, you need to know a whole lot of biology before you can tackle neuroscience.

You've misunderstood me. I dont mean to say that you need to understand the body/environment in the biological sense (thats exactly the opposite of what I mean, re: reductionism is wrong!), but in the embdoied cognition sense. One's body and one's environment are as much a constituent of cognition as the brain is.

>That's because it's the study of teh brain, not of the mind. Do you accuse endocrinologists of being "intellectually bankrupt with regards to matters of love"?

What are the fields of cognitive neuroscience, behavioral neuroscience, neurolinguistics, neuroethics, etc.

I reccomend the books Neuro and the New Phrenology for examples of how out of touch neuroscience really is.

How do you explain the existence if working technology based on findings from neuroscience if the discipline is as hopelessly out of touch as you suggest?

>What are the fields of cognitive neuroscience, behavioral neuroscience, neurolinguistics, neuroethics, etc.

the clue is in the name. Subfields =/= the parent field.

>but in the embdoied cognition sense.

What does this even mean?

>How do you explain the existence if working technology based on findings from neuroscience if the discipline is as hopelessly out of touch as you suggest?

Huh? Which technologies? Are you refering to fMRI and EEG? I wouldnt say those have anything really to do with neuroscience so much as engineering physics and biology.

>the clue is in the name. Subfields =/= the parent field.

If you look back a few posts I said "some neuroscientists seek to understand the mind by just looking at the brain." Notice how I said some. To put it another way: the neuroscientific approach to cognition is wrongheaded. Neuroscience in general is good for some stuff however. Neurology and neurobiology are incredibly good and successful disciplines for example. It's when neuroscience encroaches on the realm of cognition that there is a problem.

Some folks believe that the current orthodoxy in neuroscience is completely wrong in terms how the brain even works (I reccomend After Phrenology for more on this).

>>What does this even mean?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition

The current mainstream in cognitive science.

>"some neuroscientists seek to understand the mind by just looking at the brain." Notice how I said some.

[citation needed]

>Embodied cognition (Embodied mind thesis) is the belief that many features of human cognition are shaped by aspects of the body beyond the brain.

Why would neuroscience-- the science of the brain-- devote it's attention to non-brain phenomena?

> I wouldnt say those have anything really to do with neuroscience so much as engineering physics and biology.

Then you don't understand what science is or how it works. Does all of biology reduce to optics in your imagination, because you need a microscope to do biology?

>>[citation needed]
I've given you three books as well the names of multiple disciplines that give examples of, and exemplify this very thing. I'm not sure what more you want me to do.

>>Why would neuroscience-- the science of the brain-- devote it's attention to non-brain phenomena?

Because some neuroscientists believe that the mind is soley a brain phenomenon. I am arguing that its a brain-body-environment phenomenon, and thus does not fall under the purview of neuroscience.

>>Then you don't understand what science is or how it works. Does all of biology reduce to optics in your imagination, because you need a microscope to do biology?

I'm not really sure what you are saying here. you claimed that neuroscience has resulted in many important technological inovations (which is not really true). I assumed you meant fMRI and EEG. These technologies get little use outside of neuro research and their usefulness as tools to probe cognitive phenomenon is incredibly controversial (I have actually been involved in both fMRI and EEG related research so Inm not just blowing smoke here).

>Because some neuroscientists believe that the mind is soley a brain phenomenon

No, they don't. The nervous system and the sense organs both clearly contribute to cognition, literally no-one thinks it's just the brain alone.

> (I have actually been involved in both fMRI and EEG related research so Inm not just blowing smoke here).

No, you haven't. Please stop insulting my intelligence when it's so very painfully clear you don't have a clue about neuroscience.

>>No, they don't. The nervous system and the sense organs both clearly contribute to cognition, literally no-one thinks it's just the brain alone.

Yes they do. Read Neuro (Rose and Abi-Rached) and the New Phrenology (or anything by Uttal really). What other evidence do you need?

>>No, you haven't. Please stop insulting my intelligence when it's so very painfully clear you don't have a clue about neuroscience.

lol, youre right. Im not getting my cogsci phd from an ivy league school. Oh wait.

>What other evidence do you need?

How about a citation from an actual neuroscientist?

>lol, youre right

Glad you finally admit it.

Some people like Led Zeppelin more than The Beatles, an example of millions of beauty being subjective.

>Base claims on poetry
>Point out the lack of soundness to claims based on poetry
>Use poetry as a counterargument

Your poetry has no logical meaning. I could argue that pizza is an artifical abstraction invented by humans that refers to nothing and counter your points using the same amount of logic that you've used to dismiss mine.

>Base claims on poetry
>Point out the lack of soundness to claims based on poetry
>Use poetry as a counterargument

You can literally google it yourself. People that were clinically dead, that started breathing during autopsy, started breathing at the moment of burial, people who start breathing in the embalming room etc etc. All after their documented death.

Now for like the 3rd time If I had proof I'd present it to you, but I don't.

But I personally don't think that our independent thought is limited to a piece of meat though. I refuse to be that simple and beyond open to the idea that consciousness is transcending, simply because consciousness itself does transcends the physical.

If you want to think and be a robot though, lol by all means...be the best darn robot you can be. But I personally can't agree with that.

oh man. When will the undergrads leave?

Just because something is subjective does not mean it does not refer to some objective state of things. Landscapes, sunsets, 10/10 women are universally considered beautiful. Either you have to admit there are certain qualitative features that universally evoke feelings in humans that they call "beauty", or you think you're being profound by telling us "people have different opinions about things" like we all didn't know this in fucking kindergarten

“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.” -Terry Pratchett

but it obliterates darkness errtime so i doubt it's the least bit concerned.

I've never seen someone btfo someone this hard before.

>not wanting the ethical purity of darkness

...

we come from darkness and we return to darkness. i don't see that we should be in any hurry for more darkness before this life and consciousness are over.

If Heat Death is correct, in the end, Light will lose and there will only be darkness.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_subscripts_and_superscripts
and some other unicode characters that look like superscript letters.

Just because some people cant or dont appreciate the depth of a musical creation, doesn't mean that depth is not existent.

It becomes much more obvious when you compare rap to classical music.

As the video mentioned, the idea of beauty being subjective is a way to comfort those who arent beautiful by telling them that there is someone for everyone, and that there is at least one other person on earth, who appreciates their "beauty", even if this is true factually, in practice such people go on to die alone and never reproduce.

why does that matter? Just stating the obvious,

> compare rap to classical music
More people listen to rap than to classical music.

>More people listen to rap than to classical music.

More people eat Mcdonalds too.

>More people eat Mcdonalds
Than what tho

Yes, Mcdonalds is rap of food i.e. real beauty and not just autistic meme.

A better tasting, well cooked meal.

Being able to discern the difference between the creative depth of one artistic medium and another is not autism.

Thinking that there is no difference at all and that all is of equal or quantitative worth, is a form of social autism where depth is sacrificed for efficiency of thought.

> Being able to discern the difference
True beauty is objective which means is hardly bound to your ability to discern the difference if anything you need that effort to delude yourself into liking autistic garbage.

My senses evolved to recognize order in otherness, and be attracted to it instead of that which is disordered.

Just because this application is objective, doesn't mean its absolute, it means it falls on a continuum of more order and less order.

Subjectivity does away with the continuum altogether and says that there is no difference whatsoever between the two mediums.

If you think there is honestly no difference, then you truly are "late".

If all is truly subjective, then you shouldn't really care about proving me wrong, you should just accept what i say as just another "opinion" and run off like the moron you are.

Its perception, however, is not objective.