u/AlterTheSilverBird

So Anil Seth has been a vocal, and sometimes contentious figure in the discussion of consciousness. While most including me respect him as a neuroscientist, Anil hasn't been shy in engaging other opposing views when it comes to consciousness.

While Anil Seth was originally well known for his book and his use of rhetoric to describe consciousness with terms like a controlled hallucination or him going through anaestesia is witnessing oblivion, Anil has also been largely been criticized by philosophers for being overdramatic or misleading to the point they do point it out to him sometimes in debates and conferences, while also appreciating his work in trying to learn consciousness through science and define its mechanism.

However Anil Seth has always tried to find ways around the Hard Problem and his latest is redefining his controlled hallucination to Beast Machine, claiming consciousness is built around the system of the entire body not just the brain, but the one I want to talk about his Real Problem.

Anil has proposed if we continue studying neuroscience, the brains mechanism, and consciousness we may someday be able to dissolve the Hard Problem by knowing the mechanisms enough so precisely we may not need the Hard Problem and he would bring vitalism as an example.

However does his proposal actually dissolve the problem or not?
I'm well aware others have talked about his work and from what I can find people like Chalmer believe even if we could fully learn the full mechanics of the brain and all its part, it may not solve the Hard Problem, while others claim he's just redefining correlations with real problem rather then giving a proper solution.

I personally see his work as a less refine mix of illusionism and anti-realism, but lacking the refinement people like Frankish does to develop their studies since it doesn't seem Anil's Real Problem address the common problems found on those two views. However that's my view and while I personally don't know if Anil is so well-informed in these types of topics considering its not unusual to see him getting flustered in conferences and debates with oppositions like Goff, or classical challenges TO physicalism like The Knowledge Argument which he doesn't even use some of the more known answers to it, I'm not sure if my judgement is clouded by his performances in those talks.

I will say he is a very charismatic and eloquent speaker and when hearing him alone he's very convincing and can talk about complex topics in a digestable way, but when he's with an opposition he seems to struggle sometimes, to the point I notice Anil has tone down his use of oblivion and controlled hallucinations in these types of talks.

So while being interested in quantum studies, I came up to a quote that claimed almost 100% of theoretical ideas and their implication in quantum studies and science in general has largely been incorrect or incomplete during their initial phasing and even now many of our best quantum calculations still aren't complete descriptions of the real world or never translated to fully proving a certain idea like how to study quantum gravity or manipulate particles for medicine.

I'm curious if it's true most mathematic equation don't always translate to their intende purpose in the real world? Like a quantum model that was meant to show the world is run by superdeterminism or that it's possible our world indeterminate yet the math still works for Pilot Wave and Many-World.

Like one of the models I recently was a bold attempt to push a superdeterminism model using fractals and gravity, and wondered if even the equation did work does it automatically mean it actually shows in reality our world runs that way.

I'm curious why Superdeterminism is not considered a popular view when it comes to the nature of the universe, and while I'm aware it makes scientific inquiry problematic because it renders findings as inevitability and unfalsiable and that indeterminancy in quantum science challenge it on the surface foundation, while its purpose to retain classic determinism via local realism can be preserved in less difficult models like Pilot Wave and Many Worlds.

However I'm curious why it seems for philosophers when it comes the logical and epistemic knowledge of Superdeterminism, it seems problematic, so why is it considered well challenged metaphysically wise?

It's to the point some I asked believed that Superdeterminism is incoherent or that the logical argument trying to explain Superdeterminism can be ad-hoc although Sabine Hossenfender's content in Youtube.

This is a question I've been meaningt to ask since I asked about the scenario if I resetted my life if my exact life would happen again or if it could be different and someone argued while it's plausible, there's nothing that makes it impossible to happen.

Now I wonder whether it's plausible if we ever did a Rollback Scenario, it's possible another choice could've happened even if the exact conditions before the choice happened and whether our current understanding of physics allow it or not.

From what I've researched and asked from people who work on quantum studies, it depends on what deterministic system. Many World theory would suggest its plausible you could experience a different scenario in a Rollback Scenario because all possibility happened in deviating branches and your branch could be different, but according to Pilot Wave, it shouldn't unless the Pilot Wave dictate the Rollback Scenario or that the prior conditions had hidden variables that changed even if all measurable variables are the same.

So that's what I'm asking, would it be irrational for a Compatibilist to say in a Rollback scenaio, things could be different even if determinism were true?

I'm personally leaning the world works on probability then linearity where even the most linear system seem to accept other scenarios even if we can only ever experience one but I'd like to hear from others.

Panpsychism has been an idea that existed for years, and yet it seems especially in the 2020s the idea has become so common I see it among conferences, debates, and even orientation about consciousness.

Why do you think in the recent years it's gained more popularity and what's it appeal that it still remains convincing to many even with issues like the Combination Problem?

I'm aware in the conscious talk sphere, many influencial figures like Philip Goff and Christof Koch has talked about its strengths while acknowledging its weaknesses and even David Chalmers despite his agnosticism clearly seem to find panpsychism appealing with the way he talks about it. I also heard it does seem to be a better balance for the strengths and problems physicalism and dualism has which kinda make sense to me.

I also seem to find more papers in PhilPaper and ResearchGate discussing the idea with their own concepts on its weaknesses, strengths, and potential answers for its flaws.

https://preview.redd.it/9lzk4e47klzg1.jpg?width=230&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9636e4e275cda95b4b467d8454945a4abd9738e0

I got inspired by someone asking if ONC wrote Amy and Samey, and saw someone point out potential sexualities, with everyone agreeing Samey would be lesbian. So that make ask what would be the rest of the cast orientation if ONC wrote the cast. My personal guess would be:

• Samey (Lesbian)
• Amy (Straigth or closeted bi)
• Shawn (Romantic asexual)
• Jasmine (Bi or Pan)
• Sky (Straigth or bi)
• Dave (Straigth)
• Sugar (Straigth)
• Max (Asexual considering he never reacted to everyone thinking he and Scarlet are together)
• Scarlet (Pan but more focus on ambition then romance)
• Topher (Gay)
• Ella (Straigth or Pan)
• Rodney (Straigth but open, maybe Rodney thought he was dating a non-binary once and was OK with it)
• Leonard (Asexual)
• Beardo (Bi... no clue on him)

Some are hard because we don't have too much character on them.

I'm intrigue with the Ship of Theseus thought puzzle and while there are many ways to look at it, whether you define identity via spatial-temporal continuity, functionality, or the view that the problem is linguistic.

However one interesting view is four-dimensionalism, the idea identity are slices of time that extends beyond stretches of time and my interest in quantum studies via the theories of consciousness involving quantum mechanics does add new depth and reason for me to view it via four-dimensionalism, because the quantum understanding of matter and physics via fields and quarks does add an in-depth view on how we all change, and its claims that both ships in the thought puzzle are the Ship of Theseus since at some point of time there identity was that and that identity doesn't change even if it ceases to be.

Now I'm well aware this view isn't flawless and there's argument for and against four-dimensonalism, but I'm interested in knowing whether in current academia viewing objects that way would be viewed as rational or not?

I feel it captures identity more closely on the nature of what things are really are in a microscopic spatial-temporal level but I understand Endurantism has its own strengths and it captures our intuitive view on identity, although I personally I think one can use both views of identity depending on the context.

I admit one of the biggest issues I had when study philosophy was de-learning everything I learned from subreddits like the ones in the title, so I want to ask why do you think the people seem to know everything about the topic of said sub reddit yet going here it seems so shallow or even misunderstood?

One the example is how confident in for example in the Existelianism thread one of the top answers about free will is the claim that its fake and were hardwired software that is fooled to believe it exist where even the biggest skeptics clearly wouldn't even agree to this conclusions.

So why is there a disconnect between the philosophy discussion here and those thread when they seem so confident about the ideas that seem flawed or misunderstood?