Just what are materialists saying, really? That all of this is just matter? Okay, sure, but subjectivity is obviously real, it's obviously not JUST physical bits and pieces bumping around, they obviously contribute to a mental component even if we don't posit a "soul".
Are physicalists this fucking dumb? Either they're denying consciousness exists, or they're accepting the material has a mental, subjective aspect as well.
The mental component is "just" physical, yes. Magic is not real.
All matter is only a temporary formation of particles. All conditional things are subject to change so when the physical body dies, the energy (which can be scientifically calculated) must go somewhere and or change into something new.
A dead body has no life, so where foes the energy that keeps it alive go? It cannot just disappear into nothing because matter is not created or destroyed
>>1380601
The "mental" component is 100% physically unnecessary, and yet it remains.
>>1380601
Which has given us art, and symphonies, and all the rich subjectivity of your inner life, as well as mine, as well as the billions and billions of individuals throughout history.
So why the fuck should your definition of matter be as sterile, dead, and life-denying as "dude like particles, like dude lmao"?
>>1380603
>A dead body has no life, so where foes the energy that keeps it alive go?
It goes into the myriad chemical reactions that we call the decay process, and often ultimately heat.
More like, consciousness is an activity of material things.
>>1380606
>100% physically unnecessary,
Incorrect. It is adaptive in social organization and problem solving which have been extremely useful for mammalian survival.
>>1380613
It is a constant transformation and the body will eventually dissipate or even become cremated. It is when this energy exits the body however, and not the chemical reactions of the body during its decay
>>1380594
What's the difference between materialism and physicalism?
>>1380610
>So why the fuck should your definition of matter be as sterile, dead, and life-denying as "dude like particles, like dude lmao"?
Probably because it is true. Matter is, dude like, particles, like dude lmao. Whatever subjective values you assign to that are your own business.
>>1380629
What definition of "energy" are you using?
>>1380632
So particles, dude lmao, are ascribing value to themselves, and you don't think maybe you should modify your understanding of matter to include its quantitative and qualitative spectrum instead of just focusing on its building blocks? Autism.
>>1380619
He's saying nothing should presuppose subjectivity in a purely material universe running on the rails of natural law, but here it is anyways. Your post answers nothing. "Consciousness exists because consciousness is useful" what?
>dualism
>>1380638
>"Consciousness exists because consciousness is useful" what?
What's hard to understand about that?
>>1380603
>A broken down car does not run, so where does the energy that keeps it running go? It cannot just disappear into nothing because matter is not created or destroyed
>>1380638
>So particles, dude lmao, are ascribing value to themselves
Yeah. Neat, right?
>, and you don't think maybe you should modify your understanding of matter to include its quantitative and qualitative spectrum instead of just focusing on its building blocks?
"Understanding of matter" includes everything we know about living things.
>>1380638
>are ascribing value to themselves
In an extremely roundabout way, yes, but you're skipping over certain complexities.
>and you don't think maybe you should modify your understanding of matter to include its quantitative and qualitative spectrum instead of just focusing on its building blocks?
No, because matter is the building blocks. You would not ascribe the qualities of a "house" to bits of wood and steel, because those "house" qualities emerge from a very specific organization of the components. Saying matter is concious is like saying a plank of wood is cozy, just at a different scale.
>"Consciousness exists because consciousness is useful" what?
We have opposable thumbs because they are useful in manipulating and creating tools. We have conciousness for similar reasons.
>>1380636
>"Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." On the most basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. Under the right conditions, energy can become mass, and vice versa.
Energy and mass are inseparable and also different forms of the same thing. This is just the basic definition and equation, but upon further inspection we realize we still only know very little about the form of mass and how the energy that changes the form of mass is always changing the mass and form without end.
>>1380664
No, m8, once again, matter giving rise to a meaning-making mechanism - consciousness - requires more explanation than "it's useful". Of course it's useful, but there's no reason there should be anything experiencing the "usefulness" of intelligence instead of us just being robots programmed by matter to do useful things. You don't get it, do you?
>>1380653
A car needs a fuel in order to run. If it is not running, there is no fuel or a malfunction of its parts. The fuel would be like its life force and the parts would be like its body, however, the car requires a driver or a computer in order to make it move as well.
The driver is the consciousness of the car, and without the driver you disconnect what makes the car "alive" but unlike humans and all living entities, a car cannot move on its own according like the living entities can.
That energy that gives us life in order to operate on our own, that one
>>1380670
>Of course it's useful, but there's no reason
what
>>1380689
It's really not my fault you can't wrap your head around such a simple argument. like pulling teeth with you niggers, goddamn
>>1380670
>consciousness - requires more explanation than "it's useful"
Unless you're talking about a more detailed neurological or evolutionary explanation, it literally does not. It exists for exactly the same reason some reptiles can lose their tails and why peacocks have bright feathers. It is useful, full stop.
>>1380668
Then if we are using a reasonable definition of the word "energy", yes, all the energy in a human that has died goes feeds into the decomposition process one way or another in natural circumstances. In unnatural circumstances this may not be the case, such as cremation the energy goes into fuel for sustaining a combustion reaction.
>>1380681
>If it is not running, there is no fuel or a malfunction of its parts.
The same thing for a person. Death is simply "a malfunction of parts" that is unrecoverable.
>a car cannot move on its own
Actually, self-driving cars are becoming a reality. But I think you've lost sight of the analogy.
>>1380700
What's useful about these beings having an inner life that, in some cases, can even lead to suicide? isn't that going the completely opposite direction of what your glorious utilitarian materialist universe is aiming for here? You haven't answered my question. Why aren't we p-zombies, beings with all the behaviors of conscious agents but none of the inner experience?
>consciousness exists because of its utility
materialist cucks actually believe this, just lel
>>1380700
Regardless, the energy that causes the life to live is separate from the body after death, as well as the mind. The body and mind have a physical decomposition, but the energy that caused the body and mind to operate is no longer evident. That is when something is legally pronounced dead. The energy that causes the heart to beat is not active in the body anymore. So this energy goes somewhere, and the mass of body and mind have more obvious physical decay
>>1380708
The computer would then be the consciousness of the car. Regardless, the car needs more than just fuel and working parts to operate. It needs a driver or a computer program.
Death is more than a malfunction of parts because the force that operates the body is no longer apparent in the body. The parts of the body are not being operated by the force that causes the heart to beat. The body is obviously dead, but the car can be fixed for it is not a living entity like people and animals.
A car is not a person so you have to use your mind to understand the analogy.
>>1380722
>What's useful about these beings having an inner life that, in some cases, can even lead to suicide?
That the "inner life" allows for complex social organization, problem solving, coordination of different individuals, etc. That this occasionally leads to suicide or other detrimental effects isn't much of a problem evolutionarily speaking, since overall across the entire population the benefits have outweighed the negatives. There are always tradeoffs. For example, bright feathers are good for to allow members of the same species to attract oneanother, but they are bad for camouflage.
>universe is aiming for here
The universe isn't aiming for anything.
>Why aren't we p-zombies, beings with all the behaviors of conscious agents but none of the inner experience?
While such a thing may be possible in theory, it may not have been possible as an extension of existing brain structures.
OP seems to think that his sterile and simple notion of how others view the physical world is the same as the way others actually view the physical world.
>>1380726
>but the energy that caused the body and mind to operate is no longer evident.
No longer evident does not mean no longer there. The actual energy may still be "waiting" in chemical bonds but unable to cycle to the intended destination, for example.
There is no other energy, unless you can prove it.
>>1380737
>The computer would then be the consciousness of the car. Regardless, the car needs more than just fuel and working parts to operate. It needs a driver or a computer program.
What point are your trying to make? That a self driving car is alive?
>Death is more than a malfunction of parts because the force that operates the body is no longer apparent in the body. The parts of the body are not being operated by the force that causes the heart to beat. The body is obviously dead, but the car can be fixed for it is not a living entity like people and animals.
There is no such "force that operates the body." When all the parts are working, it is alive. When a crucial part fails, it dies. We don't have the skill to repair individual cells at a molecular level, but if we could we could get it living again.
>A car is not a person so you have to use your mind to understand the analogy.
Indeed....
>>1380746
Nah m8, you literally said consciousness is "useful", which means it's useful FOR something, which means evolution has utility as a "goal", which means you're implying a telos, here.
Either matter self-organizes towards some aim or horizon, or it doesn't. You can't have it sloshing around forever and still have an intrinsic capacity for complexity and an inner world at the same time.
You literally can't tell me "consciousness is just what happened to have happened after billions of years of trial and error!!!" because, no shit, that's exactly what happened, so how did consciousness emerge from something so chaotic in the first place if subjectivity isn't as tied up with the nature of matter as you think?
>>1380631
Physicalism related to the word physics means that everything can be explined through physics.
materialism means that anything that exists can be empiricly varified.
>>1380758
It can be proven that there is another energy, and you can easily know it is available to you because we all have this same energy.
If one has the brains and right approach to this, then they can begin to check it out, but as for now, it is better not to leave the final answers up to people on the internet, whether they agree with you or not.
Grass can grow on its own, humans can move and grow on their own, ants can huddle up and walk around with food twice their size.
A car cannot pick up a person without some kind of program or person. A dead stick does not light itself on fire, rather a direct force and energy is required to make it happen.
>>1380768
>Nah m8, you literally said consciousness is "useful", which means it's useful FOR something,
Yes, it is useful for the survival of a species, which has nothing at all to do with the hypothetical intentionality of the universe.
>Either matter self-organizes towards some aim or horizon, or it doesn't.
Matter organizes according to characteristic behaviours. The self-organizations referred to as life self-organize to propogation. This, again, has nothing to do with the hypothetical intentionality of the universe.
>how did consciousness emerge from something so chaotic in the first place
Complex behaviour arises out of collections of simple agents and time. For example, the movement of a colony of bats is fairly complex, but each individual is following fairly simple rules. The combination of many allows for new properties to emerge. Conciousness is similar, and it took lots of time and pruning to actually emerge.
>implying morons on /his/ can tackle the problem of qualia.
Why do you have subjective experiences fags? If you are biological computer than the questrion is, how does a Personal computer experience its own functioning from within?
Why do we have an internal mental world and what the hell is it...How do neurons as seen in an MRI machine translate to subjective experience.
>>1380766
The car is only "alive" with the driver driving it. A self driving car is only driving the car because a person programmed the machine itself.
There is a force that operates the body. You breathe don't you? Your heart is beating, yes? You can type on a keyboard with your fingers, these are facts. So, it is obvious that we ourselves are the force that controls our self. It is what makes us a living entity, and the car just a machine.
And our cells repair themselves by themselves because they are a part of us. Cells divide themselves on their own, that means this tiny little form of life is doing something on its own accord.
>>1380784
That isn't an argument. If you don't have proof, just say so.
>>1380790
m8...
you still can't tell me why there is an inner experience of all these supposedly advantageous behaviors in the first place
"but m-muh brain structure" literally supports my point, you can't have a brain without a consciousness
if your reductionistic, sterile, fedora worldview is correct, you have utterly failed to account for the richness and depth of the qualitative spectrum of the material short of claiming everything but the survival advantage consciousness confers onto organisms is vestigial or extraneous, which would be a fedora so big it'd have its own gravity
>>1380800
It is not an argument, it is just an expression. The living proof you search for is your self, but because you trust someone else and their documentation, you do not trust yourself.
You are alive, and you are the energy that is you. You do not need proof when you are the proof yourself.
It is true, that living entities move on their own accord. It is true that inanimate objects needs some form of energy whether by human or nature in order to operate in some way.
Even at an atomic level, our lives in this body can be broken down into singular atoms grouped together, as well as trees and formations of wind patterns etc. If everything is of an atomic structure, everything is a vibration, therefore moving on its own accord.
>>1380816
>mfw autists are going to shart themselves reading this post and still shriek "PROOF? EVIDENCE?"
>>1380810
>How does your model account for my subjective judgments?
It does not nor does it have to.
>fedora
pic related
>>1380826
>this fucking bull fly in the ointment doesn't need to be addressed because it's 2016 and I'm automatically right and black science man said
Fuck off, the adults are talking
>>1380810
>you still can't tell me why there is an inner experience of all these supposedly advantageous behaviors in the first place
>>1380737
>complex social organization, problem solving, coordination of different individuals,
>>Why aren't we p-zombies, beings with all the behaviors of conscious agents but none of the inner experience?
>While such a thing may be possible in theory, it may not have been possible as an extension of existing brain structures.
>short of claiming everything but the survival advantage consciousness confers onto organisms is vestigial or extraneous, which would be a fedora so big it'd have its own gravity
Humans have been anatomically identical to their modern forms for a long time, where our brain and conciousness both evolved. It was designed to deal with, again, problem solving, tool use, and complex social organization. The things we continue to do today are largely extensions of this, but with the added advantage of cultural memories. It's not extraneous or vestigial, just a different application of the same fundamental machinery.
>>1380818
Well again, you are the energy that is your life. That isn't really all that ridiculous of a statement because it is obviously true that you operate your own life.
>>1380830
>fuck off the adults are talking
>ad hominem insults
How did my pic predict the future? explain that atheists!
>>1380832
Did you mean to green text a different post
>>1380594
>subjectivism exists ergo magic exists
Tell me more.
>>1380816
>It is true, that living entities move on their own accord. It is true that inanimate objects needs some form of energy whether by human or nature in order to operate in some way.
If you use "natural energy" to account for the movement of inanimate objects, it accounts for the movement of life also. All life requires a fairly constant input of external energy, be it directly from the sun or the breakdown of chemical bonds. In fact, without the output of external energy, the vast majority of life breaks down fairly quickly.
Atoms also do not vibrate of their own accord in this view, they are vibrating due to some history of being exposed to a source of energy. Of course, this is ultimately irrelevant to organic life, which "moves" due to we'll understood sources of mundane energy.
>>1380832
you know what? I'm tired of wasting my time with people like you who keep pasting ebin passages from dawkins, like I don't fucking know what evolution is or how it works yet.
You're not as smart or wise as you think you are. When you can wrap your head around the argument, which is how a universe that apparently is only supposed to be a soup of dead shit nonetheless inexplicably has it in itself to become the complete antithesis to a pool of dead shit exactly works, you keep pasting me this bullshit.
You don't get it. Come back when you do. Christ alfuckingmighty
>>1380594
>Either they're denying consciousness exists, or they're accepting the material has a mental, subjective aspect as well
Consciousness is nothing more than just experiencing the reality, and you're experiences are memories.
The only thing you're conscious of is what has happen to you and what's happening to you right now.
And memories are just neurotransmitters connecting
>>1380855
>which is how a universe that apparently is only supposed to be a soup of dead shit nonetheless inexplicably has it in itself to become the complete antithesis to a pool of dead shit exactly works
The universe isn't a pool of dead shit, as much of it was never a love in the first place. It is simply neutral, not the antithesis of life. Life itself, after all, is only possible because of certain properties of the universe. Magic is not one of those properties.
>>1380855
>Not an argument.
No one said the universe is dead, rather you supplied a spiritual interpretation of what being alive means and attack those who do not accept it as self evident.
>>1380852
>they are vibrating due to some history of being exposed to a source of energy.
Exactly. A SOURCE OF ENERGY. That original source would be the SOURCE OF ENERGY.
> Of course, this is ultimately irrelevant to organic life, which "moves" due to we'll understood sources of mundane energy.
All life cultivates off of all energies. There is no difference between mundane energy and a source of energy, because energy is organic, and all energy is literally always going to be classified as energy, no adjective need.
There is internal and external sources all forms of energy cultivate off of.
>>1380871
The distinction is between energy as it is understood and whichever spooky source of energy you are referring to when you talk about non-chemical sources of energy in a dying human or with statements like "energy is organic. "
>>1380866
>>1380865
No, since the OP, I said we don't have to posit a soul but we definitely have to posit the material as the substrate for consciousness, and that you arbitrarily privilege the material end of the spectrum over the qualitative because it's 2016 and it's cool to think nothing matters, without basing this on any, uh, material evidence.
While I won't deny evolution obviously benefits from consciousness, and consciousness is rooted (but not exactly equivalent to) the brain, when you're starting to make the assumption the universe is just some maximize utility machine you really have to explain why the fuck we're even aware of anything in the first place, then, which you all have failed to do so in a satisfactory manner besides just giving me the ebin 101 on evolution, havent ya heard XDDDD
>>1380861
>Consciousness is nothing more than just experiencing the reality,
The level of discourse on /his/, folks
>>1380670
>requires more explanation than "it's useful"
>requires more explanation than "it's useful"
>requires more explanation than "it's useful"
Why.
>>1380855
>soup of dead shit
>claims to understand evolutionary mechanics
>describes the universe as a fucking soup of "dead shit"
The only one not 'getting it' here is you.
>>1380866
>spiritual interpretation
Having a movie playing in our heads when literally nothing in our models says that should be the case besides "neurons light up, people report subjective changes in experience" is a "spiritual interpretation"? Family...
>>1380881
there are plenty of scientists and philosophers who accept the idea that consciousness is part of the material.
what evidence do you supply to counter this theory, either in terms of modern science or philosophy since you believe it is clearly wrong?
>>1380879
All things are energy and come from a source of energy. When the living entities body dies, the energy goes elsewhere. The body decays, but the energy that is in the body that causes it to be alive is no longer in the body. The mind also dies with the body. Both of these things eventually decay.
In no way is it ridiculous to say there is an energy that causes the living being to be alive, and in no way is it ridiculous to say that is leaves the body after death and goes some place else. You are talking about energy, something that is not apparently physical. It is the transformation of matter.
>>1380881
>when you're starting to make the assumption the universe is just some maximize utility machine
Nowhere has this claim been made. In fact I very specifically said "the universe" is not trying to maximize anything, and that there are always tradeoffs. I also said why we are aware of things.
It would be helpful if you would actually read and argue with posts rather than just react to some idea.
>>1380894
>nothing in our models says that should be the case
again, what are your sources on this?
>>1380881
You're literally strawmanning their arguments as 'the universe is a maximize utility machine' when in actuality their argument is that consciousness exists because, as you admitted, it is useful for the continued existence and propogation of the human race. This is because it arose from evolutionary processes. That's literally been their argument from the first post yet you insist on attacking this fictional person in your head.
As to why we're not preprogrammed zombies, that's because it is ALSO advantageous to be able to think and adapt to every unique situation.
>>1380899
>>1380884
>>1380884
Ahahah, ahahah, ahahahah, Oh my god I literally said like fucking 5 times an internal experience of these supposedly advantageous behaviors is completely extraneous to your position, and that all you're explaining is the empirical effects of intelligent behavior in the empirical world and not why we should even be aware of these behaviors in the first place, and you STILL don't get it.
>>1380899
You think science has solved the explanatory gap? You think an MRI of brain states tells me literally anything about the subjectivity it represents other than "shit's happening, idk lmao"?
>>1380896
>In no way is it ridiculous to say there is an energy that causes the living being to be alive, and in no way is it ridiculous to say that is leaves the body after death and goes some place else.
Of course. The energy that causes life is in chemical bonds (either ultimately sourced from the sun except in rare cases of chemoautotrophs) and, in death, becomes either heat or goes into different types of chemical bonds. At no point is there any mystery.
>>1380855
Fedoras have a fundamental issue with "getting it" because it immidiately creates a hole in their perfect physicalist idea of the world.
The problem of consiousness has been with us right from the beginning of the scinetiifc method. Leibnitz mentioned it, lock did, etc...
It is very possible that the scientific methodoloy by definition, as an "objective" methodology cannot solve the hard problem of consiousnes.
Nobody has a clue how to solve it, nobody even knows how to approach it and when solutions are suggested we cant even asses if they are indeed addressing the problem.
>>1380909
>why we should even be aware of these behaviors in the first place
Because, wait for it, it is useful.
>>1380906
As to why we're not preprogrammed zombies, that's because it is ALSO advantageous to be able to think and adapt to every unique situation.
fantastic, it's almost like what I said in the OP: that "everything is atoms lmao" doesn't say anything beyond "we're made of stuff lmao" because matter is both quantitative and dead on one end of the scale, and qualitative and alive on the other.
>>1380912
The sun helps sustain life but isn't the cause of the life. All parts are needed, oxygen, trees, the sun, water, we cultivate off of all forms of energy because we are of the same energy, since all energy comes from the same source.
There is no mystery, and the transformation of energy is not exclusive to a persons body decaying or their mind decaying with the body. Our soul is an energy that leaves the body and "goes someplace else" and where? We are the only individual perceiver of our own individual lives, so when I say we are the living proof, we literally see it, even now.
>>1380917
consciousness has propagated because it is useful, but that does not explain the phenomenon of consciousness itself you git unless you resort to some kind of version of panpsychism or naturalistic dualism
your reductionism is toothless. "what is consciousness, what's it doing here, what is it" "because it's useful for survival lmao" "Okay, that's how it got here, but what is IT, how do we account for it in our picture of matter, what does it say about matter" "because it's useful"
fucking christ
>>1380936
oh god he's saying the energy that goes into you through chemical reactions is the very same energy that makes up your consciousness, because without food and shit you'd fucking die and your energy would go away, ergo you are the energy and sustaining force of your body you fucking autist how hard is this to fucking get jesus christ what's in the water? what's in the fucking water? you're all fucking insufferable
>>1380931
>explain the phenomenon of consciousness itself y
An emergent property of neocortical growth designed to deal with specific functions, mostly social relationships and problem solving.
It doesn't say anything "about" matter, in the same way that ant pheromones say anything "about" matter.
>>1380931
What i dont get about panpsychicsm is that when the use anasthesia to numb a partt of my body, i dont feel it in any way.
i.e if a stone has some sort of esperience shouldnt my numb hand at least somehow experience the world just do to the facy my hand exists?
>>1380936
So you guys can ask for scientific evidence about the existence of a soul but use your own insulting posts on 4chan for your own credited citation?
>>1380941
If that is all he is saying, that the "us" is the non-spooky energy within the brain, there is no mystery about where it goes after death. It goes into heat and the decay process.
>>1380919
Actually, "matter" is always dead on its own, at the molecular level. The line between "alive" and "dead" on a cellular level is simply one of "functioning" and "not functioning". I see no reason not to apply this on a larger level to a human being. "Alive" is merely the state at which chemical reactions and synaptic exchanges are correctly functioning. When taken all together this results in our consciousness. There is no "alive" matter, just correctly functioning and malfunctioning in terms of an animal.
As to why? I'm not going to claim to know. Evolutionary processes would be my general guess but I'm not an expert.
>>1380942
No, I'm pretty sure matter coming the fuck alive and questioning what it is and what it's doing here says plenty about matter you mongoloid diaper-wearing autist
>>1380946
No, I use posts that insult me because they make my point better than I could. If you are going to posit something like a soul, at least give me something to google. Proof and evidence abounds.
>>1380953
It can be organized into systems of various complexity. Accounts for conciousness and ant pheromones just fine.
>>1380948
I am talking about the energy that leaves the living body when it dies, not the decay of the body or the mind. The energy that is you. The very fact in front of you is that you are a living entity yourself, capable of understanding that energy leaves your physical body when you die, and isn't some invisible soul, but rather the soul is energy itself, an ever transforming matter
>>1380951
Are we doing the whole "le consciousness don't real thing"? Yes, no shit consciousness has its basis in neurological activity, no it doesn't mean it's an "illusion" or whatever life-denying cuck shit you're trying to pull here by trying to frame the argument in such reductionistic terms. It's as real as anything.
Poor atheists cant even allow themsleves to understand what the hard problem of consousness is because if they do it will introduce the possibility that subjective experience might include something real that is nonethelss strictly personal and thus things like spiritual experience and a soul might find a way in.
>>1380958
Matter self-organizes into organisms with an inner life, wow, that's fucking amazing, why are you trying to devalue this? Do you think I don't know consciousness arises in complex, physical systems? Oh man.
>>1380960
>the energy that leaves the living body when it dies,
>the energy that goes into molecules characteristic of the decay of the body or the brain, plus heat
These are identical.
>>1380963
The fuck is your deal with strawmanning? Regardless, I don't have a life denying philosophy about consciousness not being """real""", whatever the fuck that means. You say consciousness has a basis in neurological activity, I say it IS the neurological activity. What suggests otherwise?
>>1380972
>Matter self-organizes into organisms with an inner life, wow, that's fucking amazing, why are you trying to devalue this?
I'm not, I am describing it accurately. It is you who are saying that without magic it must be worthless.
>>1380956
You are the proof and evidence. The soul is energy, not some invisible non-existence, but it is described this way because it is energy. Energy is transformations of matter, and energy is not always visible to human senses, like the oxygen is in front of us. We see it, but we can't see it.
The energy that causes the living entity life leaves the body, that is when the body dies because the energy that is required to keep the body alive is no longer apparent in the body, because it went somewhere else.
It is not separate from science. You could calculate the "soul" and the "energy" that causes life. The body and the mind will decay, but the force that is within you, the force that is you, that is what is causing your life right now. It is not separate from scientific discovery
>>1380909
Saying something does not make it true, I can just as simply say your wrong.
>>1380974
The energy that leaves the body and the brain, not the decay of the body and brain
Humans function in a non causal way.
>>1380980
>The energy that causes the living entity life leaves the body, that is when the body dies because the energy that is required to keep the body alive is no longer apparent in the body, because it went somewhere else.
People generally die because the function of an essential organ is disrupted, not because "energy leaves the body. " Unless you are defining the soul as anything that successfully keeps the supply of oxygen and glucose flowing to the brain.
>>1380983
How do you think decay happens?
>>1380983
Where is this energy? how do you know its there? and why should I believe you when you tell me its there?
What are the properties of this energy and how do you know them?
>>1380975
Your explanation doesn't answer anything, other than "if matter is complex enough POOF you get consciousness".
Your posts have no explanatory power.
There's no reason to assume playing with electrochemical gradients in the brain should produce consciousness BASED on only information of those gradients alone, but here we are anyways.
Your posts have no explanatory power.
You do not get this. At all.
It's like if I asked what makes a symphony beautiful and you started talking about subharmonics and fucking music theory 101. No shit, it's a product of these things but not these THINGS themselves, or else I should hear a Mozart aria just by flipping through my fucking music theory textbook.
Your posts have no explanatory power.
You do not get this. You will never get it.
You're not telling me what consciousness is or how exactly the qualitative is determined beyond neurological data, you keep pointing to me where it's located. That doesn't help me. It doesn't answer anything. At all.
>>1380991
>I believe in magic
gah, you christfags...
>>1380991
No one can understand or describe - in detail - the fucking process behind consciousness, is that what you're looking for? Guessing that it's some magic "life force" shit doesn't help anything, it's intellectually dishonest to posit something with nothing to suggest it's the truth based on "well it answers the question ;)"
A possible answer to "why is the sky blue?" is "pixie dust is blue, fairies fly high in the sky and get their pixie dust all over the place." That has """explanatory power""" but is fucking wrong and idiotic.
>>1380986
That is the thing too. The body also decays, but the body is still alive. The final decay of the body that causes it to die is also the same cause that causes the soul / living energy to leave the body.
So if an organ fails, the body dies, therefore the soul / energy leaves. Some organs fail, but the body stays alive. Some people are resilient to when a doctor says "you should have died" when actually something supernatural about your living energy and will kept you alive.
A grass will eventually turn brown, but it is a process of turning brown, and when it finally loses it's life force, then you could consider the grass dead, when all of the energy keeping it alive is no longer present.
>>1380991
>"if matter is complex enough POOF you get consciousness".
No, of matter is complex enough and arranged in a specific way, you get poof conciousness, similarly to how if matter is complex enough and arranged in another specific way you get poof a solar system.
>There's no reason to assume playing with electrochemical gradients in the brain should produce consciousness BASED on only information of those gradients alone, but here we are anyways.
The concept of an emergent property is well understood. Again, the organization of steel and wood forms a house, but wood and steel alone and unorganized does not predict "house"-ness.
>It's like if I asked what makes a symphony beautiful and you started talking about subharmonics and fucking music theory 101. No shit
So literally the correct answer.
>else I should hear a Mozart aria just by flipping through my fucking music theory textbook.
Well no, because eyes are not ears.
>You're not telling me what consciousness is
Emergent property of neocortical growth designed to deal with social organization and problem solving. Here it is.
>>1381006
No, that wouldn't either, nice strawman though. Wow, it's almost as if snide, reductionistic drivel doesn't answer shit and you should all give it a fucking rest already?
>>1381006
>my sides
You really dont understand what he is talking about do you.
This is some kind of accute autistic syndrom.
>>1380988
It isn't how one person thinks decay happens, it just does. Atoms scientifically can break down and turn into different formations.
>>1381009
There is no compelling reason to believe any of that.
>>1381015
Lel. Oh man.
Why do neurons become aware of themselves and solar systems don't? My phone's pretty complex, is it aware of itself?
>>1381015
It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.
>>1381023
>Why do neurons become aware of themselves and solar systems don't?
Because the organization is different. This is like asking why water falls in waterfalls but doesn't in a puddle.
> My phone's pretty complex, is it aware of itself?
No, because the organization is wrong.
>>1381019
stop using reductionist as an insult if you cant even supply a reason why reductionism is bad.
Saying science does not explain something in no way proves the necessity of of spirits.
>>1381009
>Some people are resilient to when a doctor says "you should have died" when actually something supernatural about your living energy and will kept you alive.
That's more evidence of an overworked and under informed doctor than the supernatural.
>>1380990
You are the energy man 420 blaze itttttt.
No but in all seriousness, the energy is inside of all living beings. The energy is in all material objects. This energy does not need to be separate from science. When science decides the correct procedure, then they can give you the limited definition you are looking for.
The only things can say is this, the energy of soul is energy itself, and is not separate from scientific discovery. Also this is not a ridiculous "life-force soul power" hippy nonsense, it can actually be researched. It isn't completely illogical to say energy can leave the body after it dies.
>>1381020
Nice argument.
>>1381019
Yeah, "reductionist drivel" doesn't answer shit, nothing answers shit in regards to the ultimate explanation behind consciousness, dumbass. My question is: why propose that it's anything OTHER THEN physical shit besides
>b-but I don't like that answer because it doesn't explain everything
Welcome to humanity, we don't have all the answers.
>>1381032
I've supplied a reason why reductionism is bad...
Because I've amply established reductionism can't answer what it proposes to reduce, namely the subjective dimension of existence...
Even the fucking guy I was arguing with admitted he couldn't explain the process in detail.
"Supplying a reason for why reductionism doesn't work" is literally what I've been doing this whole time you autistic little mong
>>1381030
Ah, so organization. So if I organized some muscle fibers in the same way brains are organized, it'd become conscious right?
>>1381026
>Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?
Why would it be impossible? We have plenty of reason to believe it is adaptive, and we observe it.
>>1381022
Look at it this way
IF the organ fails, THEN the body dies.
WHEN the body dies, THEN the energy that operated the body is no longer existing in the body.
It isn't about who believes it or not, and it isn't about opinion, nor is it about the limitation of science that can't process these simple ideas because ultimately, we are the ones that are the perceiver of the energy. When our body dies, then as the living energy, we will see what happens. We are the living energy now, we will be this living energy after we leave the body, for the soul is energy as well, if you were to add a scientific approach to this, then you could see how very logical this all is.
>>1381043
>reductionism is bad because it lets things like evidence and the scientific method bog it down and thus doesn't propose to have all the answers
>this magic life force hypothesis makes me feel better because it proposes to have all the answers! Therefore, this is obviously the more useful answer.
>>1381037
Wow, thanks for pretty much proving my OP right, which is: you can't explain the whole strictly by the behavior of its parts. And that matter is both little particles and subjectivity, and to privilege the particles over that subjectivity because 2016 NIHILISM IS EBIN XDD is fucking retarded and philosophically unsound.
>>1381043
>So if I organized some muscle fibers in the same way brains are organized, it'd become conscious right?
To organize muscle fibres the way neurons are organized, you would have to find a way to turn them from muscle fibers into neurons. And if you successfully organized neurons into a brain then yes, it would be concious provided it had access to oxygen, glucose, water, stimuli (covered under "organization" but I can tell this will be an objection).
>>1381052
I've never posited a magic life force. All I've said is that how you describe the material at the atomic and molecular level can't explain shit at the qualitative, conscious level.
You're all fedora dipshits and you should go back to fucking school.
>>1381034
Still, survival instincts and force of will should be taken a note of.
Even the most educated doctor in this case can miss out on something important. Same for scientists, same for the religious. So to just pass off something because "it cannot make sense according to.." you need to step back for a second and just observe your self and examine the force of your own life
>>1381043
That is not what reductionism is.
At this point I think we should just start saging so we stop encouraging you.
>>1381056
So.
Which is it, the organization or the neurons? Because if it ain't the organization, it's some property of the neurons themselves right? How do they give rise to a subjective experience? How can a bundle of neurons be talking about itself right now?
I don't DENY this is happening in some way, I'm saying your explanation doesn't go fucking far enough.
>>1381049
>THEN the energy that operated the body is no longer existing in the body.
Again, yes it is. It goes into the molecules in the decay process. The ATP that maintained chemo-electric gradients that allowed for neurons to fire which allowed you to have a thought go into lower-energy bonds and release heat.
>>1381062
>the practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation.
and I said talking about neurons says nothing fundamental about consciousness except its structural substrate. are you fucking slow?
>>1381063
>Which is it, the organization or the neurons?
It is the organization of matter into a specific bundle of neurons rather than a specific bundle of muscle fibre.
>How do they give rise to a subjective experience? How can a bundle of neurons be talking about itself right now?
A self-modifying network of activation, reinforcement, and inhibition.
>>1381065
the whole point of drawing attention to the explanatory gap is to draw attention to the fact that trying to explain the subjective by objective, mechanistic processes is doomed from the start
but you autists just double down and start drooling about that science pie in the sky
nigga please
>>1381076
You know what? I'm tired of repeating myself. You don't get it.
>>1381077
>the whole point of drawing attention to the explanatory gap is to draw attention to the fact that trying to explain the subjective by objective, mechanistic processes is doomed from the start
Aren't you the one calling others life-denying and defeatist? "It's difficult, therefore impossible" hasn't stopped many prior advancements.
>>1381068
The energy that leaves the body, not the body's chemical decomposition. Same for the neurons, we are not talking about the brain, but the energy that leaves the body and brain.
>>1381086
PRAISE SCIENCE
SO EBIN XDDD
I MEAN WHAT IS THIS, THE DARK AGES???
>>1381077
>trying to explain the subjective by objective, mechanistic processes is doomed from the start
The fuck are you even trying to say here? Of course we can explain the subjective by objective, mechanistic processes. That's almost the entire basis of psychology. You seem to have a hate-boner for empirical science, friend.
>>1381096
>psychology
>explaining anything
lel
psychology is trash
>>1381094
Feel free to throw out whichever device you are using to write these posts, then. Creating computers was difficult, thus it is clearly impossible.
>>1381094
>when the bait finally runs dry anon has to resort to this
>>1381097
Alright, good to know you were just baiting and/or talking out of your ass this whole time.
>>1381097
While there are many fields of psychology that are not fruitful, there have been results into into the study of cognition, perception, and linguistics (for example, theMcGurk effect) that are difficult to dispute.
>>1381104
>dude just like, don't think bad thoughts lmao
>dude learned helplessness lmao
psychology is watered-down practical philosophy
even the founder of cbt admitted he ripped off the stoics
trash, trash, trash
>>1381090
There is an energy that causes the body and mind to operate, when this body dies, the energy leaves. All living forms of life perceive the energy because they are that energy.
In detail, you are the liver of your life, to get more information, contact the source, and since all energy comes from one source, the essence inside of each of us is the best place to start. It is important to find the self by the self.
You can mediate, and while your answer and insight may not even be in literal definitions and sentences, you will actually feel the force of life within side you beyond words.
>>1381110
>look at me, I'm cherrypicking examples to dismiss an entire field of science I clearly know nothing about!
>I'm also derailing the original discussion!
I can meme arrow too, anon.
>>1381121
the ebin dawkins lectures were getting old
while obviously not completely worthless, psychology is trash for actual soul-searching and introspection and y'know, treating problems like actual problems rooted in one's subjectivity and not fucking muh chemical imbalances
>>1381128
>dawkins lectures were getting old
Again, you should really learn how to actually read the posts you are disagreeing with rather than argue with an invented opponent in your head.
>>1381128
What the fuck are you even on about.
You can explain the subjective with the objective. Psychology is basically founded on that tenet. You haven't refuted it in any way besides vague claims of soul searching and introspection.
>>1381119
So how is the spooky energy different from the actual energy that allows for brain function?
>>1381135
>vague claims
it's always 'vague' and 'unsubstantiated' and 'baseless' and 'subjective' and shit to you autists
>this thread
>>1381140
Alright now you actually are baiting for (You)'s. I'm gonna stop indulging you since you clearly don't understand the basis of any discussion or argument.
>>1381136
All energy is energy. Body, mind, and soul are three different forms of energy, and yet they are all energy. The body, the mind, and the soul are three different masses, three different formations of energy, yet still energy. Just like water:
H20 is ice, H20 is water, H20 is vapor. The same way the body is energy, and water is energy and the soul is energy. They are just different formations of energy.
>>1381142
i dont really care desu
>>1381145
same way mind is energy*** no water
>>1381145
That doesn't answer the question, in addition to being vague (our friend's least favorite word, apparently). But sure, let's use this example. Liquid water and ice are both H2O, but the specific difference between them are the strengths of the bonds between molecules of H2O. What is the specific difference between the chemical and electric energy that allows for brains to function, compared with spooky energy?
Observation of the outside world is mechanistic, and is the physical acting out of the our internal non causal will.
We act as a result of a made descison, and these pruposfull acts are already goal oreinted.
This is the world of science and observation and prediciton, the world of intentional action meant to achieve a prethought goal.
But our internal world, the one making the descisions is not goal oriented, it is the goal maker. our will is non causal but the acting out of our will is limited by physical reality.
Our will is non causal is a result of how we interact with the outside world but our intner world cannot be broken into measurable parts or any parts at all and thus it cannot be causal by definition. It is the determinator and it is free.
>>1381158
All energy is energy. Energy operates the body and mind and there is energy in the body and mind.
Energy also exists outside of the body and mind, and since energy is a formation / power of mass, you could logically consider that energy leaves the body after death. That is the energy of life, the cause of life is an energy that has a source.
The soul is an energy. So if you consider that when making scientific hypothesis, then you can see how logical it is to say the energy of life is energy, and the energy that leaves the body and mind allows the body and mind to dissipate and decay.
We know the body and mind are temporary, but since matter is not created or destroyed, it goes through series of change. So the life we have now, the one we percieve, is the living entity we are, we are energy
>>1381176
>that energy leaves the body after death
Yes, it does, in the form of altered chemical bonds and heat. Thisisapparebtly not enough an explanation for you. What is this other spooky energy, where does it go, specifically.
>not created or destroyed
No spooky energy, yes. If you're saying the conservation of energy applies to the soul, do other non-spooky considerations also apply to it? Then should it not be detectable the way other sources are, and enter/leave systems in similarly detectable ways? Shouldn't there be a hole somewhere in the energy budget when considering a dead body?
>>1380944
I think it is because we experience just our brains, or each matter element of the brain, but if so, how is that we have an unified experience of the world, instead of countless experiences of each particle of the brain?
>>1381200
You are the direct percieve of where the energy goes when you pass from this life.
You are your best witness, as a living beings you are the proof
The energy that is not the decay of the body or minds the energy that leaves the body, the soul, the energy that is energy. It is not seperate from scientific discovery.
>>1381223
>It is not seperate from scientific discovery.
Then we should be able to discover it, scientifically.
>>1381233
It is not impossible. Science is a limited instruments and won't ever find out where to start if they pass off every notion of soul as "absurd"
>>1381245
Exactly opposite. Someone needs to provide a non-absurd/magic concept of the soul that can be measured. Vagueries about undetectable energies don't cut it.
>>1381259
Everything is an energy. If you say the energy can leave the body, that isn't something you can't prove scientifically.
It is completely logical to understand if you see the soul as an energy rather than absurb and magic.
>>1381265
>It is completely logical to understand if you see the soul as an energy rather than absurb and magic.
Except every property you've attributed to spooky energy is magic, instead of operating like actual energy. You going back and forth about whether it should be detectable scientifically is evidence that it is inconsistent and poorly defined, rather than a specific concept like actual energy.
>defining 'soul' as energy that can leave your body
this reminds me of some fiction book I've read where they 'proved' souls by measuring a slight weight decrease in a sealed container where a person died.
So you think that the soul exists as some sort of 'energy' in your body and it's not stored in chemical reactions? What then, electrical energy in the neural system? Kinetic energy through your muscles? What other energies can we possibly have in us?
>>1381277
Energy can leave the body. Atoms replace themselves all the time. It isn't illogical you can't cut yourself off from it. You are a living entity, it is that simple it is a scientific fact that living beings are alive.
When they die it is logical to say that energy that keeps us alive leaves the body.
>>1381287
The body and mind deteriorate, and when it dies the life force leaves the body. The life force is an energy so is the body and so is the mind, but the life force energy leaves the body and the mind.
It is not illogical to say it goes somewhere, and since we are the life force, we percieve what happens to it after we leave this body.
I'mma let you finish, but this thread is on a totally inadequate board, y'all.
You guys should just move to /lit already, you will find people there are a lot more cooperative, for one.
>>1381293
You seem to be conflating energy and force, the latter is derivative of the former so you can't say 'life force is an energy' because it makes no sense.
Energy is a real measurable quantity, and it exists in various forms in the human body. The closest thing to a 'life force' that we have would be the electrical potential energy stored in the neural system. Is that what you are describing?
>>1381298
This sort of discussion can go on /his/, /lit/ or /sci/ IMO, and people are being plenty cooperative, just disagreeing to some degree.
>>1381288
>When they die it is logical to say that energy that keeps us alive leaves the body.
Only if you have a logical reason to propose this spooky energy's existence in the first place, have a mechanism for how it affects us and leaves after death, and how it does so separately from the actual energy that allows for brain function.
>>1381310
Everything is energy. The body and mind are energies, and so is the force that allows us to operate the body and mind. When this energy leaves, the body and mind will deteriorate completely.
It is very logical to say that there is a life force energy because when a body dies, you can tell that energy is no longer their. That's all, it is very logical. The body and mind are longer operated when this energy leaves, and the body and mind decays and the energy that we are that is the reason we exist isn't seperate from energy which is composed of matter and light.
>>1381317
The logical reason is that this life force is energy and it is the cause of us living our life. When we die, this energy is then seperate from the body and the mind. It is in no way illogical.
>>1381326
Body and mind are no longer*
>>1381326
Well yes everything is matter and energy (interchangeable, etc) so obviously when we die and stop moving there is less energy and the matter decays. It happens because the processes which generate brain activity (neural networks) aren't powered by the chemical reactions which happen with digestion, circulation, etc
Calling this a 'life force energy' is just an abstraction of the process. It says nothing about a 'soul', unless you're just defining soul as the normal energy patterns which occur in the body in a variety of forms. It's basically just the standard materialist perspective using a nonsensical term that combines 'force' and 'energy' which are two different physical concepts.
>>1381355
Again not the brain, and not the body. The energy that leaves the body. The energy that is you, the energy that is your life.
Soul is energy, force is energy, if you discredited it then you will make no scientific advancement.
>>1381371
I am my brain and my body though, and it's being maintained by energy that I supply to it via food. There's chemical energy from various reactions, electric energy that's generated in the nerves, kinetic energy that's generated through the contractions of the muscles. The combination of all of these is my 'life energy'. There is nothing else aside from these measurable energy quantities. It's going to leave my body when I die because the normal processes that sustain it will stop.
>force is energy,
ENERGY IS THE CAPACITY TO DO WORK AKA APPLY A FORCE.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
>>1381388
You are not the body, you are not the mind. The life of each person is the energy operating the body and mind. This energy leaves the body after death.
Energy and force are synonymous for both talk about a required amount of strength. Energy is a force, force is an energy.
What is it about intellectual midgets that makes them so attracted to the material/immaterial distinction?
There's nothing interesting about it
>>1381333
Again, you don't have any reason or evidence to imply that spooky energy exists separate from non-spooky chemo-electric energy in the brain, nor any mechanism for how it would work. At this point we're just repeating ourselves though, so te conversation is at a dead end.
>>1381403
You should really take a physics class, 'energy' and 'force' are two distinct terms that refer to different concepts.
>>1381405
Understanding the world through material monoism vs dualism leads to different conclusions about actions, morality, potentially history. It's a pretty important distinction to make. Also coming into the thread with a condescending open ended question without replying to anyone is borderline shitposting
>>1381429
>Also coming into the thread with a condescending open ended question without replying to anyone is borderline shitposting
There is nothing borderline about Constantine's shitposting.
>>1380594
This whole thread, at some point you should realize there is on point in engaging someone, Like when their argument rests on some undefinable energy that permeates live
>>1381426
The reason to believe it exists it because we are that energy. When we die we are this energy. You can look for "proof" everywhere outside of yourself but you yourself are the living proof
>>1381429
Either way you are not your body and you are not your mind. Your body and mind are yours but the energy that sustains them is the life force.
>>1381436
It can easily be defined but science is a limited measurement that does not have the ability to seek out a matter because they deny anything they cannot percieve with their five senses.
It is not undefinable energy, it is an energy that causes the life, and operate the body and mind. It is simple and not illogical to say we are an energy that is alive.
When you see a dead body, the body and brain are there but the life in the body is not there it goes somewhere else.
>>1381453
>they deny anything they cannot percieve with their five senses.
Well they dont, they have machines that can detect things the senses cant.
unless you have a magic sixth sense the rest of us lack, it which case I would advise you to take this to /x/ where you'll fine alot of people to agree with you
>>1381465
They also don't have machines that can detect these things. You could literally see soul and a formation of particles and energy that cause the body to be alive. It is not the body, it is not the mind, but a formation of matter and energy that is always changing eternally.
Scientifically it is a very easy thing to approach.
You'll see religious people say it is heretical to call the soul an energy, and you'll have scientific people say it is absurd to call the soul an energy, and both are equally stupid
>>1381474
Soul as a * formation not and
Energetic conception of soul = Religious conception of soul
There, i said it. I mean, it is OK to believe the soul is composed of some sort of matter we don't know yet, but explanations of that sort hold no more merit than just assuming the soul is supernatural or something.
Just swapping the terms "magic" for "energy" does not make your theories any more viable, anons.
>>1381501
Of course it does. What we a
are saying here is that there is an energy (soul) that is scientifically valid because energy of life is energy, and energy and matter are interchangable ->>1380668
You need energy to operate the body and mind. That is the life energy. We are literally the living proof of this energy because we exist. It is in no way seperate from scientific discovery
>>1381524
>It is in no way seperate from scientific discovery
>scientific discovery
Wich one, anon?
>>1381544
All three. Mind body and soul are all energies that can be backed up by science. If your scientists cannot grasp the idea that the soul is an energy it is because they are in denial of every hypothesis of the spirit because they believe objective reality is of the five senses, and they deny all spiritual knowledge because it is simply "absurd" Yet Einstein and Tesla would both agree that in order to find the nature of this soul and an energy that there would be logical scientific steps you can take to begin this process
>>1380632
>So why the fuck should your definition of matter be as sterile, dead, and life-denying as "dude like particles, like dude lmao"?
so calling it particles is bad because you get sad when you hear it?
>>1381559
>Mind body and soul are all energies that can be backed up by science
source please
>>1380610
Why are you offended by reality?
>comfortable things make me happy
>uncomfortable things make me sad
>therefore we must prefer comfortable fictions over uncomfortable facts
This is your logic, OP
>>1380746
I love you.
>>1380653
Bad example.
>>1382149
You are a piece of source.
If you trust others before your self, you may never find it.
>>1382991
ok, i think its bullshit, i guess im correct because theres no better source than me
>>1382347
>Bad example.
How so? Seems like a perfect illustration of how the post it replies to is stupid.
>>1383903
The source of energy that is your life is a form of energy just like the energy in the mind and body.
That's all, you live your own life, living proof that energy is needed to operate the body and mind. You can scientifically analyze energy leaving the body after death with the right equipment. It is totally logical
>>1382347
You may have misread the example in not sure how it was worded exactly.
But the thing that seperated the car and the person is that the car cannot consciously move on its own and needs some energy (driver or computer program) in order to function.
It is LIKE a personnel because in order to operate the body and the mind, there is a required force of energy. Without it, the body and mind will decay, and the energy that is the life of the body is no longer there because the body would be alive if it was.
>>1384141
It's right here though. What you guys consider /x/ material and /his/ material honestly why does it matter? The thread will pass away eventually, it is an Internet forum. You don't need to make a big deal about it because what is actually important to you?
>>1380594
>Just what are materialists saying, really?
nothing, since they cant define matter properly in the first place.
Is just like contemporary naturalism. Everybody claims to be one yet disagree on what naturalism actually means, making spooky positions like "naturalistic dualism" become acceptable.
>>1384985
top kek btfo
This thread made me mad, good job.
>>1383914
>The source of energy that is your life is a form of energy
our life isnt the source of energy, we get life by applying energy (food, exygen etc.) to our bodies
>like the energy in the mind and body.
ok you went full retard yet again, please define energy, you cant just use one word for everything and then expect it to make coherent sense
>>1384194
>why does it matter?
Because some people are trying to have a serious discussion, but you keep replying to every post with new age bullshit.
>>1380638
To say that we have consciousness because it is useful is only partially true, that is to say it's only a half truth. The fact that we have consciousness is merely incidental.
It just so happened that organisms that could learn to manipulate their environment to improve their survival chances and improve their reproductive success also happened to be the same organisms that lie awake at night and wonder what it is to be alive as they listen to the wind rushing around them and stare at the vastness of the universe blinking away above their heads. We are not conscious because consciousness is useful, we are conscious because the traits that just happen to be associated with consciousness happened to make our ancestors very successful.
Ascribing intelligent selection to evolution is much like ascribing morality to the weather. It might make you feel better, but your understanding of what is actually going on will be severely impaired. Natural selection doesn't select creatures with positive traits so much as it destroys actively detrimental or noncompetitive ones.
>>1386368
>We are not conscious because consciousness is useful, we are conscious because the traits that just happen to be associated with consciousness happened to make our ancestors very successful.
While this is a potential explanation, there is also reason to believe that conciousness in the form of metacognition and linguistics is specifically adaptive.
