ITT: We solve the mind-body problem
>The mind–body problem is the problem of explaining how mental states, events and processes—like beliefs, actions and thinking—are related to the physical states, events and processes, given that the human body is a physical entity and the mind is non-physical.
If you come here and spam neural correlates of consciousness you will be immediately disregarded as an complete ignorant on the subject.
>>234683
God preordained that our mental states would correspond to our physical states.
Hope that clears that up for you.
>>234711
Fucked up ontology, try again.
Every physical state has a correlate mental state. Complexity of electromagnetic activity is proportionally related to complexity of the mental state.
Based panpsychism
Consciousness has been explained:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkaS5JWZ1hY
>>234798
>it's just neurons lmfao
>>234798
Sooo... Where was the explanation?
>>234798
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5baL9oh430
>>234683
The mind is physical in the same way lightning is physical. It is said that "what the mind forgets, the body remembers" because your neural transmitters leave a physical imprint on their charges.
Massage can be a link to healing your so-called mind/body conundrum.
>>234965
22mins - he talks about Dennett.
>>234711
Who/what the fuck is God and how does he/she ordain the way our mental states behave? And what evidence is there for this?
>>234683
Body consciousness is a function of mind.
I fail to see the problem.
>>234683
Don't know about mind, but I would "solve" her body if you understand me
Well, "problems" are always a red flag, you should always start by taking a reflex hammer to those who pose them, in this case, Europeans. Eastern philosophy seems not to have acquired this sickness.
Secondly, you have yet to properly establish what the difference is or even show proof of a difference between mental and physical. Define your terms.
>>235033
This.
>>234683
The mind is an emergent structure based on interactions within the brain, you fucking faggot. There is no problem.
>but why is the internet related to my computer?
Double aspect theory
>>236303
>how, precisely, do physical states translate into mental events?
>mental events arise out of complex physical states you fucking faggot
Round and round we go family
>>234711
This tbqh family
>>234683
>the mind is non-physical
>>236415
So we're matter hallucinating we're conscious? What? Isn't that just panpsychism, since there would be no difference between us and a rock?
>>236501
>anime reactions in a philosophy thread
opinion discarded
>>236505
>So we're matter
As opposed to what?
>hallucinating we're conscious?
I would prefer "experiencing" to hallucinating. We experience time and space, a limited spectrum of sound/light, etc, yet that isn't proof those "exist" or are all that exist, or that there is a difference between them, etc.
>since there would be no difference between us and a rock?
Think how just recently ago people like you would have been mad at the notion "there would be no difference between us and a monkey?"!
>>236585
*think how recently ago
>>236585
I'm not contesting it, actually, just trying to see where this is different from pan-psychism, which it doesn't sound it is. So matter and consciousness are intrinsically linked.
Those are my views as well. We are in agreement after all. Good day to you anon.
>>236585
What physical law is responsible for "experiencing"?
>>236386
A mental event is a physical state, when your eyes react to light they release chemicals which causes the optic nerve to fire off. This chemical signal arrives at the brain where other extremely complex chemical signals analyse, store, and send a response back. If we perfectly understood human anatomy we could simulate any signal going to the brain. Everything is matter even ideas need to be stored in matter whether they a computer chip or the brain.
>>236505
well fundamentally rocks and people are made from the same stuff.
>>236505
>we're matter hallucinating we're conscious
This. This statement.
I know you may not mean it here. But I swear I've seen it before, numerous times.
It almost seems like an oxymoron. How can awareness be hallucinated? Doesn't hallucination imply awareness?
>>236646
No one's arguing this is the case, but the exact mechanism still hasn't been fully explained, or at least so intuitively that a layman can grasp it.
You actually need to reach the first stage of enlightenment to understand that mind and mind object are like oil and water in the same bottle.
People who don't meditate make the mistake to see the six kinds of consciousness as self, but they are fabrications, mind objects.
The buddhsit awnser is quite simple, mind precedes all things and the body is a result of the minds own craving for inherent existence.
>>236646
The problem with this explanation is even if we could perfectly model the brain/body, including behavior as a result of physical processes, it wouldn't help explain how these mechanisms translate to an experience.
There could just as easily be a body and behavior without a mental experiencing.
>>236665
Well I mean for the most part we have, it is just the inherent complexity of the system that causes a problem. For example we can pretty much perfectly map the whole nervous system of a conch,but that is because it only has 100 or so nuerons.
here is a good text book if you want to learn more
FROM NEURON TO BRAIN
>>236714
Yes it would we would see have the nerves in your body change and send signals which constitute your "experience".
>>236610
Some humans claim "there is something that it is to be a human" (called conciousness, experience, or subjectivity) but the only evidence to provide for that claim is subjective. Some humans also claim "there isn't anything that there is to be a rock" but have no basis for that claim at all.
>in before arguments from incredulity
>>236743
>send signals which constitute your "experience".
Knowing how experience changes relative to changing nerve signals (or whatever combination of physical processes are involved) still doesn't give a way of how those nerve signals actually make up experience.
We observe A (changes in the nervous system).
We observe B (reports of changes in experience).
We observe that whenever A, then B,
and whenever B, A precedes B.
So we infer A causes B, or is at least correlated to B.
But this doesn't tell us how A is related to, or possibly causing B.
At this point using neural correlates as an explanation of how the mind exists is hand-wavy, it boils down to "magic".
>>234965
>muh qualia
>>236824
It's funny that you call your consciousness "subjective evidence" when consciousness is the only objective reality you've ever experienced, all your models of reality were built within it, including the one which absurdly concludes that what is outside of it is actually real and the only real experience you ever had is not.
>>236934
A and B are the same thing changes in your nervous system are your experience there is separation between them. Are you really going to argue that it boils down to magic. You are the one claiming their is this mystical entity called the self that unlike everything in the universe is somehow separated from the physical universe.
>>236997
>consciousness is the only objective reality you've ever experienced
being aware of awareness, or conscious of consciousness doesn't ground it in objectivity - it may demonstrate that a quirky recursive loop thing going on in the brain.
>...what is outside of it is actually real and the only real experience you ever had is not.
I'm skeptical of everything, not just my own conciousness
>>234683
>implying that there is a mind-body "problem" in the first place
weed dude lmao
>>236934
>At this point using neural correlates as an explanation of how the mind exists is hand-wavy, it boils down to "magic".
Are you seriously proposing that scientific knowledge is so lacking here that your posts on 4chan are pushing the boundaries forward?
>>236501
Weeb pls
Here's a common criticism of skepticism of consciousness:
"Daniel Dennet says that consciousness is an illusion, yet he’s using his conscious mind to make that statement so his argument is self-refuting"
This is one of the most egregious "intuition pumps" out there. It considers a claim by Dennet, and rejects it as false because it JUST MUST BE FALSE! It doesn't consider a number of alternatives, including the possibility that Dennet is a p-zombie.
>>237011
I'm not making any claims about any kind of self and its origin.
I'm claiming that any description of the mind (experience/qualia) as being caused by neural relationships is, right now, inadequate and boils down to:
Step 1: Physical processes
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Experience
It may be true, but it makes huge assumptions.
Stop being a dualist.
>>234683
>The mind is non physical
Try again
>Physical states
Well we have some of these down, you can use a temporal coding to get the muscles to work
>Mental states
Too fucking complex we need better computers and better non invasive methods for smaller scale neural observation
That said, we've had some cool new results these last few years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
>Inb4 muh neural correlates cant possibly describe the depth of my brain
I thing 100 billion neurons should be more than enough for whatever you think you're doing with them.
>>237192
Tbh are you just saying that or have you actually lifted a finger to engage with the extensive literature on neural networks, emergence, complex systems and networks more generally?
More to the point, your argument here on the whole is identical to the creationist idea that evolution cannot be considered an origin for humans until the fossil record is complete, and so until that time, we must keep debating the creation of man.
The danger in all direct questioning of the subject (e.g. me) about the subject, and all self-contemplation of the mind, is that it could be useful and important for the subject's activity (survival, evolution) to misinterpret itself. This is why we ask the body, and reject the testimony of the sharpened senses: we try, so to speak, to see whether the subordinated themselves can't take up communication with us.
>>236633
Again, show that there is "no experiencing" and a difference between that and experiencing.
>>236690
Read the thread, then define your terms, life-denier.
>>236824
Exactly.
>>236934
>>236997
The hypocrisy in these posts is lovely.
>>237284
>Tbh are you just saying that or have you actually lifted a finger to engage with the extensive literature on neural networks, emergence, complex systems and networks more generally?
I'm generally familiar with neural networks and emergence. I'm not sure that a model of learning describes how experience relates to matter, no matter how accurately it models learning.
>More to the point, your argument here on the whole is identical to the creationist idea that evolution cannot be considered an origin for humans until the fossil record is complete, and so until that time, we must keep debating the creation of man.
Is it? My argument would be more like a claim against evolution if we had no way to explain it's being implemented (ie genetic mutation and reproduction), but there is a mechanism being described.
>>237333
>just what physical law is capable of actually experiencing anything.
Define experience
>>237545
>defining experience isn't even the most glaring problem with his post (at least for me). He's saying that science MUST have an answer to account for qualia/illusion-of-qualia or else it MUST be that the mind is supernatural.
it's like the cosmological argument...
>Science doesn't have an answer to "what led to the big bang" therefore it MUST be "God"
Heidegger solved body/mind dualism you guys
>>234683
>, given that the human body is a physical entity and the mind is non-physical.
That is wrong.
>>237589
There is no body mind dualism to begin with
>>234683
>If you come here and spam neural correlates of consciousness you will be immediately disregarded as an complete ignorant on the subject.
in that case durr hurr the brain is irrelevant for consciousness, conscious actually occurs in the heart.
All pieces of evidence showing that the brain is necessary for consciousness are merely "neural correlates".
Durr hurr,
History is evidence-based. You should fuck off to /lit/
>>237485
>My argument would be more like a claim against evolution if we had no way to explain it's being implemented (ie genetic mutation and reproduction), but there is a mechanism being described.
The gene still hadn't been pinpointed for decades after evolution gained common acceptance. Similarly, the mind is an emergent property of structured matter and we will close in on that emergence and those structures in time.
>>237589
see >>237602
>Nietzsche is not actually the overcoming of nihilism, he's just the completion of it, ya gotta know Being first :^)
>will to power and overman are metaphysical/otherworldly :P
>the True Nietzsche is not found in the published works, Will To Power! ;)
Heidegger is exactly the kind of obtuse German barrier to European enlightenment Nietzsche described past figures as being (right down to personal inclinations towards romantic nationalism nazi volk shit).
>>237626
>Similarly, the mind is an emergent property of structured matter and we will close in on that emergence and those structures in time.
It's definitely possible. Though I don't think it's fair to compare emergence to evolution at this point, it isn't that widely accepted in the scientific community right now.
I eagerly wait for evidence and new discoveries. But I'm skeptical of jumping on any bandwagons until there's really good reason to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions
>ITT: We solve the mind-body problem
It's a conceptual trap not worthwhile investigating.
Problem solved.
>>237708
>It's a conceptual trap
This is probably true.
>not worthwhile investigating
This is dangerous.
>mind-body problem
>mind
>problem
Take your bullshit reasoning and quasi-scientific metaphors the fuck outta here lmao
>>234683
Easy,
The mind is an abstraction. It isn't real. It is all physical. The end.
>>237758
no anon, it says "and humanities" so we're allowed to be armchair philosophers explaining the material world without the use of a materialism world view
>>237677
>Though I don't think it's fair to compare emergence to evolution at this point, it isn't that widely accepted in the scientific community right now.
Are you talking about emergence or emergentism? Who seriously argues against either?
>>237545
>Define experience
If you project a film on a wall the wall will reflect the photons back, but presumably the wall won't be seeing the film, until you prove what physical property is capable of sight all you have is the assumption that it is physical property, which is the "begging the question" logical fallacy.
>>234891
But it is.
Do you have a better explanation? I am actually interested in hearing it.
>>238097
>But it is.
>>238152
Are you implying that consciousness is supernatural?
>>238161
I'm implying that saying it is or isn't is an assumption.
>>238189
I think everyone you're arguing against is content to assume that magic isn't real
>>238189
That is correct. Science carries three main assumptions. These aren't hidden.
>There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.
>Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes
>There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.
So yeah, I assume consciousness functions without the supernatural.
Where you trying to figure out a biological question without science?
>>238226
>where
fuck me
>>238207
Well, I find those assumptions problematic for a search of the truth.
>>238232
you're fucked
>>238235
good thing science doesn't care about "truth"
explaining the mind is a problem for biology, not people that want to reason their way to "truth"
>>238226
>Science carries three main assumptions. These aren't hidden.
That's true, but it seems many people who use the scientific method either don't know this, or are only vaguely aware of this.
>So yeah, I assume consciousness functions without the supernatural.
This is great, it's a great point to start at and you can learn so much starting with assumptions (as maybe we always do...maybe), whether they're true or not. Especially when you keep your original assumptions in mind.
>Were you trying to figure out a biological question without science?
This assumes the question of mind and the question of the relationship between mind and body is necessarily and only a biological question.
>>238235
You're going to find yourself at the mercy of some bad postmodern ideas about the relativity of truth.
>>238342
>This assumes the question of mind and the question of the relationship between mind and body is necessarily and only a biological question.
You haven't carefully examined your assumption that there is such a thing as a 'mind.' Descartes was a long time ago, my friend.
>>238364
When I say mind in this context I'm describing experience or qualia. Which is one of the most certain things I know of.
I'm not sure what those bad postmodern ideas are, but I don't really care about how ridiculous something sounds, just whether it's true and how I came to it.
>>238415
You can be as certain as you like. Philosophers like Dennett have questioned that assumption.
Here's something that may sound ridiculous to you, but then again might be true...
There may be no self, no mind, no qualia, and no free will.
Skepticism goes deep
>>238415
>When I say mind in this context I'm describing experience or qualia. Which is one of the most certain things I know of.
Read Nietzsche's "BTFO"s to Descartes.
If you believe that a mind-body problem exists, then surely you must have a way to address the idea of philosophical zombies.
If a P zombie has no observable differences from a normal person, then you have admitted that there is no source for your belief in a mind-body problem. If a P zombie DOES possess differences, then we now have evidence that contributes to a material understanding of the mind.
Either way, the mind-body problem can't exist.
>>234745
I'm glad there are more people like me. Are you a Sam Harris fan or a David Chalmers fan or both?
>>234798
Dennet not so good.
>>238438
Ok, I'll play with this idea.
>There may be no self, no mind, no qualia, and no free will.
None of these are objectionable to me except denying qualia. I can accept knowing the uncertainty of others qualia, but to deny that there is no immediate sensation is impossible.
I can deny it mentally, but it imposes itself immediately and viscerally.
If you can point me to arguments against this or Dennett's book on this subject, that would be great.
Philosophical Zombies: The Thread
>>238541
I like how you keep pretending qualia has this discreet definition everyone agrees on
>>238581
I think folks have mostly started saying "subjective experience" or the like, instead of qualia, because the later can be confusing and send some folks into conniptions.
Not this bullshit again. Smh.
>>238541
If you had no qualia, how would you act differently?
>>238593
I rarely heard a word about qualia up until the last couple years. I assumed it was becoming more popular.
>>238602
I may not, I see no reason that I would.
Is that relevant to first-hand evidence of sensation?
>>238593
I was using my intuitive sense of it as sensation. After looking up the definition on google, stanford, and wikipedia...seems about right...
>>238617
It means that you would be absolutely convinced that you have qualia, even if you don't. So then what would cause somebody to believe they have qualia, even if they don't?
>>238635
>After looking up the definition on... wikipedia
>Much of the debate over their importance hinges on the definition of the term, and various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain features of qualia. As such, the nature and existence of qualia remain controversial.
Wiki then goes into the multiple definitions of qualia as described by different people
If you mean sensation, use that word. Qualia carries with it a lot of pseudo intellectual baggage.
>The Mind is just a network of neurons
To me, this is like saying sexuality is explained by simply pointing out there's a penis and a vagina. The interaction is significant, the in-between.
>>238718
In your analogy, pointing the benis and vagania would be pointing the neurons.
The network itself is something else.
>>234683
I don't understand.
>>234683
Your mind is actually completely outside and made of pure chaotic energy that is impacting the physical world rather than being impacted by it.
You're in the warp, and the actions of the warp entities (including you) change the warp AND physical world around you, you just can't perceive the warp-changes because you weren't born gifted, unlike our lord and Savior, the Emperor.
>>234683
How can you defend dualism?
If you operate on someone's brain you can change their entire personality and their IQ. That isn't absolute proof but it certainly doesn't indicate that their personality is based on something supernatual that exists outside of the physical.
>>238643
It seems inappropriate to say I could be convinced of anything without qualia. Like how we typically don't refer to our phones as thinking. But I don't think it matters for this.
>So then what would cause somebody to believe they have qualia, even if they don't?
Regardless, some kind of automatic assertion so that a response of yes is always given when asked about sensation or whenever there's a "considering" of sensation.
Which interestingly seems very similar to what happens when I question my experience, but the response itself is a sensation.
>>238670
I'd say it is.
>>238828
Property dualism just holds that the same basic *thing* manifests different properties. So that pain might have a character you could not infer completely in its phenomenal experience from simply an observation of the neural correlates of pain. Intelligence and the like can be fairly easily understood, in a loose sense, as the products of neurons just doing what they do.
>>238900
That strikes me as less of a positive argument for dualism than a claim that anything else *might* not be true.
We don't *know* anything other than ergo sum cogito based on pure logic.
>>238900
Ok so, if we have moved beyond proposing a soul or mind as the experiencer of phenomenal experiences, where does this take us in the field today?
Is anyone proposing anything novel in solving the "hard problem of consciousness" today?
>>239071
There is no problem.
>>238235
Then why do you feel fine with the assumption that there is definitive truth that can be found?
>>238415
>(direct experience is) one of the most certain things I know of.
You have never experienced an illusion like a mirage or magic tricks?
>>240495
Not him but experiencing an illusion is still experience...
did you guys solve it yet?
>>240528
False experience casts significant doubt on the absolute certainty of the truth via experience.
Multiple realizability. Binding problem.
All non-dualists, get fucked and stay fucked.
>>240637
>we don't know how it works, therefore the mind is supernatural
dualism can suck a dick
>>240620
So what? You're still experiencing...
Also, to all these reductionist materialists in this thread: GO READ A FUCKING BOOK
>inb4 but it's just neurons m8 lol
>>241191
pic related SENPAI
>>240637
The Binding Problem is not a real problem. Dennet really has tackled this one.
Multiple Realizability is considered to a problem WITHIN Physicalism.
But go ahead and retreat back to the philosophical ideas of the 18th century if they make you more comfortable.
>>241952
>Multiple Realizability is considered to a problem WITHIN Physicalism.
How so? It completely excludes physicalism, from what I understand.
Does it really matter whether it's just neurons or not?
>>236140
Monads.
>>241215
A book that proves magic i.e. dualism is real?
>given that the human body is a physical entity and the mind is non-physical.
>MUH physical reality
It's a body mind complex, both exist in mutual dependence, neither exist in any sense of ultimate reality.
>>241215
>Go read a book
I'm assuming you have read as much on neuroscience as you would want us to read on dualism :^)
>>234683
This is not even vaguely on topic.
>>242747
still waiting for the evidence for anything beyond the physical
If you put a big enough magnet on someone's head and aim it right, you can selectively disable parts of their thinking. If it was just a correlation between neural activity and the mind, that shouldn't work, since all you would be doing would be messing with a correlation.
>>243285
I don't understand.
Physical matter is a fabrication just as much as consciousness.
All fabrications are insubstantial.
>>243400
Don't be a cunt, explain yourself a little more than that.
>>243453
I fail to understand how the body which is composed of matter constitutes as an entity.
I fail to understand how the mind which is composed of consciousness does not.
I fail to understand where one would apply the notion of self-hood within the interdependent relationship of both fabrications.
>>243964
>I fail to understand how the body which is composed of matter constitutes as an entity.
so it must be something supernatural, right?
>the mind which is composed of consciousness
lol
You're starting with the idea that mind isn't the body
You're saying the idea of consciousness is so special and magic to you that you just can't imagine it being totally from your physical brain
The body/mind "problem" is nothing more than personal incredulity that all that exists is the physical
>>244046
>so it must be something supernatural, right?
No, it's an empty fabrication.
>You're starting with the idea that mind isn't the body
No, I'm pointing out that such dualisms are based on false epistemology
>You're saying the idea of consciousness is so special and magic to you that you just can't imagine it being totally from your physical brain
Consciousness is an empty fabrication
>The body/mind "problem" is nothing more than personal incredulity that all that exists is the physical
So it must be something supernatural, right?
>>244149
I don't understand anything in this post
What do you mean by "fabrication"? Especially one that's "empty"?
Is that last part supposed to mean anything, asking the question back at me?
Why is everyone here talking about the easy problem of consciousness when OP clearly stated it's about the hard problem of consciousness?
>>246485
the hard problem is hard to quantify and explain because it's not a real problem.
>>246529
But it's easy to explain, it's just difficult to research. Many researchers focus on solving the easy problem of consciousness because they believe it can be helpful in coming closer to a solution of the hard problem. And how is it not a real problem? Don't you want to know what causes experience?
>>246543
Sensations have differing qualities because they are vectors rather than bits. A vector has higher information content, which is literally just more differentness. The problem of why differentness takes on its exact manifestations is not unique to consciousness; it is perplexing why information (measuring total differentness without respect to specific differences) is effective in describing the world outside of our heads, too.
Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates empirically that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms. Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical influence, memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-death experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and 'mystical' states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The authors further show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an alternative 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced over a century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and developed further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory, moreover, ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally effective conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge physics and neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-minded persons concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=20536564942735666036
>>247228
>transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain
It's also pseudoscience
She is everything to me
>>247251
it's a shame you have no idea what you're talking about :(
Hello, if you believe mind is not part of physical reality you are a retard
consciousness is an irreducible property in all parts, defined by attraction towards the universal stimulus. Like a magnetic field
the operating principle is that of all emergent phenomena based on simple attractors.
qualia is the relation to the stimulus by each individual part. This may be combined as all are actually a derivative of the universal field
intelligence is an emergent byproduct of qualia pursuing the stimulus
>>247346
something outside the physical world? by definition paranormal and thus pseudoscience
the correct response was, it isn't claiming to be science
>>241952
>But go ahead and retreat back to the philosophical ideas of the 18th century if they make you more comfortable.
lel why does dualism upset people to such an extent
ITT
We confuse consciousness with it's physical correlates.
>>247446
this ^
>Op implying your brain isnt a physical piece of your body that fails and benefits from different things like the rest of your body
and then you said OTHER people were ignorant.
>for(int i = mySides; i <= outerOrbit; i++);
>return confirmation of liftoff
>>249174
So much this..
>>244194
>Is that last part supposed to mean anything, asking the question back at me?
>Consciousness is literally glued on to physical matter that is the brain rather than just being dependent
Explain to me how this is not supernatural thinking.
>What do you mean by "fabrication"? Especially one that's "empty"?
You need to get it through your head that all fabrications and conditions that make up this universe are mutually dependent and therefor no fabrication exists an an ultimate sense.
There is no absolute physical reality.
Consciousness is a reality. The body is a reality. Neither are absolute. Neither constitutes as an entity.
It's remarkable how difficult this concept is to grasp for most people.
>The body/mind "problem" is nothing more than personal incredulity that all that exists is the physical
The body/mind "problem" is nothing more than personal incredulity that the body constitutes as an entity because it's composed of matter.
Such incredulity arises from wrong understanding of the nature of reality i.e. your minds own craving for inherent existence.
I am wasting my effort however, people whose mind is not prepared by meditation to look at the inherent emptiness of reality will always refuse this notion due to existential anguish.
>>249644
/x/ everyone
thanks for coming out, hope you had fun
party's over
>>249655
Funny, I was thinking of linking the other guy to /x/
>>242580
>What strawman?
The one where he pretended his opponent had the following position.
>we don't know how it works, therefore the mind is supernatural
Straw. Man.
>>249670
>There is no absolute physical reality.
>Consciousness is a reality. The body is a reality. Neither are absolute. Neither constitutes as an entity.
>It's remarkable how difficult this concept is to grasp for most people.
>not /x/ shit
tell me about your tulpa next
>>248502
Autists can't handle the idea that something they haven't seen might exist would be my guess.
>>249684
Providing these "problems" as evidence of dualism is directly saying that physicalism can't explain the mind so therefore dualism (supernatural) is the answer
>>249698
Read what you just posted to yourself again.
>>249707
Yes, and?
>>249731
>Providing these "problems" as evidence of dualism
>is directly saying that physicalism can't explain the mind so therefore dualism (supernatural) is the answer
There are two big things wrong with what you just said. I split them up, so you can find them more easily.
>>249734
stop being such a condescending cunt and just get on with it already
>>249734
You're saying I "provided them as evidence of dualism" which is a strawman. I didn't. I only presented then as problems for most non-dualists.
The second line is a problem because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
>Providing these "problems" as evidence of dualism
does not lead to
>is directly saying that physicalism can't explain the mind so therefore dualism (supernatural) is the answer
Get. Shit. On. Faggot.
baka desu senpai
>>249748
You're pretty delusional.
>Multiple realizability. Binding problem.
>All non-dualists, get fucked and stay fucked.
Were you not trying to suggest that those specific problems with physicalism mean that dualism is a better explanation? If not, what do you mean by "All non-dualists, get fucked and stay fucked."?
It certainly seems like you were highlighting gaps in physicalism as support for dualism.
>>249759
I just hate materialism/physicalism. I'm not positing mine as better or worse - I'm saying your sucks shit-dick. TIP KOK.
baka desu senpai
>>249759
Also I find it hilarious you couldn't even see the mistaken assumptions you were making. But most illogical faggots never can - yet they talk anyway. Maybe they should stop?
The easy problems:
Chalmers contrasts the Hard Problem with a number of (relatively) Easy Problems that consciousness presents. (He emphasizes that what the easy problems have in common is that they all represent some ability, or the performance of some function or behavior).
the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli;
the integration of information by a cognitive system;
the reportability of mental states;
the ability of a system to access its own internal states;
the focus of attention;
the deliberate control of behavior;
the difference between wakefulness and sleep.
The hard problems:
How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?
Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?
Why do qualia exist?
Why is there a subjective component to experience?
Why aren't we philosophical zombies?
You people are proposing the solution to the easy problems as a solution to the hard problem as well, aka IT'S JUST NEURONS LOL
Also, claiming the mind is non-physical does not imply dualism, subjective experience IS non-physical, that's a fact. Dualism just takes the natural tendency when we acknowledge that fact to claim that the mind is composed of a different substance, unrelated to the body, which is ridiculous. There has to be another explanation of how non-physical subjective experience is a emergent property of complex brain states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
>>249807
>>249811
Why are Christians so rude?
>>250000
>no one mentions this historic occasion
Come on folks.
>Christians
>rude
No, it's the tripfags
>>250000
>complaining about bants and memes on 4chan
If someone's too stupid to see why they're fucking wrong after minutes of contemplating a few short words of their own, they deserve nothing more than.
>>247228
>any philosophical text with "towards" in the name
>a drug's affect on a brain are proof of a mind
super pathetic
>>249690
It's always an obvious attempt to reverse engineer a belief in a soul. Fear of death
>I believe in the redemptive power of the blood of jesus kukst so descartes is where philosophy ends for me
>>250000
because they think they are earning heavenly karma points if they use bad meany words against atheist.
>look at me saint peter, I told an atheist to go fuck himself today ! I'm a defender of faith, let me in
Similar behaviour can be observed in Islam, "the state of war" unethical behaviour, cursing, sinning etc is okay if its done to an enemy, They feel that acting unchristian is perfectly okay if they are "defending" the faith.
bunch of teenage edgynes
>>250126
>It's always an obvious attempt to reverse engineer a belief in a soul
You're trying to find an intention where there need not necessarily be one. You can posit a possibility or theory without having any desire whatsoever that it be true.
>>250133
The irony.
>>250139
guess I touched a nerve, there is no irony in it whatsoever, Atheist do not subscribe to a morality, you do.
and you are acting against it "hurr atheist do it so I can do it too" is not enough.
>>250136
I'm characterizing a subconscious desire rather than a concious intent, (like the subconcious desire christfags have for watching other men fuck their wives)...
But fair enough, I'll rephrase:
People get mad at dualists because dualists are essentially proposing that all the proper philosophy done since the 1800s needs to be rewound so that Descartes can be correct.
>I'm so smart I realize that the current state of philosophy is degenerate and hasnt been done properly for hundreds of years
>>250139
Yeah, what he >>250148 said.
Cut it out, you big meanie.
contemporary philosophers following in 'the dualist tradition' today are like Chinese traditional medicine practitioners today. alchemists today. phrenologists today.
>>250148
>being mad on the internet in the current year, 2015
What a faggot.
Do. You. Suck. Dick?
>>250166
You're applying a "subconscious desire" to every person who holds a view in an attempt to make the position look silly.
That's pretty pathetic.
Dualism has fallen out of popularity because materialism and physicalism are the 'in' thing. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of the positions - it's simply people more regularly subscribe to physicalist axioms nowadays and thus don't find dualism compelling because it doesn't mesh at all with their axioms. If any group is involved in some kind of subconscious confirmation bias it's physicalist/materialists.
RADIOWAVE RECIVER
>>238295
No, friend. Science makes no predictions about minds, because minds can't be observed. You can make observations about behavior and then make assumptions about minds whose existence you assume those behaviors indicate. But once you say "the shrieking indicates the subject is in pain" you have stopped doing science and started doing metaphysics.
>>238515
P-zombies are a way of noticing that science can't reach into philosophy. Not only do we not know if p-zombies are even conceivable, we can't know. We can't know because we don't understand the relationship between physical states and mental states. You're assuming you already know that answer and then backwards assuming you have an understanding of p-zombies.
>>238643
This is pretty facepalm. All you know about are your qualia. You assume the existence of things like "the outside world" and "other people" by abstracting from your experiences. But "the outside world" is a philosophical concept.
>>239071
Panpsychism. Our belief that other entities have mental states comes from our observations of those entities displaying behaviors that we think indicate the presence of those states. But once you know enough science, you realize that there's no magic property that describes all the entities to which we want to attribute mental states and excludes all others. The only remaining conclusion is that the mental properties are properties of the fundamental component(s) of what we call "the universe".
>>240620
The only certainty we're looking for is "experiences exist". Any experience give you that.
>>237635
>I can describe the entirety of Martin Heideggers work with a few simple (and wrong) generalizations and some retarded smiley faces
get the fuck out you shitcunt
>>242029
Based Leibniz
>>250937
More like a way of noticing that dualists are full of shit. You have neither evidence nor ontological backing for the idea of dualism.
Dualism is a trick of semantics that becomes impossible when restricted to formal wording.
>>238189
All we have to go on is that the brain constitutes your consciousness. You are insinuating that we are unsure if the physical brain can also constitute a metaphysical and immaterial entity that, in turn, constitutes what we consider to be "ourselves."
Personally, I don't agree with you or that notion.
>>250227
>"in thing today"
Let's appreciate for a moment that we are talking about the history of philosophy, and not philosophy itself. We can return to philosophy soon, hopefully.
Materialism is the "in thing today" the same way that evolution is the "in thing." It's a proposition arrived at by the proper application of Occam's Razor (getting rid of the soul/mind in the case of the former and divine intervention in the case of the latter)
Also note that Materialism is the "in thing" only with respect to experts in the field, not lay people (I live in America where most people believe in their own personal baby jesus, angels, and SOULS).
>>250227
>If any group is involved in some kind of subconscious confirmation bias it's physicalist/materialists
I can't imagine what bias materialists would be seeking to confirm. Materialism and especially Eliminativism are quite pessimistic, in my estimation. I would love it if I could believe in ANYthing supernatural - especially "survival of death".
If my body is hungry my mind is hungry
If my mind is in love my body is in love
take care of your body, take care of your mind.
>>234683
Hermeneutics?
Goedel Escher Bach by hofstatder
>>253898
definitely this. this thread's question needs unasking.
>>234683
Can the mind exist without a body ?
>>238828
So if you damage a radio(physical body) the signal may come out distorted(changed personality) but you havnt damaged the source
Where can I read more about the arguments/ideas presented in this thread?
Not really sure what to put into the all knowing search engine.
>>254083
Are people afraid of Wikipedia? There are some straw men on there, and of course you can't read a philosopher's full text but I find it useful. Especially to remind me what all of these -isms are.
Anyways, I like to go to wikis page on "The Hard Problem of Consciousness" Read it. Go to the criticisms. Follow links, see who else has an idea. Go to the criticisms. rinse, repeat.
>>249212
We know brain is physical. Whats being said is brain != mind. One way to think of this would be the brain is a receiver so when it is damage the mind can not function the same here but it does not mean the mind is damaged
>>249698
It is not directly saying that
>>247559
>something outside the physical world? by definition paranormal and thus pseudoscience
not even him but you're fucking retarded
It's a pseudo-problem if you accept a token-identity between mental states and brain states, which pretty much everybody does apart from Kripke, and fuck Kripke.
The reason for this is we don't imagine that there would be an explanation of things in areas where such identity relations hold. Take the identity between water and h2o for instances. We don't find ourselves asking HOW it is that two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom give rise to a water molecule - such an arrangement simply IS a water molecule. Similarly, if every token mental state is identical to some token brain state, then they simply ARE the same thing.
The problem arises because of a mistake in how we think about the relationship between brain states and mental states. Rather than seeing it as an identity relation, we think of it is as a relationship of compositon or emergence. This is simply a mistaken way of categorising the relation, and one which we do not do in other areas of science.
>>250133
>, "the state of war" unethical behaviour, cursing, sinning etc is okay if its done to an enemy, They feel that acting unchristian is perfectly okay if they are "defending" the faith.
who said this? are you referring to sunni islam or to shiite islam? are you retarded=
>>236303
Emergence is the answer. Anyone who doesn't understand this needs to put their intro textbook down,
>>253649
>I can't imagine what bias materialists would be seeking to confirm
That life is meaningless and therefore the rules of morality do not apply.
>>254455
Who's rules of morality?
>>254557
Whose*
>>253610
>It's a proposition arrived at by the proper application of Occam's Razor
Occam's Razor is a worthless value principle. It's literally a line in the sand, and one that's abused and misapplied in most cases.
>Also note that Materialism is the "in thing" only with respect to experts in the field
They subscribe to materialist/physicalist axioms. You cannot come to any other conclusions even *IN PRINCIPLE* when you subscribe to materialist/physicalist axioms *BUT* materialism/physicalism.
If you encounter anything you can't explain physically, you just say "well just because we haven't found out a physical explanation doesn't mean there is none", and you do that *forever* if need be, because that's what your axioms *DEMAND*.
You make your philosophy a completely closed system because the axioms you arbitrarily subscribe to demand it. It's absolutely hilarious.
>>253649
>I can't imagine what bias materialists would be seeking to confirm
The one wherein they want everything to be explainable according to their axioms and to reject everyone else as intellectually inferior because they don't subscribe to those same axioms.
>>254900
Well we've sort of hit rock bottom here. I'm going to agree with one of the things you said to move this forward.
Materialism is an axiom. Materialism is an axiom that doesn't yet have an explanation for "mental events" or "subjectivity" or "qualia" (if those things are also real) You're not happy with the theories that some of the eliminativists have put forward to account for these things because, yes, the science/explanation is incomplete.
I'm not happy with creating this new category, category #2, to explain "mental events" or "subjectivity" or "qualia" (if those things are real). It's inelegant; and I have a hunch it is predicated on the weakness of English as the medium of this discussion.
>>255077
>I'm not happy with creating this new category
The category existed before yours. I think materialist axioms are not worth subscribing to, while you think they are.
That's a fundamental disagreement that can't be overcome unless one of us changes our axioms.
>>254914
Materialists want to see their ideas flourish because they think they are correct. Surely you can't call this a confirmation bias. That would be tantamount to saying "You're biased! You think you're right! You're not allowed to participate in this discussion anymore!"
>>255103
>Materialists want to see their ideas flourish because they think they are correct. Surely you can't call this a confirmation bias
That's exactly what confirmation bias is. You ought to desire the truth whatever that may be. But materialist axioms prevent them from knowing any truth unless that truth happens to correspond with their axiom - that everything is material/has a material explanation. If something exists outside the material, then the materialist is rendered *incapable* of knowing the truth in that regard due to their ideology.
>>255099
>The category existed before yours
What can we say about this? That your view privileges the historic over the scientific?
>>255120
I don't care about the historicity of it. It's irrelevant to me. You brought up chronology when you said
>I'm not happy with creating this new category, category #2
It's not new. If anything it's category #1. You're wrong in your description of it as #2/new - that's all I'm saying.
>>255136
Category 2 as in dualist. Unless you believe there is only "mind" and no matter.
If you do take the existence matter as an axiom, then we share it as an axiom. My proposition lacks the 2nd axiom (Mind)
>>255150
>Category 2 as in dualist
What do you say in defense of you calling the proposition "new"?
>If you do take the existence matter as an axiom
I don't. Matter exists or it doesn't. For all I know - Cartesian Demon.
>>255163
>new
New for me, is all. But the historicity doesn't matter to either of us.
>Cartesian Demon
Can't this take you in a lot of pretty crazy directions? Solipsism etc?
I'm not judging, But if we each have chosen our axioms, I'd at least expect them to take us in a pragmatic direction
>>254406
eat a dick faggot
>>255197
I don't think calling something crazy constitutes a philosophical objection. Cogito ergo sum is the only axiom I subscribe to, as it seems to me to be the only one without having some kind of arbitrary value spin to it. I'm not a solipsist though. I don't hold that the mind is the only thing that *can* be known, I just think it may be the only thing that currently *is* known without any doubt.
I'm not a pragmatist, I'm a rationalist.
>>255232
It's not a real objection.
Ok, lets raise ourselves back up from the level of postulates and see how the rubber meets the road!
Tomorrow!
Good think you're a tripfag, now I can haunt you.
>>255291
That's why I use the trip - so people can continue conversations with me. Peace spooky ghost.
>>250918
>minds can't be observed
You know this isn't true, right? Do you know what a brain-computer interface is? Go Google it, they're very interesting
>>255327
You're just conflating mind with brain at that point, when they're not necessarily the same.
>>234683
>b-but it can't be neural correlation cuz muh philosophy.
Look, you asked for a physical relationship between body and mind, and that's your answer. It's neurons responding to various and almost infinite amounts of chemical pathways. This is like asking why a bicycle is steadier as it goes faster and saying "no it's not physics say something else lol".
>believing physical 'matter' exists
LOL
>>255338
The mind is a result of the brain.
It's as physical as any instinctual sensation.
It's by far the highest order of sensation because it fundamentally processes other sensations--love, pain, recollection, planning, literally everything but bodily regulation--but to be short, it's entirely explainable. There's no gap to be bridged.
>>255587
>The hard problems
>Why is that some organisms are subjects of experience?
Not him, but this can be explained by physical properties, or it can be assumed to be the case with varying degrees of evidence, such as the fact that an individual's personality really does disappear when they get Alzheimer's disease, and they actually cease to recognize people and and the names for certain items, which is clearly evidence that the physical state of the brain mediates conscious experience, but also encapsulates what we call the "self".
>>255601
>The mind is a result of the brain.
You're just asserting that.
>>255625
Not him, but the mind is clearly not identical to the brain philosophically. But as far as we know, minds cannot exist without brains.
>>255638
>But as far as we know, minds cannot exist without brains
as far as we know, brains cannot exist without minds.
>>255608
You're just stating the obvious, the problem is how complex brain states gives rise to mental states...
>>255644
>as far as we know, brains cannot exist without minds.
Yes they can. Have you ever heard of a coma?
>>255651
>the problem is how complex brain states gives rise to mental states...
Which is more or less what everyone in this thread has been talking about. Trillions of neurons firing at the same time, and chemicals in a state of flux.
At least that's the assumption that I work with, Occam's Razor type thing. I don't think it's pertinent to assume that there is some magical woo-woo about humans.
>>255674
I give up, you win, it's just neurons
Have fun collecting your Nobel Prize
>>255656
do comas exist without people experiencing them with their conscious minds? how could you know?
>>255674
>I don't think it's pertinent to assume that there is some magical woo-woo about humans.
why not? you only know humans or the physical world or physical brains exist in the first place through experiencing them with your mind
I mean have you ever seen an atom? seen your brain?
really, wheer is the evidence for the physical world
>>255707
>I give up, you win, it's just neurons
It does appear to be that way.
But I might be wrong. But I'm not going to assume that we have souls, or "ektoplasm" or whatever, just because something appears inexplicable in the year 2015.
>>255710
>do comas exist without people experiencing them with their conscious minds?
Are you talking about the people observing the comatose person, or the vegetable himself?
>>255722
>it's the current year lmao
I agree with you but that's still retarded.
>>255710
>do comas exist without people experiencing them with their conscious minds? how could you know?
I can't. But I assume that. And I think I'm on much more stable ground in assuming that fact than assuming that people who are in a coma are in a theme park with their soul.
>>255730
But the point is that neuroscience and research into the nature of consciousness is in it's very early stages. There might be some breakthroughs in several decades that will be interesting.
The hard problems:
>How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?
They have the required structures and neurochemical pathways to create a consciousness in the same way some organisms have the required structures and neurochemical pathways to register pain. The mind is just a result.
>Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?
It exists because consciousness of ones surroundings is evolutionarily advantageous. Neuro-structural wall of text here.
Why do qualia exist?
Because it's evolutionarily advantageous to create qualia, otherwise the above would be waste of energy and thus disadvantageous. How exactly they came about is the real daunting question.
>Why is there a subjective component to experience?
Because your brain is structured differently from everyone elses and an extension of the individual organism. Your individual outcomes of each and every neuro pathway in that specific sequence is the physical cause of subjectiveness.
>Why aren't we philosophical zombies?
Because sitting thinking all day about life won't do much in the way of putting food in your stomach. There was a balance that was struck long ago.
>You people are proposing the solution to the easy problems as a solution to the hard problem as well, aka IT'S JUST NEURONS LOL
But literally IT'S JUST NEURONS LOL. The answers to philosophical questions aren't always beautiful, honey-ladden words.
>>255735
Well, comas are characterized by not exhibiting any conscious action for extended periods of time. Without any outward evidence of a mind, and no or little brain activity, it's easy to connect that with a normally functioning person (i.e. one with a "mind") and their active brain. Comas if anything lend credence to JUST NEURONS LOL.
>>255744
Ah, I see. Sorry for jumping down your throat like that.
>>255748
>Also, claiming the mind is non-physical does not imply dualism, subjective experience IS non-physical, that's a fact. Dualism just takes the natural tendency when we acknowledge that fact to claim that the mind is composed of a different substance, unrelated to the body, which is ridiculous. There has to be another explanation of how non-physical subjective experience is a emergent property of complex brain states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
There is no other explanation anon. There's nothing, literally nothing, controlling "nonphysical subjective experience" other than complex neurochemistry undergone in an individual's brain.
Autistic as fuck answer but hey, it's the logical one.
>>255720
What I know is that if people's brains are destroyed, they cease to exist in this world.
You can believe whatever you want to believe about souls and an after-life, but in this world, brains are required for minds.
>>255656
The fact that there are comas does not make minds brain-dependent.
>>255762
>it's the logical one
There are an infinite number of logical answers. A literal infinite.
>>255803
>The fact that there are comas does not make minds brain-dependent.
It makes me assume that it does. Unless it is, what kind of mental gymnastics are you going to use to explain why people who are not dead, have a functioning physical body, suddenly don't walk around, talk or have a personality anymore?
>>255850
>It makes me assume that it does
Why.
>explain why people who are not dead, have a functioning physical body, suddenly don't walk around, talk or have a personality anymore
Their puppet strings were cut. You can't control a puppet without puppet strings. But just because the puppet can no longer be controlled doesn't mean the puppeteer died.
>>255864
Let me guess, you're a Christian right?
>>255856
>is very convincing evidence for brain activity-->mind
I don't think so at all.
>Name one other and explain the logic.
Space-Monkey-King Muggafugga controls all consciousness in all individuals. When Space-Monkey-King Muggafugga sees bitches get hit hard enough, Space-Monkey-King Muggafugga renders their body inert with Muggafugga-magic, such that all other observers find in them the characteristics of being comatose.
There's nothing logically contradictory nor anything circular about this proposition; thus it is logical.
>>255879
I like memes too m8.
