>and then he said neurobiology has solved the hard problem of consciousness
>>399691
>and then he said """hard""" """"problem"""""""""of"""" """"consciousnes"""""
>>399712
m8 I think you're about to get a stroke.
>>399691
I don't know anybody who has said this, only people who are optimistic that in the future it will.
>Guys, biological animation will never be reduced to biochemisty and physical mechanics, organisms move because of chi!
>>399691
>he thinks the hard problem of consciousness exists
Are you going to revel us with some tales about non-existent zombies next?
Nobody has phrased the question of the hard problem of consciousness correctly yet.
Every thought and action we take is almost certainly explicable by neurobiology, eventually.
But this doesn't get us to the first step of discovering where the qualia and perspective comes from.
>>399755
>Nobody has phrased the question of the hard problem of consciousness correctly yet.
Isn't it as simple as: "how and why do we have qualia?"
other than academic curiosity why do you even care
>>399691
why do we interpret the 0' and 1' so to speak of external information in this particular subjective way, yes we can explain the objectivity of why we feel certain feelings but not their subjective interpretation and thus the question of subjectivity, and why it is the way it is, the true enigma of consciousness.
>>399810
> Not "What is it like to be a bat?"
>>399848
If somebody lacked this so-called subjective interpretation, how would they act differently?
>>400265
without subjectivity there wouldn't exist anything as nothing will experience and reflect reality.
There is no hard problem. It's a pseudo-question.
>>401654
So you're saying reality is destroyed if every human were wiped out?
>>401664
Explain yourself.
>>399691
Ich fiel, bin betruunken
>>401668
It disappears if you accept even a token identity relation holding between brain states and mental states, which everybody but Kripke pretty much does - but fuck Kripke. This is because it becomes merely a question as to why or how an identity condition holds, which doesn't seem answerable at all. For instance, why is it that an arrangement of two hydrogen atoms an an oxygen atom gives rise to water? What would an answer to that even look like?
>>401695
>>401668
Just to clarify slightly. What I mean to say is that if you accept a token identity relation holding between brain states and mental states, the question ceases to make any sense whatsoever. The hard problem as Chalmers formulates it is something like
>Why is any particular qualitative mental state associated with some particular brain state
Given the token identity thesis, this just becomes meaningless. That particular mental state JUST IS some particular brain state. As such, his question reduces to
>why is something associated with itself
Which is plainly meaningless.
>>401719
It's not meaningless, it's everything beautiful and divine, it's the creation of god, you are just not ready to admit that.
>>401719
So then the problem doesn't exist. There is no issue.
>>401665
from a human point of view yes, which is the only point of view that matters as we are humans. you can say that each time a person dies, assuming no afterlife, an infinity of the entire universe dies with him.
>>402064
There is no reason to believe that other than arrogance. Nothing will ever come out of your anthropocentric mentality.
>>402088
It's just a "poetic" way of looking at things, nobody's saying that the world historically didn't exist before humans evolved into it
>>402088
you are too limited by your habit of depending on your logical part of consciousness to remember that being human is also having the power to imagine and create or rather you don't look at the infinity of your mind as a real metaphysical plane even though you exist there, that's ignorant and sad.
There's a lot of pseudoscientific crap in here.
Neurobiology is closer to explaining brain phenomena than it used to.
No, the hard problem of consciousness has not been solved, or all but solved.
>>402185
Nobody has made a good argument for the problem existing in the first place.
>>402199
autism speaks
>>402185
>science can explain everything
why can't you guys admit the limitations of logic, science is great but it can't explain the soul, that's what philosophy is for.
>>402221
>can't explain the soul
You can't explain something that doesn't exist
>>402221
What do you think science means?
>>402221
>wishful thinking: the post
There's no soul
>>402259
>>402267
Keep deluding yourself
Fucking pussies
>>402259
>le tibbig fedora meme :DDDDD
For when you can't come up with a good counter argument
>>402267
>>402259
I love you Deepak but stop trying to talk about science, Dawkins blew you the fuck out
>>402306
Deepak please you're embarrassing yourself, atoms don't have emotions
>>402311
Nope, but get enough atoms together and they do. Ain't that something?
>>402267
>>402259
Nice arguments......
>>402368
>there is no soul heh
>fuck off back to reddit
>NICE ARGUMENTS BUCKO IS THAT ALL YOU GOT SCIENCE: 1 YOU: 0
>>399755
>implying qualia exists
>mfw microbiologists are unable to comprehend double aspect theory
>>402943
I like Schopenhauer, but I have to ask, is double aspect theory something that you can put into a falsifiable hypothesis that you can expect microbiologists to test or observe.
Or is it something that is pulled out of someone's arse that you can only defend by saying "You can't comprehend this! Prove me wrong!"
The hard problem of consciousness is about as real a problem as why is there something rather than nothing. That's just the way things are, no further explanation.. deal with it.
>>402221
>soul
I thought hippies like you died out in the 90s.
>>403267
You're putting a human issue next to a universal issue. Do you not see the problem with that?
>>402203
>Being irrational is okay
Are you a woman?
>>403212
The answer to that isn't a falsifiable hypothesis, so I don't know why you're asking it.
>>402259
Guys...
I think I have been classically conditioned to enjoy the sight of fedoras images. Because I only ever see them when I've won an argument.
Anyone else?
>>403394
Yup, they are truly glorious.
>>403212
Not empirically. How could it be? The basic premise of double aspect theory the material activity of your brain and the conscious activity of your mind are the selfsame thing, seen from two different perspectives: first person intuitive (subjective) and third person empirical (objective). A secondary observer could only verify the latter.
According to double aspect theory, the purely materialistic model of mind is wrong, because it asserts that neurological activity is the cause (!) of consciousness, thought, feeling, etc. Schopenhauer contends that they have no causal relationship whatever, because causality is a form of the intellect: it cannot be utilized to explain intellect as a function of something material. Neurological activity and consciousness are simultaneous. Two things which occur simultaneously can have no casual relationship whatever. They must therefore either be contingent or identical. Obviously in the case of brain and mind the latter is true.
The psychiatrist says: low levels of serotonin/dopamine is the cause (!) of mental depression. Double aspect theory says that low levels of serotonin/dopamine and depression have no causal relationship, because low serotonin/dopamine IS depression. Electrical impulses between neurons are not the cause (!) of you having a thought, nor is a thought the effect of such electrical activity. They are two sides, two aspects of the same phenomenon. You cannot segregate them according to the principle of sufficient reason.
>>403360
They're both issues about the fundamental nature of reality and are in that sense analogous.
>>403440
The human brain doesn't even utilize quantum processes and you're claiming it's tied to the fundamental nature of reality?
Conciousness can be presented without evidence so we can dismiss it without evidence.
Problem solved.
>>403446
Nope, as we aren't talking about the brain.
>>403452
It's the easiest thing in the universe to provide evidence for.
It's unanswerable with objective research and maybe it's unanswerable at all, the only theories we currently have is god or can't be proven with with empiricism so don't ask questions, so choose which ever you are more inclined to believe, if you choose god it's possible it can be subjectively answerable with subjective research and experience, but not objectively as of yet.
>tfw our brain is one big drug production facility
>what we experience as consciousness is actually every human being incredibly stoned all the time
>psychiatrists and neurologists call this "normal brain chemistry"
>true reality is fractal geometric shapes and patterns moving around at incredible speed
>when we take drugs our brains are reversed and we can look backwards at the nature of the self and reality
>tfw there is DMT inside your brain right now
>>403572
CAN'T SEE IT ISN'T REAL!
CAN'T SEE IT ISN'T REAL!
CAN'T SEE IT ISN'T REAL!
CAN'T SEE IT ISN'T REAL!
CAN'T SEE IT ISN'T REAL!
>>402203
>I openly embrace irrationality and stupidity
>Why are people insulting my ideas?
>I guess I'll call them pretentious because they hurt my feelings
>>403618
Go back to Shroomery you fucking drooling idiot. I don't even mind psychedelics for recreation every once in a while but you faggots have to get all evangelical with your pseudo-scientific shit.
>>399691
>and he called this position materialism
I actually appreciate Dennett's work, but fuck, this makes me mad.
>>403638
My colour blue, may not be your colour blue.
>>399691
>Has solved
Nope
>Will solve
Probably.
The exact same shit was flung at hereditary traits (i.e. "HAHAHA NOT EVERYTHING IS BOUND TO UNFALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESES. FROM WHERE DOES LIFE ITSELF ARISE YOU HERETICS?"). Now we have a whole field dedicated to it (genetics).
>>403657
When will people stop this meme?
>>399755
This is why contemporary cog psyc and perception is so fucked ‐ it deals with spooky inbetween shit rather than just accepting direct realism and calling it a day.
Australian Realism was here, fuck you all, good on ya cunts.
>>405291
I never even got the question. Like you can whip out a colour wheel and negotiate with the person about what particular shade of blue something is. If you couldnt reach a consensus, wouldnt a problem with colour perception be implicated and easily checked for?
Or is it meant to be a semantic argument?
>>403427
well, i'm not a philosopher, but according to my friend who is told me that witte took a giant shit on schoppy's fourfold root, so if you want to refute this (anyone reading it) you could probably read witte.
>>405534
Wittgenstein*
>>405534
Witty took a giant shit on himself too
>>405548
did he do so in the same PI? because PI witty is different to tractatus witty, the same in which he supposedly had Schopenhauer influence him.
>>405491
Consider two brothers. Along with all their schoolmates, they learn that leaves are "green" until the autumn when they become "red," that grizzly bears are "brown" but polar bears are "white," oranges are "orange," etc. They learn to associate what they see in an object to a particular named colour. Soon, they are able to extend this out to other objects. A stoplight is "red," the same colour as autumn leaves. The go-light is "green," the same colour as the summer leaves.
However, this entire time, one of the brothers has had a particular defect in his vision. When he sees an orange, the colour he is seeing is actually the colour his brother sees when looking at a lavender petal. However, he has learned to associate the name "orange" with what he sees when he observes the orange. All the other colours are scrambled too. But if you were to perform the colour wheel test on the two brothers, they would both agree that whatever you were pointing at was "blue," since for their entire lives they have perceived that colour, and they have categorized it as such. The thing is, there is no way of knowing that other people don't share that same "defect," or if you are the one who is defective, or if everyone perceives colour differently, because they would all point to the colour wheel and say "that's blue".
>>403371
Why do you live? Please give me a rational reason. Accept it, you and all of us are alive because of irrational urges.
>>405703
hell, there's no guarantee that people see what others see in the sense of being "sight"
when it comes to consciousness, nothing in nature actually reflects phenomenal world exactly the way it is.
I think one simple way to refute my argument is something about asking people to sculpt an elephant through touch or something etc but what I'm talking about is that you will never find perceptions in nature as the way they are themselves; they will always be a reflection of the thing in itself
>>405806
are you high?
>>399691
It's simply psychologism.
It once other things serves as a cheap way to discard anything you don't understand.
You'd think people would have stopped "explaining" things, especially while being stuck in bizarro realism. But the temptation to shitpost in way too strong.
