NEURON ACTIVITY DOES NOT EXPLAIN QUALIA
YES IT DOES, WE JUST DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DETAILS YET
U CANT RILLY NO NUFFIN
>>791265
>consciousness
>reducible to and explained by a physical process
nice meme
>>791265
>y-yes it does, we just don't know... it yet..?
You're forcing it.
>he beliebes in qualia
>>791274
>there's just gotta be a "mind" in there somehow, there's just gotta be! It can't just be a brain all by itself! Otherwise... no! It can't be! I won't let myself even think it!
>>791303
You're forcing it. The brain is a transmitter. Nothing else.
>>791320
Yes the brain is actually a portal to the 2D plane where my waifu lives in perfect spiritual form, far away from the loathsome smelly 3D world...
>>791324
ebin, absolutely ebin
>>791333
You can't disprove it so that means it must be 100% true.
>>791337
because the hard problem of consciousness is equivalent to positing the existence of a waifu dimension dude epic i come here for the memes
If you engaged in mitosis, afterward only one would be *you*, cogito ergo sum. This shows that there is a metaphysical *you*, not just a physical you.
>>791342
Looks like another internet victory in the bag, chalking it up on the Big Board.
>>791342
David Chalmers' pet project is not somehow exempt from requiring decent argumentation.
>>791404
>can't even explain how consciousness is derived from physical dynamics
>burden of proof is on the other guy
Nice meme
>>791470
>we should try to understand consciousness as not purely a physical phenomenon because so far it hasn't worked out
>LOL SOUNDS LIKE MAGIC, MUH TEAPOT MUH FALSIFIABILITY
>>791303
>There are no qualia, you're just imagining them
>>791862
>trust me, this concept invented in 1929 is absolutely essential to any description of human experience
>>791910
a name invented in 1929 for something that has plainly existed for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years. how autistic are you?
>>791270
>consciousness
>not reducible to and explained by a physical processes
nice meme
>>791923
enlighten us plebs, then.
i swear to god if you post something about action potentials my sides will go nuclear
>>791920
>plainly
If it's so plain, why didn't anyone say so?
>>791932
because it was called soul, mind, perception, etc. you dweeb. holy shit are we really having this discussion right now? are you seriously asking me if subjective experienced was cooked up by a cabal of woo-woo charlatans trying to dupe the stalwart legions of fedora wearers from the One Scientific Truth? or am I just getting meme'd?
>>791944
None of those things are the same as qualia. I get it, you watched some Chalmers youtube or whatever and it rocked your world, but if you're arguing that everyone before the 20th century really meant qualia when they said soul, read a fucking book and understand that people have had very different ideas of what's going on over time.
>>791259
what?
>>791270
>muh god of the gaps
>>794790
It's a new meme.
>>791259
I AGREE
>>791259
Assume that brain activity is identical to mental content. Then that means that thoughts are physically present in the brain. So the question is, where is the number two located? Where are pink elephants with butterfly wings?
>>794847
>where is the number two located
Everywhere. "Two" isn't in a particular cell, it's a pattern of activation across the entire brain.
>>794847
Neurons work in chains, in such a manner that whilst you perceive the number two as one thing that should be actually in one place it is more like thousands of things activating at the same time
Ok, so what does explain it then?
>>791359
This is probably one of the better arguments in this thread. An argument for consciousness being more than physical without resorting to spiritual bs.
>>791958
>muh semantics
Soul meant consciousness, qualia means the particular experience of x, whatever nigga you get the point
>>796254
> Soul meant consciousness
R e a d_a_b o o k
>>795402
Seriously, I really want an answer to this question.
>>791259
crippling autism explains your post though
>>794847
>where is the number two located
inside the pooper
>>791359
Both would think they are the real you though.
There is no qualia. We simply lack the language required to relate experiences to one another in a non subjective way.
>>791359
You obviously don't know what mitosis is.
You don't create a new entity and leave the existing one.
You create two entities using the genetic material of the first that has been doubled.
If there is one "You" then the distinction is arbitrary.
This is ignoring of course that in the act of mitosis in a single cell all activity that is not mitosis must stop because of physical limitations on a cell so "You", as in the conscious process that is you, would halt and "Die" so there is no continuous stream of consciousness.
This is also ignoring that both resulting entities would argue that they are the original and thus deserving of that (you).
>>791359
Are you talking about actual mitosis, or just using it as a fancy sounding but incorrect analogue for a perfect replication where both beings diverge from the same point? Because if the latter, would both beings not have claim to their pre-split self? How would one determine the true being in a non-arbitrary fashion?
>>791274
It's a "known unknown" thing.
>>798762
He seems to understand mitosis just fine actually. The problem here is that you don't understand cogito ergo sum.
>>791359
I believe that each of us is a product of his/her life experiences and genetic makeup. Therefore, you and the copy would be identical in every way in the single instant following the mitosis. After that, the copy's experience would immediately start to differ from yours, and you would no longer be identical. Your argument merely states that the copy is not you because it is a separate consciousness from yours, with its own subjective experience. I don't see how this necessitates the existence of an immaterial soul.
>>791934
>When you choose to do something, you consciously choose to do it. Do you really think people are just machines?
I tend to lean that way, yes. It feels like we're in control of our decisions, but I think this is only an illusion. Our subconscious mind processes information and arrives at a decision before we've made a conscious choice. The particles that make up your neurons (and everything else in the universe) are subject to the laws of physics, and you can't control how they interact. In this way, I believe that our brains are just very complicated electrical circuits. Given the same inputs, our brains will arrive at the same decision every time, just like a computer program.
What I can't explain is how consciousness exists without some kind of metaphysical "soul." If there is no soul, then that means you can make a conscious being out of ordinary particles of "stuff." I mean, what the fuck is that? Does that mean you could build a machine that is self-aware and thinks like a human?
I can't think about this shit for too long, or I'll have a legit panic attack. I'll start wondering if all this is just a simulation.
Does anyone else feel this way?
>>798769
>He seems to understand mitosis just fine actually
Not that anon, but obviously he doesn't.
One part of you becomes two parts of you.
Wheb you see red, your neurons fire a given way. When you think of red, some fraction of neurons fire the same way at some fraction of their normal power. The thought of red is simply a less powerful version of the sensation of red. If you extrapolate this out to all the seenses it seems clear to me.
>>798775
>Does that mean you could build a machine that is self-aware and thinks like a human?
Yes.
Someday, probably soon, it will be done, and then this silly debate, and any related ideas can be finally laid to rest.
Life is not special, nor is consciousness. We are literally nothing more than self replicating machines.
>>798769
What doesn't he understand? At least he broke down mitosis, you are just hiding behind a moat.
Which "I" would be, which of the two cognisant copies of the original being would hold claim and why? Why does memeing "I think therefore I am" instantly solve this question?
>>798769
How do two physical brains both having subjective experience prove a soul exists or that there is any non-material aspect to thought?
>>798787
So, does that mean that free will is a meme? Every time I breathe, blink, turn my head, think about something, experience an emotion, and so on... Those things are all predetermined?
If everything that happens can be simplified down to collisions of particles, I guess that would have to be the case. My realization that I don't have free will was destined to happen, and my realization that that realization was destined to happen was destined to happen, and so on.
This kind of "infinite loop" shit makes me question my grip on sanity.
>>798803
> Those things are all predetermined?
Does it matter? Would it be better if instead all of your actions would be decided by coin flips? Is it your idea of free will? To be a slave for a random, chance and roulette of fate?
>>798769
>I think, therefore I am
I understand it fine and I adressed it in my post.
Allow me to underline the two points.
>You have two "I"s that think they are the original. Cogito ergo sum is true for both as they were created simultaneously and equally.
>For common Mitosis to work the cell has to dedicate itself to the objective of Mitosis. Thought is not possible during this interval since non-mitotic cell activity has mostly ceased since DNA transcription has halted (I'm not entirely sure if all cell activity must halt though). Cogito ergo sum is no longer valid until the mitosis of the consciousness-critical components of the brain has fully completed at which point the first point kicks in since cogito ergo sum counts for both of these new entities.
This is why multicellular organisms were a really good thing, because one part could dedicate itself to replication and the other could dedicate itself to activities like movement.
>>794817
Why humanities suck
>>798803
This question is a little harder, and admittedly scarier to try to answer.
"Free will" can be seen as the product of our brains being not perfect machines. They do change, so that the exact process for evaluating a situation is never exactly the same. Even if all external factors are the same, we will experience a situation slightly different every time. How it will differ can be random. So it's not quite predetermined.
>>798822
No, I was thinking in terms of having agency and choosing things for myself versus being told by my brain what I want. It's like Karl Pilkington's "does your brain control you or vice versa" idea. I thought it was one of the smartest things he's ever said.
I guess you'd have to decide whether this is such a thing as "me" first.
>>798838
But, if there's some external rhyme or reason to the way they change, then we're back to where we started.
>>798840
The reason we have such a separation between "you" and "your brain" is because we've inherited centuries of dualist baggage. It'd be more accurate to say the brain is influenced by itself, that it is both a controller and the controlled. Your "self" is similar, in that "you" are influenced by things out of your control but in turn you can influence those things (but your influence was itself influenced by some factor out of your control but was itself influence by you etc.). It's not a simple case of one or the other.
>>798838
The problem here is that slight differences could never matter. For example even computers aren't perfect and cosmic rays, radiation or whatever else could randomly change some bits here and there. Still that changes wouldn't affect anything that really matters in the data or most programs and can be neglected in practice.
>>798844
True.
>>798848
It is possible though that with how our brains work, even the smallest of differences do matter.
I want to make some comparison to the differences in how a mechanical computer and a... normal computer work, but I really don't have the wherewithal to do so right now.
Basically though, brains as computers does not negate free will, if you assume free will to be the product of random process.
>>798840
Personally I believe that when brain told you what you want is when you choose things and have an agency. Concept of "me" is illusion here because it is just a product of self-observation after choice was made. It isn't like brain told you what do you want and more like you being able to understood your actions and observe your choice. Agency is here but it wasn't full controlled concepts of "you" in your brain. They are just your self-observation.
>>798863
> if you assume free will to be the product of random process
I am against this because such kind of free will is free from your personality. In deterministic cases, your history and state of your mind is part of how and what you would choose. If there was random free will then there is no will part of it. Just sheer luck and games of chance. You can replace this random to any external factor and nothing would be different in the end.
>>798886
Alright, yes....
Okay so possibly it's weighted. History being past remembered experience, is one part of the equation, state of mind being the result of immediate events and their effect on you, get weighed against each other, giving odds on what you will do, then the random process kicks in. Something like experiences giving odds, and our brain generating a random number.
I know I'm not explaining it too well, but as I see it, either everything is predetermined being the result of past experiences, or there is free will, but only as some form of random process.
>>791928
we know physical processes
we don't know processes that are not physical
can't assume consciousness isn't physical
can suspect it is physical because physical things influence conciousness (cutting in brain, taking drugs)
>>798905
Free will could exist in form of predetermined but highly unpredictable and chaotic process. Better solution than literally mechanism or roll the dice models of decision making.
>>798918
Eh, we are in agreement that we are just physical constructs right? Because that's all I'm really trying to get across.
Guys, if our brains work just like computers, what's to stop someone in the near future from drugging you and hooking your brain and nervous system up to a simulation indistinguishable in every way from what we know as "reality," a la The Matrix? If you knew this technology existed, you'd have to question whether you were still experiencing reality every time you woke up.
[spoiler]How do we know this hasn't already happened?[/spoiler]
>>798970
>what's to stop someone
Way too complex
>>798970
For what fucking point? Like if this shit was even possible what would be a reason to do this?
>>798938
Yes. I can agree on physical nature of the mind and such.
>>798970
what would be their motivation to do such a thing?
>>798978
dang beat me to it faggit
>>798978
Science fair project.
Hook grandpa up to a clock/reality simulation machine. Tell the time and keep grandpa entertained!
Powered by potatoes.
>>798991
Seems like they failed entertained part of this.
>>798999
>I'm presupposing that there will come a time when it won't be too complex for us.
I doubt that this time will ever occur. It seems like math optimisms to me.
>>799010
Brain stimulation shouldn't be that hard. Virtuality can be handwaved to be recreation based of lives of real people instead of true calculated model.
>>799027
>Guys, if our brains work just like computers, what's to stop someone in the near future from drugging you and hooking your brain and nervous system up to a simulation indistinguishable in every way from what we know as "reality
This is what i was replying to. currently there is nothing close to this being possible.
>>799010
>direct brain-computer interface
>computers powerful enough for 1:1 simulation
Do you really think we'll *never* have the capability to do these things? Hell, I think they'll crack the first one within the next few centuries, if not this century. Who knows what our technology is going to look like hundreds or thousands of years from now? Do you think people from 200 years ago could have even *imagined* what the world would look like today? If someone from back then were magically transported to our time, he/she would probably fucking die just from being overloaded by seeing all the amazing shit we take for granted.
>>799035
>currently
How do you know what year it is? Maybe the simulation you're in is just set to 2016, a time before the technology was possible, in order to make you doubt that you're in a simulation.
>>799035
> currently there is nothing close to this being possible.
You don't need the full brain. There should be the part of it that experience all reality as the whole and you can just influence it.
>>798970
The simple answer is that future people would be in simulations themselves so they really can't do shit to your brain.
>>799037
>Do you think people from 200 years ago could have even *imagined* what the world would look like today?
This doesn't mean that it's not going to follow some sort of sigmoidal function. Extrapolation is optimism. We may come close buy I doubt it;s a realistic possibility for at least a few thousand years minimum.
>>799046
Maybe the future people in the simulation made their own simulation. Maybe that's what I'm experiencing. Maybe my brain wasn't plugged into a simulation. Maybe I don't have a brain. Maybe I was created as a simulated being right from the start.
>PANIC
>>799077
Yeah. It would be simple to just simulate your brain if simulation simulates all other brains anyway than to use brain-in-jar interface.
This entire thread is just pre-critical metaphysics.
>mfw scientists trying to be philosophers and haven't even understood Kant.
>mfw all qualia argumentation is arguing from ignorance
>mfw you niggas still havent taken the Hegel pill
>>799124
>my particular brand of metaphysics
Not just one concept among many
>human conciousness didn't arise due to evolutionary processes
>muh armchair philosophy
>>799133
>Implying you can even claim ANYTHING about evolutionary processes without presupposing man as already here
>>799151
>Implying man isn't here now and that the only reason we are able to presuppose anything is due to how we ended up here now.
>>799151
What does reconstructing history from presently-availiable information have to do with minds being magic?
