>he thinks neurons solve the hard problem of consciousness
>>885805
>the hard problem of consciousness
he thinks that the hard problem of consciousness is a real problem
>>885835
>muh neurons
>neurons are responsible for qualia
>>885835
>he's autistic
dude you're just imagining your inner life lmao
>>885835
Here, let PhD neuroscientist and professional atheist Sam Harris explain it to you:
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness
>Hard problem of conciousness
>Macro evolution
Why do humanishits have to invent bullshit to pretend we don't know anything ?
>>885844
I bet you trash talk Harris at every opportunity on every other subject.
>>885856
What the fuck are you talking about lmao
>>885860
I agree with him on many points. His refutation of free will is flawless. His stance on muslims is reasonable. Only his ethics (utilitarianism) I disagree with.
>>885862
Has it ever been observed that a monkey gave birth to a human? Then why don't we see newly evolved humans walking out of the zoo every day?
They do. Everything that makes you you is reducible to neuron activity. Now go cry about it and get on the path to acceptance of reality.
>>885873
Please point out where an action potential becomes a subjective experience. Thanks m8
>>885873
Read more.
>>885875
>subjective experience
oooh, spooky
when there's awareness is involved and "experience" is processed, as our subconscious does
>>885867
No animal has ever been born that is the not the same species as its parents.
>>885899
processed by what
You're not getting it.
>>885899
Anne is the world's expert on human color perception. She has a PhD in Neuroscience and conducts groundbreaking research. She knows all there is to know about retinal ganglion cells, rhodopsin, the occipital lobe etc. She can describe perfectly to you what happens on a biochemical, neurological level when we see red.
But there's something unique about Anne. She grew up in an all black and white room, with black and white pictures on the articles she's writing. Her hair's black and her skin is white. She has never, ever seen color in her entire life.
One day, Anne decides to leave this room that she's spent her entire life in. When she leaves and sees the world for the first time, she sees a peacock fly across a rainbow as a man pulls up to her in a yellow car and gives her a bouquet of red roses.
Has she, in this experience, gained new information? I think that we have to say that she did. Keep in mind, she knows all about how the subconcious processes color. She knows all about how the signal travels to the prefrontal cortex and associations are formed. In this moment, though, she's experiencing color for the first time.
What this argument goes to show is that the subjective experience of color is different than just knowing all there is to know about the biochemistry. The mind may consist of the brain, but is not reducible only to brain processes.
>>885920
I'm pretty sure that since the theory of evolution says that changes are mostly gradual from generation to generation and because of the definition of species this would still be true/false regardless of whether evolution is true or not.
Hybridization might be an exception depending on the circumstances though generally those are not considered species and can only very rarely sire their own offspring.
DUDE WHAT IF CONCIOUSNESS WAS MAGIC LMAO
>>885945
All those words just to say "Muh feelings " ?
I bet you are considered an intellectual among humanities burger flippers.
>>885945
I think all this shows is that experiencing data processing is a different experience from knowing how the data is processed. It does not mean that consciousness cannot be understood and explained by understanding biochemistry.
It's like saying "dude we don't understand how bungee jumping works because actually doing it is different from knowing every aspect of how it works, lmao".
>>885945
>A woman goes her entire life without seeing the color red
In actual response to your post:
I do not think that just because she has perceived a new thing that this changes whether or not the mind can be reduced to brain processes.
Arguably since white light is just an amalgamation of various different wavelengths of light she would have experienced color even in a completely white room but the part of her brain responsible for interpreting the input from the eye would have interpreted it as white.
In seeing different colors all she was seeing was light reflected into her retina by surfaces that omitted other wavelengths of light.
In essence what she would have learned was how her brain interpreted different combinations of varying wavelengths.
Differing inputs are discerned differently by the brain unless there is some connection made between two inputs by the brain.
>>885972
Consciousness "actually happening" is what we're trying to explain you doof. It's not experiencing data processing the question is what is doing the processing in the first place
>>885945
Scientifically impossible thought experiment. She's a woman, so she'll naturally see the color red once a month when she's bleeding out of her disgusting cunt.
>>885972
>experiencing data processing is a different experience from knowing how the data is processed
Exactly. No matter how much you know about any phenomenon (even bungee jumping) on the biochemical, neurological level, you still miss the knowledge gained by the subjective experience, as in the Anne example.
You can't explain the experience of pain by appealing to C-Fibers and Substance P. The only way to understand the experience of pain is to have that experience.
Our lack of ability to explain experiences such as pain in completely biological terms suggests a position like what I suggested, that the mind consists entirely of the brain, but that it isn't merely reducible to the brain.
>>885992
are you one of those ultra-misogynistic homosexuals I keep hearing about?
>>885986
I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of light-perception, as I don't know that much about it. If you're unsatisfied by that specific hypothetical, then you can make Anne blind and then suddenly gain the ability to see. The logic is the same
>>885945
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Go back to tumblr
>>886002
>Is not all about the brain its also about how the brain reacts to stimuli
I honestly don't understand what's wrong with you if that's your point and you thought it deserved a thread or a heated discussion.Don't you have something better to do than to point out the obvious?
>>886004
what's dumb about it
>>886007
My point is that Anne already knew everything there is to know about how the brain reacts to stimuli. That's the whole point. She knows how color is processed in the human brain on the biochemical level. All she's missing is the subjective experience. The fact that a subjective experience can give someone who knows everything about biochemistry new information shows that not all of the relevant knowledge can be explained on a biochemical level. That is to say, the mind is not reducible to the brain.
>>886014
The equivalence of the effect with its cause. I could understand confusing it with its use, but thinking that the wind and the movement of a flag are the same thing requires a special kind of stupidity
>>885805
Give me an organ or any part of any organism ever that has not ultimately been explained by chemistry and physics up to this point.
Give me a single shred of evidence that a human processes cannot be explained and is above chemistry and physics unlike the other four billion years worth of organisms you exceptionally stupid exceptionalist.
It might not even just be neurons. There could very well be a construct that we've missed thus far, but it's guaranteed to be physically explainable and ultimately a feature that evolved in humans.
Reminder that the exact same shit was said about pain, math, memories, and cognition but there have been parts of the brain associated with all three.
>>886018
>That is to say, the mind is not reducible to the brain.
Yes it is, you're just describing how the brain reacts to stimuli, are you dense?
>>886024
Process*
All 4*
>>885865
>His refutation of free will is flawless
maybe if you are an utter pleb lmao
>>886023
>well reasoned post
YOU HAVE TO GO BACK
>2016
>people still think the human body is dependent on a magic cloud of consciousness to survive
Did I get teleported to ancient Egypt? Do you fuckers still think the brain is just for radiating heat?
>>886029
And that experience cannot be explained quantitively, are you thick
>>886037
dude epic dude haha Egyptians haha dumb old people XD
If the brain were the source of conciseness then damage to different parts of the brain would affect people in different ways, which it doesn't. Damage in general doesn't even effect personality or intelligence. Furthermore there has been no correlation between brain activity and mental tasks.
CHECKMATE!
>>886044
Says who?
>>886047
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.
>>886029
Let me explain this again, because I think we're talking past each other. So far, there are three types of knowledge that we've discussed.
1. Knowledge of the brain
2. Knowledge of how the brain reacts to stimuli
3. Knowledge gained by subjective experience
Anne has 1 and 2 down. She already knows about how the brain works. She already knows what happens to someone on the biological level when they see color for the first time.
When she leaves the room, as you say, her brain reacts to stimuli. Before leaving, she could already have told you exactly how her brain would react to that stimuli on the biological level. She already knows about how the brain reacts to stimuli, all she's missing is the actual experience of the brain reacting to stimuli.
When she leaves the room, she gains the third type of knowledge for the first time.This knowledge can't be gained merely by understanding the brain alone. Instead, knowledge of the subjective experience (how it feels to have the brain react to stimuli) necessarily has to come from experience. It can't come just from knowing the biology, because Anne already knew all the biology.
>>886048
True, if conciousness was related to the brain there would be pathologies that can change your personality, your moods swings, make you lose your memories,etc.
Praise jesus
>>886024
No one (well, maybe someone, but not most people, and not David Chalmers who popularized the concept) is claiming that the hard problem is unsolvable by science. They're just pointing out that it has yet to be solved, and that our current approaches don't seem to be working that well. It's not an exceptionalist view at all.
>>886050
Because you just admitted knowing how the mind is reducible to physics and chemistry and actually experiencing it are different things
>>886048
The brain can generate consciousness without just being consciousness. Brain damage might lead to conciousness-damage, but that doesn't mean they're the same.
>>886054
None of this matters, you're describing how the brain reacts to stimuli, its irrelevant to OP's post.
Is this what philosophy students get in debt for life for? pointless mental masturbation?
>>886062
Not really, what do you think experience or feelings are?
>>885805
>he desperately wants consciousness to be special and otherworldly
>>886082
Read my post and try again. Anne already knows literally everything there is to know about how the brain reacts to stimuli biologically. She learns how that feels when she experiences it. This is evidence of a consciousness that can't be explained merely biologically.
>>886085
Something that isn't fully explainable by neuron activity. Marrone this guy
>>886024
>muh nomological danglers
come back when you have a real argument
>>886061
Nah, "certain" people use it to say "HAHA SE WE AREN'T JUST GEMIGALS WER SPESHUL GUESS WHO DID IT :DDD"
>>886100
If Anne is omniscient then she would already know how it feels.
>This is evidence of a consciousness that can't be explained merely biologically.
Are you kidding me? feelings are non biological now? why can't you realize you're in denial about conciousness because non magical conciousness means there is no after life and you're terrified of death.
This board is a disgrace.
>>886105
But that's wrong.
>>886091
>he denies that humans evolved to be special
>>886117
Anne obviously isn't omniscient. No one said that. You keep trying to distract from my point through ad hominem shit-flinging and willfully ignoring my argument.
>>886117
Bruh were saying neurons make something more than what is reducible to their activity.
>>886048
Are you deliberately trolling? Yes brain damage can affect personality and intelligence.
>>886130
>Anne obviously isn't omniscient
"Anne already knows literally everything there is to know about how the brain reacts to stimuli biologically."
Ok she is not omniscient, she just has superhuman/impossible understanding of the complexity of the human brain and all its details.
A pleasure talking to you.
>>885920
>drawing arbitrary lines for species
>implying those arbitrary lines cant be crossed
>>886143
So if she's superhuman how do you know she isn't able to imagine the subjective experience of colour etc just from her knowledge?
>>886091
Define otherworldly. You won't find many people (or many non-religious people, anyway) who think consciousness exists outside of physical reality. The argument is more that consciousness is not explained by our current understanding to the brain, so there must be some aspect to it that we have yet to figure out.
>>886159
That's what I implied previously
>>886143
note how you've given up on objecting to the substance of the argument, and are now doubting how realistic the hypothetical is.
>>886159
This is actually an interesting question. It's a real concern for the Anne argument. It's pretty impossible to know whether or not she'd be able to do that. It's my intuition that she wouldn't, in the same way that a deaf person who can read sheet music wouldn't be able to hear the melodies.
>>886173
What's the substance of your argument? feelings are magic? >>/mlp/
>>886110
It is a real argument though.
If you have a claim that deviates from the established trend, you need some sort of evidence to say it does. A counterexample at the very least to disprove the current trend.
Literally everything that has been researched, studied, and published about literally every single organism to date dwells within the same realm and abides by the exact same laws. Every single process, cycle, organ, response to stimulus, behavior, etc. that has been explained has followed those laws. That includes everything studied in humans up to date.
By "literally everything" I don't mean it in the Millennial sense to add emphasis. I mean 100% of everything observed by everything microscopic and macroscopic has been found to be bound by chemistry, by physical law, explainable physically.
Yeah, it would be great if consciousness and qualia were some amazing transcendent of physics and laws of reality concept, but it's probably not if we go by prediction from trend.
>>886179
Your posts go from bringing up real theoretical concerns with my argument to namecalling.
I've already explained my argument several times. Go back and read my posts. Just for you, though, here's a logically valid construction of it.
Premise P1 Anne has complete physical knowledge about human color vision before her release.
Therefore
Consequence C1 Anne knows all the physical facts about human color vision before her release.
Premise P2 There is some (kind of) knowledge concerning facts about human color vision that Anne does not have before her release.
Therefore (from (P2)):
Consequence C2 There are some facts about human color vision that Anne does not know before her release.
Therefore (from (C1) and (C2)):
Consequence C3 There are non-physical facts about human color vision.
>>886196
Stop using logic. This is unfair.
>>886173
>This is actually an interesting question. It's a real concern for the Anne argument. It's pretty impossible to know whether or not she'd be able to do that. It's my intuition that she wouldn't, in the same way that a deaf person who can read sheet music wouldn't be able to hear the melodies.
But it is only just striking me how shallowly thought out and unfair this Anne question is. To be fair you need her to have unbelievable abilities, far beyond the comprehension of an ordinary human, she needs to know everything, absolutely everything about how the brain and body functions, right down to the quantum level and possibly beyond. And everything about sunlight and anything else she might experience in the outside world to an unbelievable degree of knowledge.
It is pure speculation that such a being wouldn't be able to manipulate their own brain activity to subjectively experience just about anything.
>>886205
she only needs to know things that you think might be relevant to producing human color perception biologically. She doesn't need to be God. She only has to know about how color is sensed and perceived.
>>886216
>she only needs to know things that you think might be relevant to producing human color perception biologically.
So everything about light, down to the quantum level and beyond, everything about electricity down to the quantum level and beyond, everything about human biology to the quantum level and beyond.
And you're talking about letting her out of the room, not just showing her the colour red or green on piece of paper for the first time. She needs to know everything about anything she might experience in the outside world down to the quantum level and beyond.
>>886236
that's only if you think that your consciousness is produced by quantum light physics.
>>886238
There is no line between biology and physics, everything will be physics in the end.
>>886196
Even if this made up straw man experiment was valid your conclusion is still wrong, how the brain reacts to stimuli is between the bounds of physics just like everything else in the universe.
>>886196
If she knew everything about color vision and her own brains perception of it but just never directly saw color she could probably just innervate her optic nerve directly (Through outside implements not involving color), bypassing her rod and cone cells in order to gain the experience of color without ever having seen a colored object.
That way she would gain nothing new when she saw a colored object.
ITT: why the humanities need to be excomunicated from prestigious universities
>>886074
THIS
The brain and nervous system are just wires connecting the human body to the actual human soul floating as cloud in the ether.
Furthermore, if the brain was the source of the human mind then it would require a significant amount of energy and would use more energy when thinking, WHICH DOESN'T HAPPEN!
Further furthermore, even if evidence weren't on our side, but it totally is, then you couldn't even prove us wrong anyway. Consciousness is complicated so if you can't prove your point or explain every facet of human conciousness then by default we are right.
Further further furthermore, how can you be so sure all the complicated stuff going on in the a computer is really necessary to a computer's operation? For all we know computers and all animals are similarly connected to clouds in the ether and all that complicated stuff SUPPOSEDLY going on in their brains/CPUs are just red herring!
>>886272
>Furthermore, if the brain was the source of the human mind then it would require a significant amount of energy and would use more energy when thinking, WHICH DOESN'T HAPPEN!
Let me guess, you have a PhD in pulling shit out of your ass.
>>886278
He is being ironic you autist
>>886134
He was being ironic, tard.
If you do not support a purely material view of consciousness, exactly how do you explain the existance of a substance that is heterogeneous enough to give rise to such a complex thing as consciousness, interacts with matter but isn't matter, doesn't move with gravity, doesn't feel other bodies' experiences, disappears when you die and appears when you're bored, goes into sleep. Etc. Etc.
>>886328
Born*
>>886265
lol what, so she's still seeing the color red right, the experience of which she had never had before right?
>dualism
It's because of people like you that STEM majors are so full of themselves. It's pseudo-intellectuals and apologists trying to pawn BS like this as legitimate contemporary philosophical discourse that make philosophy as a whole look bad.
>>886391
I'm a STEM student and I believe in dualism.
>>886405
Have you had social pressure exerted on you at some point in your life to get you to conform to certain beliefs about the mind?
>>886418
Only on 4chan, where people insulted me for being a dualist. As if that had any power to change my view ...
>>886418
Epic. Wait til my reddit buddies get a load of this one Xd
>>886434
Then why are you a dualist?
>>886439
Because I am not satisfied with science's inability to explain certain things. This goes for consciousness as well as quantum mechanics. I'm not the kind of person who believes in immaterial eternal souls. My dualism has no religious connotations and I don't believe in an afterlife.
>>886495
You are jumping to a very specific conclusion based on a mere lack of information. The evidence soundly is in favor of the mind being a function of the brain and the mere lack of absolute understanding in no way is evidence of a non-physical explanation.
>Get in debt for 200k
>Waste 4 years of your life
>Just for the ability to ask deep and meaningful questions like "DUDE WHAT IF CONSCIOUSNESS IS MAGIC LMAO"
"Philosophy was a mistake"- Plato
>>886564
Should have become a mathematician.
>$300K starting
>>886600
Only applied mathemacians. If you're doing "pure" math, you're almost philosophy teir.
>>885945
>has she gained new information
Of course not. She is simply experiencing it in a more immediate fashion. If she was an expert on color perception, then she would know exactly what to expect when she walks out of that room.
>mfw someone is a dualist near me
>>886564
>DUDE WHAT IF CONSCIOUSNESS IS MAGIC
What sort of retarded meme is this? How hard is it to simply say that phenomenon like qualia is just a unique type of physical property that is entwined with but doesn't interact with mass and energy and can't be detected with our current technology? I know dualists like to jump off the sanity boat on this one but they didn't hijack it.
>>889672
>but doesn't interact with mass and energy
So it's magic.
>he thinks I or anybody else cares about the one niche topic you probably spent the last few hours researching in an attempt to impress a Taiwanese massage forum
>>889638
>mfw someone doesn't realize that one's worldly desires are separate from oneself
>>889677
An intwined physical property subject to physical laws. They could be argued to causally interact indirectly sure.
For instance, light causes a predictable change in your brain, and since the qualia are properties of your brain matter, they would correspondingly change.
>>885944
Processed by whatever is capable of processing information. It can be neurons or it can be transistors.
I'm not getting what, your claims about spooky magic?
>>885805
Why wouldn't they? Neurons are capable of transmitting and storing electrical impulses that make up what we would consider consciousness, thought, and memories. Implying that there is some immaterial component of consciousness and what makes a thinking being actually think would be unfalsifiable if it cannot be measured by physical means. Why is it so far-fetched to say that consciousness exists as a result of a hugely complex electrochemical system?
>>889680
>the nature of consciousness
>a niche topic
>>885945
Sort of related. I suppose we actually will be able to try it out at some point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csx_PHKJei8
