What are /sci/'s thoughts on the hard problem of consciousness? How can matter give rise to subjective experience?
>>8164190
Have you checked your bunghole?
>>8164193
wow dude nice meme
>>8164190
Nonexistent metaphysical dribble.
>>8164194
Woah dude nice bunghole
>>8164196
So you just ignore the problems and act like it's not there? Sounds very scientific. :^)
>How can matter give rise to subjective experience
I don't see what's so implausible about it. Our bodies are unique systems, and that alone opens us up to subjective experience.
>>8164199
I'm your ignorant kind of physicist.
>>8164201
I think you misunderstand what I mean by subjective experience.
Even if we knew everything about how the brain works, how all the neurons work, how memory is stored, that still wouldn't explain why those chemical reactions should be accompanied by subjective experience. Why doesn't it just work in the dark, like a machine?"
>>8164210
>that still wouldn't explain why those chemical reactions should be accompanied by subjective experience
Wouldn't it? Can't the subjectivity be explained by everyone having a slightly different biology?
>>8164218
The subjectivity question in this sense has nothing to do with uniqueness, but why it is like something to be you or me, why we aren't zombies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
>>8164210
We actually do sort of know how both neurons and memory works.
And really, you could ask the same thing about computers.
"How does a bunch of electrons and silicon produce light and information on a screen?"
All of that is done using matter and there's absolutely no reason to assume that consciousness is different. It's just how it works. "Why" doesn't matter, and you can ask whatever questions you want, and make up whatever reasons you want. That's why there is no hard problem of consciousness. It asks questions about what isn't there.
>>8164225
Biology dictates reality, umwelt.
>>8164190
>>8164199
>>8164210
So which phenomenon exactly are you asking us to explain? The only "evidence" for any kind of consciousness beyond brain chemitry is people claiming to have that kind of consciousness because they "feel" it. Which can easily be explained by brain chemistry. Your problem doesnt exist.
>>8164190
I don't have a conscious.
Well, I'm not telling the whole truth. I don't let morality interfere with reality.
>>8164238
>This hypothetical being that acts like a human without having a consciousness isn't possible I think.
Actually, it may be...IBM's Watson assembles information into an answer with an output that resembles a human's, but using an entirely different process. It's not hard to envision a machine capable of fooling a human, Turing test style, but with nothing like a human process of reflection and recollection. It may have a consciousness, but one that operates in fits and starts, as it's forced to "slow down" to human levels of operation in order to communicate with us.
(Pic related was about such a machine...it could overcome the issue of being trapped by its creator, but had no "moral compass" to guide it, and so, left the human that helped it escape to die)
All the same, the "hard problem" is bullshit, imo.
>>8164278
that really hurt my feelings :(
>>8164228
Producing light on a screen is fundamentally different from creating experience, because the creation of light is something we can understand with our scientific model of the universe. We don't even know what subjective experience is, what laws allow it to exist. It's not so much questioning the brains ability to create consciousness, but to explain how it can even exist.
As the dual form of the function and the input manifested, variables and numbers were distributed. You are part of a matrix. There are variables, because there is infinity. There are infinite universes each emanating from there own origin. As the rays of an origin disperse, they become discreet. This is your pre-determination at the absolute [infinity].
This has been asked over 200 times in the last two months.
Stop copypast'ing this shit just because you've anchored to
>science can't prove nuthin
Here is my copypasta response to your copypasta nonsense:
Coordinate Reality Model
Survival and Reward Prioritization Model
The brain follows these rules:
1.) Particular functions are handled by particulars parts of the brain
2.) The brain stores information and related information [longterm-shortterm; abstract-literal]
3.) The brain is reactive to threats and attractions [fight-flight; attraction-attachment]
And that's basically it. The complex part is finding out:
1.) How it does it
2.) How it came to be that way
3.) The details of storage and relationship model building
It's not some great spooky mystery and it's not a soft science, it's just harder to look at because we don't have the tech, and different people build [modify] different brains based on different experiences and environments...
>>8164841
The multi-verse is composed of primes. The mechanics of primes creating parts in give off multiplicative properties, that all numbers can be expressed in. Having the coefficient identity be the same is symmetry. But nonetheless, you're separate in origin. Perhaps the function that defines the equivalence relation brings intra-universal formal manifestations to the separate symmetric identities.
>>8164845
This is a whole bunch of nonsense you made up. It's what antisocratics call "figured out" even though they haven't used true deductive logic, and instead use unconstrained inductive logic and then follow up in fallacy loops.
Stop using logical fallacies.
You can just look them up, it takes seconds.
The lists work like this:
Fallacy name; What it means; Example
It's that simple.
Stop. Using. Fallacies.
Either you have empirical proof, or you're just making shit up.
>>8164248
The fact that you can even say a thing like that makes me question that you even have experience to begin with. For someone with experience, the hard problem should be very easy intuitively to understand but hard to put into words.
You're saying experience is created by brain chemistry, but you don't wonder about what mechanics allow the experience to exist? From our understanding of matter, matter is not accompanied by some magical property that allows it to have experience. No matter how complicated the chemistry gets the question will still be there. You acting like there is no problem and your thoughtprocess is essentially analogous to saying if you build complex enough lego it can become a computer. But it being plastic makes it nonconductive and not capable of being a computer, the same way matter is not able to have experience, according to our scientific understanding of matter. Therein lies the problem.
>>8164271
Morality has fuckall to do with the hard problems of consciousness. Morality is part of the easy problems.
>>8164856
It's math, dummy.
>unconstrained induction
>Hard answer, for a hard question.
It's emergent statistics
>>8164238
>This hypothetical being that acts like a human without having a consciousness isn't possible I think
If you think of a human being as nothing more than a fuckload of chemical reactions, a molecular machine basically, isn't it very logical to assume that we should be zombies? Yet we're not.
>>8164864
There was no math there.
Conjecture with words is no math.
I don't think you know what math means.
Also, conjecture itself isn't math just because you don't know what a false dilemma is.
Many stupid people think they use false dilemmas to build abstract walls they interpret at restraints, and therefore as math.
But that's not logic nor is it math.
It's called circular logic based on made up nonsense.
Conciousness is inductive.
>>8164876
The implication was there. What I said was logical, from one step to the next. If you don't understand something, ask instead of talking irrelevant nonsense.
>>8164882
It's also deductive and constructive.
Don't be so simple.
Inductive doesn't build a coordinate reality model if there are contradictions or connections/associations.
I think the electromagnetic field theory of consciousness feels the most intuitive out of all the explanations, although it doesn't answer the hard problem. It basically goes like this:
Consciousness could be an electromagnetic field created by the firings of neutrons. If this is true, then comes the question of how the brain can know of consciousness if the field is not directly connected to the brain. The answer would be that the field can affect the physical brain in the same way magnetism can induct current in a wire. The brain creating a field that then interracts back with it creates a feedback loop, which is how you can think about consciousness for example. Synchronous firing of neurons amplify the effect of the field.
The problems with this theory:
>Would other, stronger electromagnetic fields (that we are exposed to every day) not influence the brain's EM field and alter our consciousness?
>EM field would persist while you sleep, though consciousness is not active. Is there a required amount of complexion required for the field to be conscious?
>Hard problem of consciousness persists, although moved down a few levels.
>>8164883
>implication
>logical
You can't use logical fallacies and still be logical.
again, stop being stupid and just google "list of logical fallacies" you idiot.
The "thinking" you're doing has already been empirically proven wrong.
I can never understand why people refuse to look things up and stand corrected?
Are you afraid of being judged?
People will always judge you more for being stubborn and wrong than for standing corrected.
Idiot.
>>8164843
Those points are all addressing the easy problems of consciousness. You're essentially doing what's depicted in the OP image. Assuming it's as simple and straight forward as you say, we should all be philosophical zombies.
>>8164887
Lol conciousness is simple, if you try and differentiate it with logic then it becomes exponentially complex... so why not keep it simple!
Lets define conciousness to be a group of collaborative connections.
So for example, I am happy to accept that countries, companies and cultures are concious. Why? Well every individual which makes up said examples of conciousness are acting as neurons.
It is simple :)
>>8164897
>Zombies
You mean we don't have free will.
Talk like an adult please.
And we don't. This is the scientific consensus because it's based on empirical science.
Our "choices" are determined by genetics [sensitivity], environmental [induction], training [deduction], and repetition [connection].
People may "irrational" or "broken" decisions when they're brain is malfunctioning.
Malfunctioning isn't free will; free will does not exist.
Neither cognitive scientists nor neurologists believe in the circular logic you and the other idiot anon are using.
Quick tip: You haven't been exposed to what logical fallacies are; that is why you are malfunctioning right now.
Scientific proof: Learn them and you will stop malfunctioning.
>>8164898
>is you try to use logic than things aren't intuitive
or intuition is wrong, which is why we invented science and logic
You have some serious backward thinking.
Talking about "affirming the consequent" fallacy taken to an existential level.
>>8164902
>You mean we don't have free will.
P-zombies have been talked about so much in the thread so I assumed you knew what kind of zombie I was talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
I agree with most of your points on free will, though this is is not related to free will.
>>8164904
Logic was invented for communication, not because it was right.
Logic is needed for any form of communication!
I am not making an "affirming the consequent" fallacy, I was creating a definition.
>>8164892
Rudin W. Real and Complex Analysis pg 15. Theorem 1.17 explains simple functions yield a function at n -> infinity. If we define a system of equations, with a common function, on the universe time-spatially, then we have applied algebra. Look up linear algebra etc and apply it. The reason there are infinite universes originating at their own origin is because we let that be for relativities sake. This is implied in multi-object universe, where for each object there is a universe. (points on a plane). This implied discreet measurable dimensions. Measurability would be on the real line, implying pre-determination in domain. Obviously any number can be expressed as primes. (2^x times 3^y e.g.) These primal identites are thus the parts that run all mechanisms of all numbers. The coefficient identity, being the same classifies itself (look up equivalence relations). The rest is implied intuitively.
>>8164908
also, the last step brings us to another order of reasoning (another reason why we exist in essence).
>>8164190
subjective experience exists in non-sentient animals.
one example is animals that are colorblind. they can't see all of the colors, so they view the world subjectively.
>>8164918
Well in that case, my response should be directed to the other person who posted in response to me. >>8164895
>>8164190
you're going to have to specify what part of the hard problem of consciousness you are addressing. the hard problem of consciousness is a phrase amateur philosophers and/or luddites like to throw around without actually defining it.
>>8164937
Good point
Yep OP show us your definitions!
>>8164937
>>8164947
The very simple and clear definition is what I wrote in the OP; "How can matter give rise to experience"? Why does it feel like something to be you or me?
>the hard problem of consciousness is a phrase amateur philosophers and/or luddites like to throw around without actually defining it.
The problem is well defined, I don't think that it's some sort of wishy washy term that can mean a lot of different things depending on how you define it.
>>8164907
Without logic there is no correct or incorrect, because those are communicative words as well.
All arguments must be communicative and all arguments must be logical and contain proof.
>>8164908
Oh look, circular logic, appeal to authority and loaded statements, none of which have any empirical basis.
It's so cute you think you're the first to adopt that way of "thinking".
Now well me crystal heal people because I can't prove they don't.
>>8164964
conscious experience is exhibited in animals with partial sentience like great apes and cats/dogs. humans aren't 1000 steps above everything else; this is a common misconception stemming from a lack of understanding of animals' learning and understanding capabilities.
if you haven't already seen them, you should watch some of the videos on Koko the gorilla.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNuZ4OE6vCk
>>8164969
I think I might stop replying to you, because you don't explain these oh so apparent fallacies that I'm using. But if you explain what's wrong, we might have a further discussion.
>>8164972
I don't think I ever implied humans are 1000 steps above anything. The hard problem applies to animals as well, assuming they have experience, which they probably do.
>>8164973
>Argument from Silence
Hey, fallacies are easy.
They work like this:
Term; Explanation; Example.
You then take the example as a formula.
If the person's argument follows that formula, then they're using that fallacy.
It's plug and play.
It isn't complicated and it doesn't need to be explained.
You're asking
>"I have 1 apple and 1 other apple. You say when I put them together I have 2 apples. I don't believe you because I don't understand addition. Fuck you. Prove to me this... these... concepts"
All fallacies follow this format:
X = Y because of P, where P = Presumption.
What that presumption is, and examples of how it's wrong... are called formal and informal fallacies.
Pic: That's you.
>>8164964
Well I shall explain before I disappear...
The connections made between the matter (neurons for example) give rise to experience because that is what experience is (just to be clear! I am making a definition here not a circular argument, a definition)
Why do we feel this "experience"?
Well somebody has to feel it, that is the definition of feeling after all.
So how about that someone be you!
>>8164969
Your definition of logic is logical! :)
>>8164982
I think you're replying to the wrong person again.
>>8164986
no you're just retarded as fuck
stop trying to project on others to escape criticism
>>8164989
There was someone who actually said they were replying to the wrong person in response to me. Dumb fuck.
>>8164977
the question "How can matter give rise to experience" is like the question "What is the meaning of life" in that there is no proper answer as the question has to be broken down into many different questions.
Some components:
How did conscious thought arise through natural selection?
What are the components necessary for a biological mind able to produce conscious experience?
What are the physical characteristics of conscious thought?
How is conscious thought able to be produced biologically?
Is there a dimension or a place for information ? As information surely must be something that has importance in physics. If so is the physical brain existing in a dimension of information too where all the pieces of the physical realm produce together a informational you?
>>8164995
after looking at the four questions I posted, the first one (How did conscious thought arise through natural selection) seems like an improvement over the question "How can matter give rise to experience"
The three other questions explain all of the aspects of this question.
>>8164995
Well it's hard to break down into questions because we know so little about it. By breaking it down into those questions you're making assumptions that might not hold true, because qualia and subjective experience are concepts completely disconnected and incompatible with our models of the physical world.
>>8164196
/thread
Genocide of dualists when ?
>>8165005
as a physicalist, I've always disagreed with the existence of qualia. I think qualia is just higher forms of the conscious experience other animals are capable of experiencing.
subjective experience is differences in what we store in our minds and how this affects our viewpoint, and memory is proving to have a very physical function with modern studies. one study that shows how neurons can be removed to completely remove a memory:
http://news.mit.edu/2014/erasing-traumatic-memories-0116
>>8165012
wrong link
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/123485-mit-discovers-the-location-of-memories-individual-neurons
>>8165012
>as a physicalist, I've always disagreed with the existence of qualia. I think qualia is just higher forms of the conscious experience other animals are capable of experiencing.
It being a higher form of conscious experience doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. That's like saying that there's no such thing as radio waves, it's just light with lower energy. Qualia describes a phenomena. It not being real makes as little sense as anger not being real.
>subjective experience is differences in what we store in our minds and how this affects our viewpoint
That's just a statement that says no brain is the same as the other. It doesn't explain why there is experience.
>>8165012
>>8165031
Oh god, now you're pretending to have a conversation so at the end you can congratulate yourself.
No one was talking about "qualia" here until a month ago when you decided to spam the board.
Get a real education and stop roleplaying on here.
Everything you've cried about has been disproven a billion times over, INFALLIBLY so.
It's called falsificationism.
Your retarded new age beliefs are FIN.
Done with. FINITO.
D E A D W R O N G.
We know how it all works.
It's called neurologic you idiot.
Stop posting shit from pre-neurology.
Qualia is an old idea the time period when people ate mercury and believed little people lived inside of semen.
Stop being a faggot.
>>8164190
>How can matter give rise to subjective experience?
I don't think it can. There's no physical law which asserts that the existence of consciousness is necessary for the universe to function. You can just say that consciousness (not its contents) exists independently of the physical universe and be done with it.
>>8165053
I'm the person replying to him, see pic. unless you think that he's posting from two different ips for some reason.
>>8165031
Qualia is hypothetical in function, so it has to be proven to be theoretical before you use it as a thing that has any evidence for existence. Radio waves are detectable with modern devices and the objectively exist, while qualia is not detectable in any way.
the reason why there is experience is differing viewpoints and memories formed in a unique way based on the environment, past memories, and genetics of the organism that creates the experience.
>>8165053
I really hope you're not older than 18, or worse, you actually are in a scientific field, because you are the single most and cancerous person I've ever seen on /sci/, and that's saying a lot. Are you really so afraid of any discussion that implies the scientific standard model doesn't have all the anwers to everything, that you have to shit up the thread this much, with insults mirroring that of a 10 year old? Could you maybe just tone down your autism a bit?
>>8165083
I don't understand what exacly you mean by proposing that qualia isn't real. Qualia is the name given for the subjective experience of things like color, emotions, sound, etc. By denying its existance, are you trying to say you don't have subjective experience?
>he fell for the materialism meme
Mind is an immaterial projection generated by a fully material organ
>>8164862
What is conscientiousness if not knowing what you're doing and choosing to act? If you don't have conscience you can't be moral or immoral.
This posses a similar issue with free will.
>>8165479
((([citation needed])))
>>8165492
Only rational explanation there is m8, sorry that you can't see the truth of something with muh authorities spoon feeding evidence to you
>>8165498
Without*
>>8165498
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Awaiting evidence, senpai.
>>8165498
>inmaterial projection
>rational
maximum quok
>>8165487
conscience is not the same thing as consciousness.
Conscience is part of the easy problems and can be explained by biology and evolution. The actual experience accompanied/created by conscience is what's hard to explain, not conscience itself.
>>8165501
*tips fedora*
>>8164228
pic related explains your strawman. now it's your turn to explain how neurons create 'conciousness'.
>>8164828
>creation of light is something we can understand with our scientific model of the universe
So is consciousness. Everything we know about the brain fits perfectly within established laws.
>>8166054
Here you are.
>>8166101
>So is consciousness
Not yet. You're welcome to explain it to me if you think you know. And please try to get an intuative understanding of what the hard problem is before you attempt to do so.
>>8166118
>please try to get an intuative understanding of what the hard problem is before you attempt to do so.
That's gonna be hard, given you've utterly failed to even vaguely describe it in any way other than pure hand-waving.
>>8166184
Consciousness is [insert quantum woo nonsense] that makes humans feel special because we're not just an object that conforms to the physical laws of the universe.
>>8166198
Why is subjective experience magical?
This whole thing feels like a poorly defined word game. We experience things with way we experience them because of the way our brains work. Asking why a brain that's capable of of observing it's surroundings and using that information to understand them has an "experience" is akin to asking why a car that provides traction and steering is capable of driving - it's because that's what we name the thing it does.
Maybe I'm not understanding the "hard problem", but it still seems meaningless.
>>8166217
Ironically, I think understanding the hard problem is easier if you look at our brains it in the purely materialist view. Why should chemical reactions add up to the kind of inner movie of yourself you experience right now, why doesn't everything going on in your brain happen in the dark, with no observer there to experience it? The car analogy would only be true if it was like something to be the car driving itself.
>>8166225
>Why should chemical reactions add up to the kind of inner movie of yourself you experience right now,
Because that's what a brain does - it's very complicated system designed to observe and try to model its environment. The "inner movie" isn't some magic thing that's distinct from the operation of a brain, it's just us describing what we perceive.
>why doesn't everything going on in your brain happen in the dark
I'm not sure what you mean by "in the dark". You've clearly trying to build an analogy for something, but I don't understand what.
>with no observer there to experience it?
The idea of an "observer" is an entirely human invention. We're observers of our own thoughts because that's how we defined the word observer - it's us perceiving stuff.
We consciously perceive our own thinking because that's an enormously useful skill, that allows for all kinds of predictive and social skills.
>The car analogy would only be true if it was like something to be the car driving itself.
The car analogy wasn't about anything a actually car does. The point of the car analogy was that the words we use were created to describe what was being done.
Cars dive because that's what we say cars do. People have experiences because that's the word we invented to describe people perceiving and understanding their environment.
I feel like we're not quite talking about the same things here.
>>8165501
The connections between neurons are physical. The firing sequences for those neurons are not. We know the external world only from a single perspective (objectively), but we know our internal activity from a double perspective (objectively and subjectively). The physical activity of our brains can be objectively known, and the law of causality strictly applies thereto. But the internal experience of this activity is not corporeal, it does not 'occupy space'. A thought, an image, a memory cannot be conceived as something that 'resides' or exists within the physical brain. The inside of the brain is made up of organic matter, nothing besides. Knowledge is, reckoned logically, a collection of firing orders for the neurons in the brain. This collection or code has no material existence, any more than a hypothetical or imaginary line between the set of x points has material existence. This is double aspect theory.
>>8166339
The law of causality only applies to the objective, empirical side of things (i.e. to physical, chemical-electrical brain activity). There can be no casual relationship whatever between events which occur simultaneously. The internally experienced phenomenon of consciousness is simply the subjective, first-person aspect of physical brain activity. The latter does not 'give rise' to the former, nor it is not the cause thereof. They are two different aspect of the selfsame thing. This is double aspect theory.
>>8166339
That's silly.
The photos on my harddrive don't occupy any physical space either. The words in a book have the exact same composition as an ink smear.
The universe isn't a collection of stuff. It's an arrangement of stuff. And the arrangement is just as real and objective as the stuff is.
>>8166346
>The photos on my harddrive don't occupy any physical space either.
That's because they are encoded into bits, and then retained in binary form. It is not the photos themselves which are stored, but a code which represents (or corresponds to) the photo. You cannot actually see the photo by opening up your hard drive and looking at the platter. You need the correct equipment to decode the binary and project the image.
>>8164190
property dualism/biological naturalism (pic related) at the practical level of description
Orch-OR is interesting and should be at least explored scientifically more.
>>8166370
>searle
pls no
>>8166370
at the fundamental level, physicalism. property dualism is completely compatible with naturalism. look in to fodor, multiple realizability, problems with type physicalism , etc.
it makes sense that relational properties can arise between matter that processes information that are not fully reducible to the physical arrangement of the matter. if they were fully reducible, multiple realizability would be impossible.
i'm sure there are counter arguments that are compelling to all of this, but i've dabbled in phil of mind for a while and this is what i've come to
>>8166364
>It is not the photos themselves which are stored, but a code which represents (or corresponds to) the photo.
So what? It's still clearly physical.
>You cannot actually see the photo by opening up your hard drive and looking at the platter. You need the correct equipment to decode the binary and project the image.
And a blind person still couldn't perceive it even then. Why does the required equipment matter here?
>>8166373
>muh chinese room
searle does not think ai is impossible. many people misunderstand the argument. dennett has misrepresented it.
if you have other criticisms i'm actually interested. as i said nothing in this is settled, and science will eventually settle it, but this kind of stuff is slightly important in deciding what/how we should study the mind.
>>8166379
The disc is physical. The data stored on the disc (which is really just a sequence of 1s and 0s) is not. The physical matter of the disc can only store or retain so many codes. The disc has a physical capacity limit in that respect, but only in that respect.
The equipment matters because you are not physically taking an image and stuffing into a container. You are creating a code which corresponds to that image and writing the code onto a storage medium. The code by itself is meaningless without the equipment that processes it. You can never reproduce the image that is stored on the disc without the proper equipment. What exists physically is just the disc. Adding data to a hard disc does not involve increasing its physical mass. A 'full' hard drive weighs the same as an 'empty' one.
>>8166389
In the same way, if you show me a picture of an elephant, and I commit that image to memory, no mass has actually been added to my physical brain.
>>8166393
The neurons have simply 'learned' a new firing sequence. This sequence utilizes matter without being itself material. Hence, it is an immaterial projection.
>>8164190
Prove computers don't also have subjective experience
>>8166389
>>8166393
I don't agree with your usage of the word "physical", but I'm just gonna delete the argument that was here because it's not really the point.
>>8166398
>This sequence utilizes matter without being itself material. Hence, it is an immaterial projection.
Okay, fine.
I don't think you're using a terribly helpful definition of "immaterial", but I'll adopt it if moves this conversation forwards. A memory of an elephant is "immaterial" in the same sense that the image on a photograph of that elephant is "immaterial".
How do you get from there back to the "hard problem"?
>>8164283
i dont agree with materialists therefore you are all fedora tipping neckbeards
>>8166429
That's what you're going with?
>The law of causality only applies to the objective, empirical side of things (i.e. to physical, chemical-electrical brain activity).
And to everything that's derived from that physical brain function - ie. all mental processes.
>There can be no casual relationship whatever between events which occur simultaneously.
What?
What does that have to do with anything else?.
>The internally experienced phenomenon of consciousness is simply the subjective, first-person aspect of physical brain activity.
Yes, obviously.
>The latter does not 'give rise' to the former, nor it is not the cause thereof.
Uh, that's just a blind assertion.
If you want to claim that, you're REALLY going have to actually make an argument.
>They are two different aspect of the selfsame thing.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
>This is double aspect theory.
You've not made any arguments or described anything at all. I can barely tell how your sentences are even supposed to be connected to each other - it looks like you've just mashed a bunch of different sentences together.
>>8166446
>And to everything that's derived from that physical brain function - ie. all mental processes.
Here's your first mistake.
For something to be the cause of something else, it must precede it in the sequence of time. Mental activity occurs simultaneously with neurological activity, because these are two sides, two aspects of the same monad. Your misunderstanding here is what has confused the rest.
It is wrong, speaking rationally, to say that this or that neurological activity is the cause (!) of this or that mental activity. They are, once again, two aspects of the same phenonemon. We can reckon with this monad objectively, in which case it is empirical brain activity; or we can reckon with subjectively, in which case it is intuitive mental activity. The reason that there can be no causal relationship between brain and mind is because causality only governs one half of phenomena, namely the objective, empirical side. This is the basic standpoint of transcendental idealism in the Kantian sense.
>>8164190
It can't, but we're doing the best we can do. Everything objective is filtered through our brains subjectively, all we can do is hope that the filter is right.
>>8166475
>For something to be the cause of something else, it must precede it in the sequence of time.
Sure.
>Mental activity occurs simultaneously with neurological activity, because these are two sides, two aspects of the same monad.
I'm not very familiar with that terminology, but okay. I didn't say otherwise - I said "derived from", not "caused".
>The reason that there can be no causal relationship between brain and mind is because causality only governs one half of phenomena, namely the objective, empirical side.
I think you might be abusing the word "cause" here a bit.
"Causes" in the strict physics sense requires two distinct phenomena. The impact of a bowling ball causes the pins to fall over, and the impact and the falling over are seperate. The mind isn't a entirely distinct thing from the brain though, it's a description of the function of the brain.
I suspect a stricter description might be that "the mind is the brain's perception of it's own cognition", but I'm open to being wrong on that.
>>8166496
>"Causes" in the strict physics sense requires two distinct phenomena
Exactly right. What we have here is a monad, a single entity with two sides, two aspects. Q.E.D.
If mind and brain were distinct phenomena, then one could of course be the cause of the other (or rather, the activity of one could be the cause of the activity of the other).
>the mind is the brain's perception of it's own cognition
A nonsensical, circular phrase. It amounts to saying "the mind is the brain's consciousness of it being conscious".
just spit-ballin here but consciousness may have always been; matter may have come after as a physical manifestation or subcomponent
that would fix a lot of problems in philosophy/psychology. the only issue is solving this via acceptable evidence.
>>8166521
naw pham now you're shading over into the realm of groundless speculation. saying consciousness always existed and that objects/matter inhabit consciousness somehow is bordering on mysticism. you might just as well substitute 'god' or 'the mind of god' for consciousness and have done
>>8166339
Sadly this is merely a personal opinion stating nonsense left and right without being based on anything.
>>8166594
>If I can't make sense of it, then it must be nonsense
>>8166611
Naw it's just nonsense conjecture based on feels, brudder.
>>8166613
>based on feels
wanna know how I know you're retarded?
>>8166616
Even with this post. You are only talking about feels.
>>8166616
>I feel that physics cannot explain the actual activity that goes on between neurons, therefore I feel that something greater is at play. Additionally, I feel that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid.
>>8166632
Nice reading comprehension m8
Physics fully describes the empirical activity between neurons; that activity is causally governed. It does not describe the subjective experience of this neuronal activity.
>>8166638
>I feel that physics cannot explain how the actual activity that goes on between neurons creates subjective experience, therefore I feel that something greater is at play. Additionally, I feel that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid.
Sorry buddy, I added a couple of words to make it easier for you to understand. I thought you were capable of following a conversation. I'll try to be better about those assumptions in the future.
>>8165006
it's not dualism you insufferable shitfucker
clearly there is a quality to your brain that a single electron (or a rock) does not posses, philosophers call it qualia, but OP defined it well and the question is real and has fuck all to do with dualism or a "soul"
>>8166644
>therefore I feel that something greater is at play.
What are you insinuating, dipshit? Where did I ever refer to 'something greater'? It's not mysticism, you cretin. It's a simple statement that materialism is hopelessly inadequate for explaining the subjectively experience of consciousness, because that experience is not reducible to material interactions. Brain and mind are highly correlated, but correlation does not imply causation.
>>8166677
>I feel that physics will never explain how subjective consciousness arises from neuron interactions. I feel it's just something "different", something "not physical", something "not reducible". I feel that anyone who disagrees is a dipshit.
>>8166513
>Exactly right. What we have here is a monad, a single entity with two sides, two aspects. Q.E.D.
No, what we have is a thing and a description of the behavior of a thing. A car and driving aren't two aspects of the same thing.
>A nonsensical, circular phrase.
It's not circular at all. Perception is only one of the things the brain does. One of the things the brain can perceive is the tasks that it is doing. I'm suggesting that when we refer to a "mind" we are generally referring to that particular perception.
>>8166665
How is the rejection of materialism not dualism?
>>8166677
>It's not mysticism
Then it's supporters have done a very poor job of differentiating it from mysticism, because it seems to be just as woolly and poorly defined.
>materialism is hopelessly inadequate for explaining the subjectively experience of consciousness, because that experience is not reducible to material interactions.
That's an assertion.
If you want to defend that assertion, you actually need to be able to show that a "purely material brain" would be distinguishable from a "brain with mind". Otherwise it seems reasonable to think they're the same thing.
>>8166705
>How is the rejection of materialism not dualism?
how is acknowledging subjective experience rejecting materialism?
we dont know why gravity works, we dont know why the electromagnetic field does what it does.
to properly reject materialism we would first have to understand what the "material" of this universe really is (which we dont)
I dont get how one can be in such blatant denial about such an obvious fact.
if I repeatedly insert a broomstick up your butt, you will feel a certain sensation
inb4 you deny it
>>8166722
>how is acknowledging subjective experience rejecting materialism?
It isn't. I think you might want to re-read my post.
>>8166722
>we dont know why gravity works, we dont know why the electromagnetic field does what it does.
That's because "why" is a fucking meaningless question in this context.
If you mean "how" -- as in how gravity permeates space, do you believe that this question too is permanently out of reach of science?
>if I repeatedly insert a broomstick up your butt, you will feel a certain sensation
And that sensation can be explained scientifically, even if details are not 100% known.
>>8166705
A physical brain with no observable electrical activity would doubtless be a brain without a mind. Projection is an active process. We experience the absence of this projection in dreamless sleep.
You obviously can't have a mind without a brain. That doesn't prove that the mind is material.
And you're being rather loose with terminology. Perception strictly speaking pertains to things whose source is external to the physical brain. Perception is not synonymous with sensation. The intellect (formal part of the mind) applies certain forms to raw sensory data into order to render these intelligible. The empirical world does not just waltz into our heads.
>>8166741
We impose a certain order upon the data furnished by sensation.
>>8166737
>And that sensation can be explained scientifically
qualia cannot be measured by scientific means. You are an retard
>If you mean "how" [...]
I know we can make very accurate math formulas for physical laws, and thats not what I mean, fuckface.
>>8166749
>qualia cannot be measured by scientific means.
OH HAHAHAHA YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE
>and thats not what I mean, fuckface.
Suddenly the "why" makes sense. You really are that dumb. Why are you on /sci/?
>>8166741
>A physical brain with no observable electrical activity would doubtless be a brain without a mind.
Technically yes, but that's not what I was talking about.
>And you're being rather loose with terminology. Perception strictly speaking pertains to things whose source is external to the physical brain.
Fair enough, that may have been a poor choice of words. I'm not sure what a better word would be though, and I don't think the use of "perception" there is too ambiguous.
>>8166749
>qualia cannot be measured by scientific means.
It seems that the more questions people ask about qualia, the less it can actually do.
>Instead of discussing the subject matter there are people arguing about feels
Welcome to /Sci/
>>8166792
>>Instead of discussing the subject matter there are people arguing about feels
Welcome to philosophy.
>>8164902
Are you at least fucking understanding what is at stake ? The point is, there is a fucking observer of the universe somewhere between your ears, no amount of "your self is merely an illusion " will change that
>>8164902
No, you're misinterpreting what he said and being obnoxious at the same time. He meant that a robot that met your original criteria would still not be considered conscious.
>>8166302
>I'm not sure what you mean by "in the dark". You've clearly trying to build an analogy for something, but I don't understand what.
If you look at your computer, you see a machine of complex electronics, that does what it is programmed to do. You don't assume that it is like something to be a computer. It is like something to be us, thus the computer is working 'in the dark'.
>Because that's what a brain does - it's very complicated system designed to observe and try to model its environment. The "inner movie" isn't some magic thing that's distinct from the operation of a brain, it's just us describing what we perceive.
But there is a huge difference between a system being able to describe perception through biochemical functions, and it actually having experience. You're saying the brain creates consciousness, but you're ignoring the mechanics involved in allowing consciousness to even exist.
>The idea of an "observer" is an entirely human invention. We're observers of our own thoughts because that's how we defined the word observer - it's us perceiving stuff. We consciously perceive our own thinking because that's an enormously useful skill, that allows for all kinds of predictive and social skills.
It's easy in this discussion to get stuck in sematics games. What I mean by observer is the experience of what it's like to be you. I could have used other words, qualia, experience, consciousness, observer, etc. You cannot explain away the problem by just saying that it's just the way we percieve things, because again, why couldn't that happen in the dark? From the way you're arguing, it seems like you think it is happening in the dark, and don't understand what experience is.
>>8166416
We can't really prove that they don't. But you could make the argument that they're not complex enough to have consciousness due to the fact that we don't have it when we sleep, and a sleeping mind is still orders of magnitude more complex than a computer.
>>8164190
Now what?
IDK OP, let's conduct experiments to test hypothesis that might explain this phenomenon, like any good scientist.
before we develop any hypothesis, we might need to make observations on the architecture of the brain.
>>8164190
"Subjective" is a subjective construct. You're implicitly assuming that your own constructions are part of "objective" reality, the reality you separate from subjectivity. Then the distinction between the subjective and the objective unsurprisingly becomes confusing to you.
>>8167045
>You don't assume that it is like something to be a computer.
Well, no. But then computers are much simpler than people, and they're not actually programmed to do that. Rocks can't walk, but we don't think that makes walking magic.
>But there is a huge difference between a system being able to describe perception through biochemical functions, and it actually having experience.
Why?
It sounds very much like you're just assuming magic, and then asking me to prove it's not magic.
>>8164248
It's official: autistic "people" lack subjective experience, thus explaining why they are such unlikable faggots that suck the joy out of reality just by standing next to you. Genocide when?
>>8168033
>Well, no. But then computers are much simpler than people, and they're not actually programmed to do that. Rocks can't walk, but we don't think that makes walking magic.
The computer analogy was for you to understand what I mean by in the dark. The core question is how experience can emerge from complexity of matter, and not still be in the dark. If you simulated a human brain in a computer, do you think it would be like something to be that simulated brain? Why/why not?
>It sounds very much like you're just assuming magic, and then asking me to prove it's not magic.
To be honest, you seem to be the one who believe it's magic, because you assume chemical reactions magically can amount to consciousness, completely ignoring the mechanics involved with allowing the actual state of consciousness itself to exist.
I find it very interesting how some people just can't intuetively understand the hard problem, when all it should take to do so is experience.
>>8164190
>what if we're all just the schizophrenic mind of a mad god?
>>8169170
>>8169172
it's probably about as good as some of the theories in here & i havn't even read any of them
we're probably all scared that our consciousness actually does just arise from chemical interactions in the brain & is basically an illusion
then means you can't upload your mind which would suck
Science can't understand consciousness because it's magic. And some scientists pretend magic doesn't exist. The stupid will laugh but the wise will understand.
>>8169176
The illusion argument only makes sense if you're looking from a third person view into a person and try to explain why they say they're conscious. It doesn't work if you look at it from a first person view, because the experience is right there in your face, undeniable existing. If it is an illusion, then that illusion has managed to create experience, which still means the hard problem remains.
>>8169170
>we
There is a god, it is me, and you are all lifeless characters made to play for my amusement.
>>8167108
i appreciate your post, anon
>>8164190
Consiousness is just a more advanced form of perception in matter based lifeforms, it is nothing but property of very complex chemistry, however the quantum reasons behind consiousness might be much more unbelievable though.
I'd consider myself a realist, but in philosophical terms I'm what's called a pessimist... I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself - we are creatures that should not exist by natural law... We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, that accretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody's nobody... I think the honorable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction - one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.
I think our concept of consciousness is limited to the only kind of consciousness we've ever experienced. People close themselves to the idea of a particular form of it simply because it's not the one we're familiar with.
For example, an "inner voice" might not be something inherently inextricable from consciousness, but simply the way we as humans normally experience it.
>>8164969
prove your empirism or gtfo autist
Reminder that very few people in this thread have subjective experience.
>>8164196
>>8164248
>>8164843
>>8164856
>>8164876
This thread really belongs on a 'philosophy board', /his/ would be the best fit.
>>8171774
Dawkins comments on philosophy are so fucking bad man. He really doesn't understand shit.
Nye was so terrible. "So if we stop thinking about ourselves, we stop existing". Jesus fuck.
Also the cunt that blamed Aristotle for not being empirical when he was the one that practially started that shit
Fuck me I'm mad
>>8171795
It does, but threads like these will never move out methinks
>>8171810
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROe28Ma_tYM
Oh god this video. It's so sad that these kinds of people are the faces of science.
>>8164271
You're such a fucking stereotype.
>>8164902
He didn't not mean that.
In any case,
>empirical science.
Free will is a philosophical problem.
And universal determinism isn't incompatible with free will.
>>8164190
Probably not answerable by science. How would you even test an idea?
Therefore, probably not answerable at all.
Therefore, not interesting. At least not until someone proposes a something that can be tested in some way.
I've never seen a satisfactory answer for the fundamental problem of dualism and the hard problem.
I think a major source of confusion seems to be that materialist-oriented types confuse the question for
>How could [something so fancy!!] arise from mere matter? Whoa like it must be a soul, man!
rather than the question of
>How do you go from purely mechanical automata to the specifically subjective first-person experience of being alive? Can you please show me the physical phenomenon that results in a "subjective state," one that we can know is truly subjective (since it's just a combination of material elements)?
And a further point of confusion is that the latter DOES still permit a materialist response:
>Well, whatever does actually cause "subjectivity" (fuzzily defined), it is still most likely that it is just some emergent phenomenon of matter. Just because I can't yet tell you exactly what your bio-clockwork brain is doing to create a subjective state, doesn't mean that it isn't doing it!
As a dualist, I have no real problem with the latter. Of course emergentism needs to be kept in the air until it's either confirmed or denied. All I object to is when materialists confuse the hard problem for mere "wow consciousness is so neat :^) soemthing so neat surely cant be mechanical lmao."
Subjectivity is a phenomenon. You can split hairs about that pronouncement, but I think ultimately not even ardent materialists would want to deny the experience of consciousness has "thingness," and is as worthy of explanation as any other thing.
>>8173168
>not answerable by science.
>Therefore, probably not answerable at all.
tripfella pls
>>8173168
>Not testable by any means I currently know --> Therefore not testable at all --> Therefore not answerable, ever! --> Therefore not interesting
Thanks for telling us which aspects of life and the universe are interesting, based on your narrow training as a technician.
Stick to entering data.
>>8173178
> philosophy answers questions
>>8173180
>>At least not until someone proposes a something that can be tested in some way.
He's right. Keep pretending you're profound for having interest in pseudoscience.
>>8173182
>Sorry, I'm that sort of positivist.
fucking why, it's dead for a reason
what's your position on math, for starters
>>8173185
Because he's an undergrad who wants to feel like he's aligned with some kind of strong epistemological stance and worldview.
He doesn't even know what positivism is.
>>8173185
> what's your position on math, for starters
What, exactly, is the question?
Is math "real"? Depends what you mean by real.
Does the number "1" exist? Well, depends on what you mean by "exist". It doesn't exist like my shoe exists, or anything else that exists in an objectively observable and testable way. The number "1" exists in terms of the existential operator in ZF axiomatic set theory.
I'm not a Platonicist.
>>8173187
I know enough that I'm not a logical positivist, but I have some sympathy for some of their positions. I might be closer to the tradition known as post-positivism. I'm not too concerned about labels in this case, honestly.
>>8173180
Also, that's not an accurate description of my position. I did say that I don't know how one might test any proposed explanation, cause, model, etc. And I did say that proposed "explanations", "causes", "models", etc., that are untestable are themselves non-answers. Further, given that I cannot imagine a way that it could be tested, and given that no one has yet presented a way that it could be tested, it's just not interesting in my perspective. And finally, if someone wants to claim that their position is right on this topic, then they better have proper scientific empirical evidence and argument to support their case.
>>8164190
The sole fact that drugs such as molly can induce said "subjective experiences" like being happy or euphoric means that it is all chemistry.
>what are hormones
>>8173915
>Electricity can induce said "light" in the flashlight, so that means light is made of molecules.
Subjective experience can only exist with previous knowledge.
New experiences are interpreted differently due to people having different stored experiences all together.
Individual bias, if you will.
>>8164228
>"How does a bunch of electrons and silicon produce light and information on a screen?"
It can't really work as an analogy. A computer, if there is nobody to experience it, is a machine running in the dark. You can explain correlations between subjective experience and brain processes, but you can't explay why subjective experience exists in first place. The explanation itself would be a subjective experience. Matter itself is a subjective experience.
>>8174327
explain*
>I can think, therefore I'm special
You thinking you have a subjective experience is subjective.
>>8174353
So what?
>>8174364
It means it's not a hard problem, it's just a thing we haven't completely understood yet, so people shit themselves thinking it means something deeper, while in fact it's just another natural process. A rock falling is just as complicated for someone who doesn't know what gravity is.
>>8174374
No one arguing for the hard problem is saying it's not a natural process and something spiritual or magic. We're just saying that we don't understand how this natural process works, and can't fully be explained by biochemistry.
>>8174388
Yeah, except a ton of people do say it's magical or spiritual, it's very commonly used in arguments in favor of the existence of the soul. It will eventually be fully explained, no doubt about that, it's just annoying that people think it's a problem that's more interesting than unifying the four forces or something.
>>8174374
But we can't explain consciousness without using consciousness. And any explanation would be an effect of consciousness, it wouldn't go beyond. We can't go beyond our own experience.
>>8174394
We can't explain anything without using consciousness. Why is that an argument ? If we weren't conscious we'd have no mean to explain anything, yet it would still exist. Things we aren't aware of don't stop existing, we aren't toddlers.
>>8174393
If you don't understand why it's an interesting problem then I don't think you intuetively get what makes the hard problem hard.
Can you quote some people saying consciousness is magic or spiritual? Are you sure you're not just lumping those people into that group because they're saying something you think sounds crazy?
>>8174404
I think you are confusing the medical state of consciousness with the actual experience. I can easily concieve a person lacking experience being able to explain things, maybe as long as they're not talking about consciousness directly. That's the core of the p-zombie argument, that a person with experience should seem identical to someone lacking it.
>>8174404
But nowhere I said we create reality. However, determination only makes sense in relation to subjective experience. There is no determinate thing beyond our interpretation of reality, so to reduce subjective experience to something is to reduce it to part of it.
Anyway, I can't see how the unexplainableness of consciousness would imply any sort of immortality, telekinesis or whatever new agers believe, if you are assuming I'm one of them.
>>8174437
>There is no determinate thing beyond our interpretation of reality
And how do you determine that ? Determining that outside our consciousness there does not exist anything determinate is determining something about it. The point is that there's no duality between consciousness and the processes that lead to consciousness. The processes that lead to consciousness are the same processes that we perceive with our consciousness, they exist regardless. If those processes didn't exist, then consciousness wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be able to perceive them.
>>8174487
>Determining that outside our consciousness there does not exist anything determinate is determining something about it
And therefore bringing it into consciousness, I don't see a problem with it.
>The point is that there's no duality between consciousness and the processes that lead to consciousness
And I agree, however, the only monism that makes sense to me is the one in which the fundamental reality of all things can't really have a name, be it "mind", "God", "matter" or "will".
>>8164190
>the hard problem of consciousness?
Is a dead horse for philosophers. By refusing to delve into the components and fine details and getting stuck at a high level concept such as consciousness they can beat this dead horse forever.
It's like inventing some "hard problem of humankind", and pretending that it is a singular and well defined entity.
>>8164278
So, let me get this straight, people who think having imaginary friends based on ancient literature start using a type of hat as a derogatory term for those who think they are fools. Later they extend this hat insult to anyone who disagrees with them.
correct?
We are in the love and the light of the One Infinite Creation.
In the beginning, there was Infinity, and this Oneness became aware and thus sub-divided further, infinitely, and became self-aware.
All is cyclical, and, in the end, the greatest mystery is simply that dark shrouded mystery, itself, knowing, vaguely and eventually, that it would plunge back into the light.
What is the reason for people having so much trouble intuitively understand what makes the hard problem hard? Everything you need to understand it is subjective experience and (ironically), a very materialistic view of matter. So what makes it so hard to understand? Is it a language barrier, personal bias, or lack of subjective experience?
>>8164891
>EM field would persist while you sleep, though consciousness is not active. Is there a required amount of complexion required for the field to be conscious?
Actually there was a study that maybe found out the answer to exactly that question.
Apparently at least 42% of your brain needs to be active for conscious awareness to arise.
Source:
http://www.auntminnieeurope.com/index.aspx?sec=ser&sub=def&pag=dis&ItemID=613057
>>8164248
No
You should think a little more
>>8171814
He sort of trivialised philosophy down to just "weird questions", and that's stupid. But his focus is obviously stuff that's practical for everyday life, the guy he was answering was specifically asking about a philosophy degree and the question was very vague. Nye comes across as a pragmatist who's not concerned with absolute truth as long as 'it just works'. Kind of ignorant, but nothing to get angry about.
>>8164190
Through repetition.
>>8178186
Elaborate?
wow, plebs ITT. none of you understand consciousness. you all desperately need an acid trip
If you still don't understand the hard problem, I suggest reading this paper by chalmers.
http://consc.net/papers/facing.pdf
>>8166184
wtf is a hand%
Alright you shitcunts, here's some delicious copypasta autism spergout ultimate ebin fedora dipping :DDDD
Why do you people think you can argue that anything transcends physics?
We have yet to find literally anything that does this in not just humans, animals, or bacteria, but anywhere the universe. Literally everything.
I don't mean "literally" in the millennial sense, I mean that "everything" is to be taken at face value. 100%, 1/1, 1, 1.000 batting average, all, todos, every single phenomenon that has ever been observed has been explainable by physicality. In fact, "everything is bound by physics" has, is, and probably will be the single most tested falsifiable statement to ever exist, and has held up thus far.
Literally every previously unexplainable thing--eyes, how your digest, your cat's meow, light, heat, why balls stop rolling, rain, earthquakes, rollercoasters, making stone tools, ocean currents, icebergs floating, stellar fusion, everything ever cross humanity has always, ALWAYS been explained via physicality.
For fuck's sake this same baseless conjecture was spewed about memories, cognition, and conjuring thought itself, but guess what, there are areas of the brain associated all three.
Arguing "There is no proof of it not being physical, so it isn't physical you fucking hethens and nihilists deus vult" against a statement that unequivocally has more supportive evidence than every other statement or idea combined ever requires the most extraordinary evidence.
There is a unique you, who is individually conscious and reasonable.
That consciousness is definitely and undeniably a result of physical flesh. But that individuality seems to be some outside observer.
I dont understand how it is purely and completely physical.
>>8180219
What do people mean when they say physical? Are you limiting yourself to chemistry? Would quantum interractions count as physical? Anything with mass? Electromagnetic radiation? Any property of the universe we haven't discovered yet?
>>8180219
>But that individuality seems to be some outside observer.
>seems
Vertical heights 'seem' to be taller than they are when viewed from the top down.
M. C . Escher’s Relativity ‘seems’ multidimensional, while only being 2D.
Socially dominant individuals 'seem' larger than they actually are.
Plenty of things 'seem' to be something that they are not, due to cognitive illusions.
Something 'seeming' to be something that it isn't, is not a viable argument in the context of the brain.
>>8180213
>why balls stop rolling
read that as "why balls start dropping"
should change the pasta to that
nice thread
>>8173174
Best post in this thread.
>>8176904
I guess that can explain the feeling of the king of half-consciousness you get in dreams, where you aren't sure if it's just memories or if you actually experienced it.
Really the consciousness movement is entirely girded for suggesting math and science delve into philosophy, and I completely agree with it. I was always told I was gifted in the sci/math classes, but I was also advanced in other things for my age. I've come to appreciate philosophy through Kuhn, Bohr, Feynman, etc. you really need to expand though. Read Marx, read Marcous, read what there is about the human perception and consciousness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoZsAsgOSes
Why is Dennett such a smug fuck?
>>8175830
No, he's talking about people who develop an identification with science that is greater than their actual knowledge and experience with it, and who, despite lacking deeper sociological insight of their own, repeat shallow observations about religiosity made by other people.
>>8183249
It almost sounds like... a religion. :^)
>>8183249
I'd rather people "worship" people with knowledge than an ancient book.
I mean...if they're going to worship something either way.
>>8183871
That mentality is doing a massive disservice to the critical thinking and science as a whole though.
When the reasons for someone following science is grounded in the same reasons as with someone following a religion is, you create a generation of scientists devoid of any critisism or creativity when it comes to the questioning the standard model and the general status quo of understanding, ultimately halting scienfitic discovery.
consciousness perceives a mind that mirrors it's belief systems
as above so below; as below so above
>inb4 muh alchemy is stone-age chemistry
even materialists fags' husbando newton knew this, he translated the emerald tablets.
to eat from tree of knowledge = trying to discern what's real = failing to understand that mind mirrors you and that you should be in a dream-like realm = "hell"
you'll be trapped in duality unless you "see" for yourself
>be god dreaming in nothingness
>dream to be an ape-like pokemon
>get so dumb forget it's all a dream
some apes get their intelect to god levels tho, through meditation/psychedelic drugs but it's not for all who do this things
>souce?
me, i've seen the glitches and the "matrix" bent to my will
The existence of the hard problem is a spook.
Deductively, either material generates consciousness or consciousness generates material. Our momentary failure to mechanistically account for all elements and facets of consciousness from a material basis in no sense implies the -foundational- primacy of consciousness, for thereby we have - and CAN have - no mechanistic account of the generation of material whatsoever.
>>8180213
What is one physical underpinning of man's ability to use symbol?
>>8167174
>tfw demons are real
>>8184414
Your argument is totally valid, but what material rationalists call "the gaps" are actually not gaps at all but the very essence of man. The mental realm, culture, morality, language, symbol, art, memes, archetypes, this is what we are. This is all we are. Evolution is an irrelevant material formality. The "gap" of consciousness is so big that it makes matter-based models look like trite incongruities.
>>8164190
>How can matter give rise to subjective experience?
Mental states are just brain states as understood by the brain itself.
>>8185434
>"the gaps" are actually not gaps at all but the very essence of man
>The mental realm, culture, morality, language, symbol, art, memes, archetypes, this is what we are. This is all we are.
Art, architecture, engineering, writing, manufacturing, etc all have anchors in the material world. They lack their ideal essence without these anchors. Every last object which provides evidence humans have ever existed is a material aspect of human identity. In this identity idea fuels material and vice versa, and we are no closer to seeing one or the other as more fundamental.
>This is all we are
Well, until we drop a bunch of acid or another serotonergic.
This is a fascinating thought experiment in its own right. A single, definite material with a fundamentally knowable pharmacological profile, water/octanol partition coefficient, plasma protein binding, biological dynamics, metabolism/metabolites, excretion etc. inducing by itself and of its own accord bizarre and radical distortions of consciousness.
>>8164190
more than one position exists therefore multiple perspectives of the same object can be had.
>>8164861
>being plastic makes it nonconductive and not capable of being a computer
Mechanical computers exist, fucko
How do panpsychists respond to the fact that we aren't conscious in deep sleep? Is it simply another consciousness seperate from the one being experienced while awake, that "kicks in"?
>>8186599
You probably shouldn't keep bumping it yourself then. :^)
>>8187367
>being this much of a newfag that you don't know how to sage
>>8187639
You're bumping by proxy because I respond to your posts.
>>8187688
Do you think me being 15 helps or hurts you in this argument?
>>8187708
>>8187705
>>8187696
There are only two ways in which we can account for a necessary agreement of being 15 with the concepts of its objects. Either being 15 makes these concepts possible or these concepts make being 15 possible.
>>8180608
Generally by "physical", people mean to refer to a general concept of materialism, first (AFAIK) espoused by Baron d'Holbach. He was incorrect in some of the details, but the general structure of "objects behaving according to simple rules" is the best that I can get for a proper definition of materialism. For example, today the best model that we have is quantum field theory, plus general relativity. In these models, again it is just simple parts operating according to simple rules.
To contrast it against other systems, materialism is the notion that there is no such thing as the supernatural, and humans do not have immaterial souls, and the operation of humans is the same physics as that of rocks and stars. In other words, materialism is often defined in contrast to what it's not: supernaturalism.
>>8189077
Actually, materialism of this sort might be traceable back to the philosopher Democritus and atomism. I have much respect for Democritus.
Fuck consciousness.
>>8164925
>non-sentient animals.
Animals are sentient though, sentiency means the ability to perceive things.
Non sentient objects would be stuff like rocks or chairs.
>>8189080
>might be traceable back to the philosopher Democritus
>might
I thought this was uncontroversial?
It was Engels who pointed out all philosophical positions through history can be divided broadly and fundamentally into materialism and idealism. Platonism and theism are both early idealist views (which can explain their natural unity post-Rome.) Aristotle's continuous theory of matter can be considered idealist in the sense that there is no allowance for a fundamental unit, thus that a bar of gold is a fact of life, rather than an emergent property of objective phenomena. Marx in particular took Hegelian dialectics and a particular sort of materialism to understand history as a fundamentally law-governed process like the physical world. His diagnosis of capitalism's ills is still essentially correct, regardless of what we believe is the best response to them.
>>8164248
Are people like this actually conscious? Its not hard to see the gap between the observer effect and the physical world.
>>8189741
There's literally no gap. You are the brain.
>>8189266
>I thought this was uncontroversial?
Yes, probably, sorry.
>>8189077
But supernatural is defined in such a weird way that there can't be anything supernatural. If something we considered to be supernatural existed, it would also (probably) operate under simple rules, making it material. So shouldn't the only way to concieve of a soul be to think of it as material, making it not supernatural?
>>8189983
A law-governed universe is a materialist notion. "Supernatural" phenomena are simply those which are totally ungoverned by rules (i.e. a nonconstructive counterexample)
That is, the problem of finding a supernatural phenomenon or categorically disproving them is identical to the idealism/materialism problem.
>>8164278
Go back to Sunday school kid, the grownups are talking
>>8174327
>A computer, if there is nobody to experience it, is a machine running in the dark
You don't know that the computer isn't experience itself. We have no way of telling if a computer also has a subjective experience. Perhaps they believe we are the automatons?
You can spend your entire life trying to figure out "why does the subjective experience exist?" You could also spend it trying to figure out "why is the world flat?" Notice how neither of these questions have answers because they are based off a false assumption. Just because it hasn't been figured out yet doesn't mean it's worth trying to.
>>8190751
>You don't know that the computer isn't experience itself. We have no way of telling if a computer also has a subjective experience.
Read more nonfiction please. This is embarrassing pseudoscience bullshit.
>>8189794
No, you are your nervous system, the brain is just one small part of, but neurons are spread all over your body.
>>8164278
And there isn't a fedora small enough for your head, Richard.
>>8164861
Not the same guy, but how are we defining experience?
There are many ways in which we can check matter and find parameters of experience, decay, ionization, temperature, and so on, taking those we get biological features in molecules that have even more experience-like features, white cells for example, or better yet, neuron networks, which if are half as powerful as the mathematical model of them, neural networks, it can definitely have experience.
>>8190846
>Not the same guy, but how are we defining experience?
Basically the first person experience you (hopefully) have right now, as opposed to being a big machine of chemistry working in the dark, like we assume a computer would.
ITT: People giving themselves too much credit
Anyone who associates themselves with Sam Harris is a write-off in my book
... been checking out Dan Dennet. who else has put this much thought in and is worth checking out? (regardless of where they ended up materialism/ idealism wise)
>>8191031
k spiritualit fag
>>8189983
My position is that either the observable supernatural does not exist by definition, or science can help us learn about the supernatural. In other words, my position is that the word "supernatural" generally adds very little to the conversation.
The problem is that some people want to have their cake and eat it too. They have to have something that is supernatural, observable, and invulnerable to scientific analysis. There is no such thing, according to first principles and the foundation underlying empiricism and science. It's a cop out. They want to claim the thing exists, but that it's immune to rational inquiry.
In short, my opinion is well expressed by this paper by Boudry.
https://sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/teksten-1/methodological-naturalism
