How do you know you are conscious right now?
>>8200508
Ruined his acting career with iron man
>>8200512
10/10 would laugh again
>>8200503
There are no absolute truths so nobody knows.
>>8200503
By definition.
>>8200503
I just collapsed a wave function.
>>8200503
"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum."
Because I just read something someone typed in another thread which was so incredibly fucking stupid I know I never would have come up with it.... or if I was so fucked in the head to come up with it, I wouldn't understand common sense and have the ability to rationally respond to this question..
>>8200503
What's with all this philosophical nonsense on /sci/ all of a sudden?
Consciousness is such a form of data analysis, as long as I am alive I will have some form of consciousness.
>>8201079
This. Consciousness is the state of processing external inputs through sensory organs. Every time some fag says a perfect clone would have the same consciousness as the original I just point out that the two would see different views, eel different sensations, etc.
>>8200503
Because I feel pain. constant physical pain throughout my body.
Pretty sure I'm not asleep or dreaming
>>8200503
All of your particles have a singular and specific consciousness of their own contributing to the whole consciousness perceived by your brain. So technically, you are conscious.
>>8201069
Your momma was a philosophy professor right?
Nice one.
"gibe her da benor"
If you have the ability to pretend that you're conscious, then you are conscious. Therefore I'm conscious.
>>8201461
Intuition
>>8201475
How do you know your intuition is right?
I read that rats would rather eat meth all day than food or water, to the point of starvation.
Today I smoked meth and made myself eat food and drink water with electrolytes.
Would I be more conscious than the rat?
>>8201515
I'm an engineer :^)
>>8201583
Ha! Well meme'd my senpai
>>8200503
I'm not.
>>8201531
if you think that the capacity to plan for the future is a necessary and sufficient condition, then yes. but that'd be pretty stupid to do
>>8201531
Wasn't that disproven by a study where they gave the rats more entertainment than just doing meth?
>>8200599
your statement implies there are some absolute truths :)
Because I am experiencing the state of mind I ascribe the word consciousness to...?
because I can search for the meaning of the word "conscious"
>>8202524
How do you know you are experiencing?
>>8200503
Because I say so.
>>8202537
Because whatever state I am in now, and every other instance in which I know I am experiencing, is what I define experience to be.
>>8200503
I shitpost, therefore I am.
>>8202548
How do you know if that's how you actually define experience?
>>8202457
Yep. Rats in the cage with other rats and rat toys with drugs available chose regular water over drugged water. Rats in bare cages with nothing but water chose the drugged water.
>>8202583
Because when I deliberate about that state, and refer to it to 3rd parties, that is the word I use.
because god made me
>>8200503
I mean, any way you CHOSE to define conscious would obviously be a way in which you know you are conscious. If whatever definition of consciousness you are using does not allow you to consider yourself conscious, then it isn't a very useful definition.
>>8202627
How do you know that's the word you use?
>>8201278
Grandfather.
>>8202493
lol, you think you're so clever, but really you're an idiot. his statement is easily mended to be consistent with its conclusions, sorry that making that small leap is too much for you
>>8200503
because my mind is active and i seeing this thread
>>8204330
>muh self-referenciality
truth is an inherent part of logic and statements, to argue that it's circular reasoning to say that the statement "there is no truth" is true, is simply misunderstanding that it's illogical to use a system to disprove itself
but this argument is but a mere formality to convice the majority of fags like you to adopt a more sane mindset than relativism, in truth none of you have defined "absolute" or "true", and if you try to do so you will stumble upon the problems of language: literally every single concept is "self-referential", thus rendering the entire discussion of "are there absolutes or not??" useless: they can't either "exist" nor "not exist" because the question itself is flawed
in short, both of you can go lick each other's semantical bananas
>>>/lit/
>>8202654
we get it OP, nothing can ever really be "known" because all knowledge exists only in memory which can't be externally verified.
Now you can accept this and go about your life having made certain assumptions about reality or you can.... well I don't even know what the alternative is really
>>8204403
>nothing can ever really be "known"
>because all knowledge exists only in memory
>which can't be externally verified.
Are you sure of these things? How do you know?
Also, by your acceptation, are you implying that you cannot know if you are conscious? If so, then how would you know if you actually go about life making assumptions, or that you even have a life?
>>8204422
That's sort of the point, I don't know any of those things. Or maybe I do, and Satan just edited my brain a nanosecond ago to think that. Or maybe he edited my brain to think that I thought that.
It's just a nonsense road to go down that doesn't lead anywhere.
>>8200503
I can tell from the qualia and from having quite a few conscious experiences in my time.
>>8204459
So you say that you don't know if you are conscious, and then you say that you don't know if you don't know, because according to you, this knowledge could have been edited by an unknown entity to fool you into thinking that you don't know.
This is close to Descartes's argument in which he concludes that no matter how much an evil genius may be fooling him, he can't fool him into thinking that he isn't thinking, because he'd be thinking in doing so: he can't doubt his own doubt, as he would be doubting in doing so. Similarly, you are conscious that you don't know if you are conscious, and if you doubt that, then you are conscious that you don't know if you don't know if you aren't. Therefore, you are conscious, regardless of how much you doubt. You can replace "conscious" for something else: you know that you don't know / you know that you don't know if you don't know.
Technically, you can still repeat the question "how do you know?" to this conclusion (in which case it goes ad infinitum: if you answer that you don't know, then you know that you don't, then you say that you don't, and so on), but the same could be asked about literally any statement we make, including the ones I'm making right now. And since every concept is ultimately self-referential and arbitrary (you can keep defining a word until you hit circular definitions or a concept that refers to itself), shows that language isn't proper to address reality. At all.
Regardless of the past or future, you are still "experiencing" in this moment, yet "experience" and every concept related to time are undefinable, just like the entirety of language. You need to be able to address your own current "experience" without describing it with words, which includes the very concept of "experience" itself.
Simply put, you can know you are "conscious" right "now", but you can't rely on language to determine the "truth" of this statement: you need to "feel" it "directly", avoiding descriptions.
>>8200503
Are you trying to imply that we aren't?
>>8204594
Redpilled af, OP blown out bigly
>>8200503
By knowing that I think, i.e. le D man.
The alternative is that I'm a philosophical zombie, which by definition means there is "nobody" to internally observe it.
>>8200503
I don't.
>>8204594
So computers are conscious?
>>8201461
I dont know, but I can think about if I know or not, so theres evidence for it.
>>8201079
What is the you that has to be alive?
>>8200503
I have empirical evidence
>>8204374
you are arguing against a strawman.
do you want to take a second guess what i was actually talking about or educate yourself on the history of this exact topic so that you don't look retarded?
i think, therefore i am
>>8200503
I give the dick, therefor I am.
>>8206124
you completely ignored my second paragraph where i try to help you understand why it's absurd to support both positions
i could give you a different explanation for why the statement cannot be either right or wrong but honestly you don't sound very reasonable so why bother
>>8200503
>How do you know you are conscious right now?
you can't ultimately.
the only provable answer uses the tautologic definition of consciousness that it's experience. that is, if experience = consciousness, then simply experiencing listening to this question or responding to it is in itself proof of consciousness.
>>8200503
I do, since I'm consciously changing my behaviour, and manipulating my feelings,
through a 3rd party system. Because humans are stupid and can not be trusted.
Unlike you.
>>8201079
False sense of consciousness, to me you are just an animal who knows how to write. Kids, mentally ill, sociopaths, those people have no control over their bodies, that's why they are so animal like, exactly like you are.
