/lit/ - Literature

>>11418522
read bergson you fucking pleb. explaining the continuum of images that make up our world with one subset of those images is retard tier.

Because claiming that the mind is something special is the last thing that they have since science started disproving every other philosophical idea like 200 years ago.

>>11418536
the only people who think this are people who are not actually scientists

>>11418522
Because it implies nature coming to know itself.

It's like the barber's paradox:
>There's a barber who only shaves all who do not shave themselves. Who shaves the barber?

Language falling into such paradoxes is only the result of language trying to investigate itself from the perspective of language.

>>11418533
>the continuum of images that make up our world
since the relevant portion of these images is the subset which refers to our brains, it isnt retard tier at all

>>11418543
This
Science and Philosophy are both imperfectly developed fields, but Philosophy has had much more time in the oven. Science doesn't really disprove much of anything philosophically, since the establishment of facts can't give you a value system from those facts or inform your behaviors.

All the most relevant scientists also read philosophy

>>11418522

As someone who studies AIs, I use a definition of intelligence as "rational agency." But you don't even need a brain to do that. The irony is that the concept of a soul is more or less a conception of an inexplicable aspect of a living being, but biological organisms tend to encode their logic in ways that would be inexplicable to philosophers as well, which begs the question why do they really seem to prefer one unknown over another. They'd prefer fancy terminology over something that is functionally identical in the abstract.

>>11418522
I want to eat this like a gummy bear

>>11418544
he doesn't shave. the implication is there are only two categories of people: self shaving and non self shaving, but you ignored the non shaving category.

>shave
>shave by baber
>shave by self

>no shave

(1) All men shave.
(2) There exists a barber who only shaves men who do not shave themselves.

It follows that this barber is female.

(1) All humans shave.
(2) There exists a human barber who only shaves humans who do not shave themselves.

This human barber is shaved by a machine he has built.

ok lets be more pedantic:

(1) All humans directly shave themselves or are directly shaved by another human.
(2) There exists a human barber who only directly shaves humans who do not directly shave themselves.

This barber must be shaved by another human, this other human cannot be himself. The barber cannot be shaved, but all humans shave, therefore this barber does not exist or is not human or not all humans shave.

what's the contradiction? you told a lie or showed that you can conceive of non-human intelligent agents. this ability to differentiate between creatures must be part of the higher order reasoning that differentiates us from lower animals who rely more on pattern recognition and instinct. the fault here is you make some implicit assumption that language is truthful. no language is approximate, you see contradictions in speech and thought occurring regularly as people play games of deception in order to gain advantage.

>>11418578
What do actual brains taste/feel like? I'm too much of a coward to buy one.

>>11418522
People desperately want there to be meaning to existence. Fuck creating your own meaning and destiny right? Gotta have someone else do it for you.

>>11418522
The idea of infinite consciousness existing within the confines of that fleshy pink ball is metaphysically hilarious.

>>11418827
hmm it's a unique taste, very delicious fried in oil with a bit of salt for seasoning. addictive taste, it's very soft, the same texture as bone marrow but more chewy, the taste is completely unforgettable and different from a lot of other meats.

you know how liver is very strong and bitter and unique? brain is also another strange taste like that. it melts in your mouth like foie gras or butter. it is slippery on the tongue and has a strong aftertaste. there is a sweet flavor to it, rich, fatty.

>>11418522
it's not so much the thought itself as the dogmatism surrounding it

>>11418544
>>There's a barber who only shaves all who do not shave themselves. Who shaves the barber?
An another barber?

>>11418522
Ok, then obviously “physical” and “material” need to be purged of bizarre connotations that say they cannot possess psychic phenomena. I don’t understand why people say the mind is simply a physical phenomena and then act as though that must mean the concept of mind is some sort of parochial illusion

>>11418592
it's about naive set theory and not actual barbers, you absolute dingus.

>>11419029
>psychic phenomena
What do you mean when you say this?

>>11419050
thoughts and dreams and imaginings and 'feelings' and such and so on

The mind is not the physical brain.

>>11418592
>he doesn't understand the context of the paradox

>>11419050
Consciousness experienced

>>11419067
>The mind is not the physical brain.
Why not?

>>11418522
This falls short of any semblance of the worries of philosophers over rampant materialism. Please show me, physically, the abstract concept of 1 without imposing any sort of higher order functioning or abstract phenomenology.

Science does not want to admit the immaterial, thus it rephrases questions to exclude it. If it continues doing so, we will lose all appreciation for what it is, and means, to be human.

>>11418572
Rational Agency if I understand it right describes behaviour but not experience

>>11418862

>>11418841
Creating your own meaning is just creating an illusion that you play in like a bitch to hide from the truth.
See how easy it is to play the whole "Oh I'm tough guys" card

>>11419166

To be rational one must have at least some perception of the environment, otherwise how would you determine any course of action to begin with. Perception can detect minute details or be expanded; what you call experience is a facsimile returned by the perceptive function.

>>11419154
Its transcendent boi

>>11419199
You don't need to determine a course of action to act like how a pond ripples when hit with a stone.

>>11419200
>Its transcendent
Why can't the physical brain carry and explain the qualities of the mind that seem transcendent?

>>11419219

That's why I don't overly rely on metaphor.

>>11419235
We dont know, we only know we havent done it yet nor will we be able to do it for the foreseeable future.

Many restrictions including trillions of nerve connections, specialised cells, developments, migrations, micro and macro environments.

>>11418555
The only people who think this are people who never read a properly replicated study nor could they identify what's wrong with one.

This poor kitten needs to be hugged massaged and sung quietly to, no more thoughts

>>11418850
Infinite conciousness lol. What are you even trying to say? Grade A bullshittery right here.

hard problem of consciousness

Consciousness is just a byproduct of the brain perceiving the world around it

>>11419707
not at all, you fucking moron.

>>11419162
>Science does not want to admit the immaterial
t. not a scientist

>>11419162
Yeah bruh science totally doesn't admit the existence of immaterial concepts bruh.
>*high fives you with a hermitian operator

>>11418522
mind is sofware, brain is hardware

>>11419770
>t. First year philosophy of mind student

>>11419721
why not?

>>11418522
I can't and haven't measured a single consciousness in the physical world and no attempt would yield a result where I got to witness one.

>>11419995
Yeah, but that's just because you are too dumb to devise the proper experiment

>>11419162
>Please show me, physically, the abstract concept of 1
unironically see >>11419770
>show me, physically, a "hello world" program
It undoubtedly resides in the physical workings of the computer, but "showing" that to you is not a simple task and the way it works much easier to explain in terms of code.

Even if the hardware/software thing isn't a perfect analogy, it is at least an example of how your line of reasoning could be completely misguided.

>>11418522
it doesn't
it's called mechanism
its been around for hundreds of years

also, is it weird that that brain looks sexy to me?

>>11418841
>People desperately want there to be meaning to existence. Fuck creating your own meaning and destiny right? Gotta have someone else do it for you.

>actually believes his existence has no actual value or purpose or meaning
>"creates his own meaning"
How about you get off that fence, and either accept your lack of value, or accept Allah, or go commit die.

>>11418522
Oh boy. Summer is in full swing.
It doesn't matter.
Read Husserl. Conscience is physiologically rooted, however, unless you are a surgeon, you experience a spiritual (as in "geistlich") world, so you see people and not pieces of meat (think of Hans Castorp in Zauberberg), sea and not a body of water. This is the difference between Körper and Leib. (and one could argue, bringing in Wittgenstein, that in the end, it's just a question of whatever assets of phrases you decide to use to descrive the physical world). Philosopher oppose the kind of scientism you proposed since: 1. it is quite the silly reductionism 2. it is not science, being science's epistemological basis that human observers replicate and measure phenomena 3. it doesn't even matter to all the the things you have philosophy for. Ironically, if you do decide that "the mind being a physical object" statement is what you base your life on, you're doing philosophy.
It's a fascinating topic, mostly I think for the medical applications. However, as Jasper would have put it, don't forget the distinction between clinic and therapy. Neurology, psychiatry and psychology (and psychoanalysis) are all tools to the human. If you lose sight of the human, well, why bother?

>>11418543
based

>>11418533
WHAT IS RETARDED IS YOUR FANTASY OF EXPLANATION

>>11419888
There's no evidence to suggest it is.

Does not ontogeny prove that consciousness is emergent purely from matter? A human slowly develops organs of life support, and inference. Then acquires phenomenal experience. Its being is from and in a state of material becoming.

>>11420364

I dont know where i read it but i like the idea of consciousness being like music. The brain would be the instruments in an orchestra and the music would be consciousness. But not music as simple air pressure waves, but music as the human concept. So consciousness is not just the phenomena that arises in the brain but its own interpretation of itself, its a self referential loop.

>>11420475
BTFO

>>11420452
You're bold to claim that consciousness exists in the others. P-zombie thought experiment validates the nonexistence of consciousness as much it validates the existence of consciousness.

>>11420670

>consciousness emerges via matter
>others are comprised of the same matter and of the same structure as me
>therefore they must posses the same experience of consciousness