/lit/ - Literature

DUDE like science has always explained stuff before DUDE like there was shit we didn’t know before like we didn’t know how the sun worked and sure we don’t know how conscious experience comes from ostensibly non-conscious matter but DUDE LMAO that doesn’t matter we’ll figure it out one day. Dude what? What the fuck are your stupid unfalsifiable qualia? Nah bro, it’s not like there’s a fundamental property of conscious experience which can’t just be reduced to the mindless interaction of non-conscious matter and which would require re-thinking many of our most basic axioms of scientific materialism today, nah bro, nahhhh BROOOOOOO, nothing special about it at all, it’s literally just chemistry and Newtonian physics creating consciousness!!! We can explain it if we just count and label all the atoms in the brain brooooOooooooOOOOOOOO!!!

>>11974357
Dunning-Kruger effect is strong

>>11974361
Dude we just need to do fMRI and learn how all the neurotransmitters work and study the anatomy of brain cells in depth and this will magically reconcile the contradiction between our belief that matter is fundamentally mindless on the one hand, and our belief that big combinations of this mindless matter arranged in the right way somehow create mind on the other hand!!!!

>>11974368
>our belief that matter is fundamentally mindless on the one hand
>our
lol
look at this mess of electronic signals trying to convince itself it is special and magical

>>11974372
I’ve probably lost more braincells in my life than you ever had. I see there’s no use in arguing so I’m just going to insult you.

>>11974372
yes id say a mess of electronic signals having a concept of being a mess of electronic signals is pretty special and demands a closer look

>>11974372
>look at this mess of electronic signals trying to convince itself it is special and magical
Cope harder

>>11974392
eloquently put

>>11974378
>>11974392
>>11974397
Computers also collect, store, remember, and translate information pertaining to the fact that they can do so. What makes you think the fact that you experience consciousness is not just the natural action of a machine processing information? Too much is the concept of consciousness put on a pedestal.

Do you have a scientific objection to the methods in which experiments involving the human mind are conducted or their validity? If so, then please state the objection and provide counter-evidence proving your own theories correct.

>>11974406
once again, it's that information processing should be accompanied by phenomenological experience.

you don't understand the hard problem

>>11974413
You think the act of taking in information and experiencing it are different?

we actually need autistic people in order to study them and build AI more efficiently. they are the missing link between human and so much more.

>>11974406
>Storing information is the same as being aware of that information.

Info stored in a computer is more comparable to words written on a page than it is to human consciousness. Neither medium is aware of itself or had any conception of the information stored therein. Consciousness is inexplicable from a materialist perspective.

>>11974417
you don't understand the hard problem. phenomenal awareness is not physical

>>11974406
>Computers also collect, store, remember, and translate information pertaining to the fact that they can do so.
This doesn't constitute as self awareness and I think you know that.

However, I don't think of myself as an idealist in opposition to materialism. Rather, I think that both the realm of ideas and the realm of matter are subordinate to something else. Also, the scientific experiments we've created are great for matter. But then how do we actually account for someone's sense of existence? We can't. It is unverifiable (to others) because it is necessarily subjective. As far as the implications of neuroscience and physics, I'll keep practicing pessimistic induction until there are more promising arguments for materialism.

>>11974368
>and this will magically reconcile the contradiction between our belief that matter is fundamentally not a cheeseburger on the one hand, and our belief that big combinations of this non-cheeseburger matter arranged in the right way somehow create a cheeseburger on the other hand!!!!

>>11974426

>>11974424
What makes you think a machine is not aware of its existence? What makes you think consciousness actually exists as anything besides an abstraction created from the combination of our physical senses and our internal data processors?

>>11974438
lol arguments like this always out the pseuds


consciousness isn't a static arrangement of parts but their dynamism. it is a difference of kind and not degree (of complexity or composition). you don't understand the hard problem

>>11974424
the book is aware of itself otherwise the ink would not adhere to the page. the computer is aware of itself, otherwise it would cease to function correctly and the data would be corrupted. what you call awareness or consciousness is not limited to human experience just because you say it is, that's your own bias and circular reasoning because you want to feel special.

once all the pre-requisite parts of a robot as a sensing agent with perceptions and internal convolutions are assembled, it will be indistinguishable from any other animal. it's behavior governed by what it is, which is separate from what it thinks it is, the first is a matter of construction, the second is a higher order self-deception game evolved to explore new boundaries of future existence and rank problem solving techniques.

we are beginning to get proof of this now with psychoactive drugs that temporarily suspend functions in the brain that deal with ego and self-identification, physical location, time and space. these are software layers sitting on top of biology, if you dosed a human being from birth with psychedelics it would cease to be what you call human, by that reasoning some primitive person from the distant past is also not human, because they have a vocabulary of 200 words. absolute garbage. education is a simple process through which sections of the human brain adapt and make room for collected information across a large human time span. your self identity is just an amalgamation of your language ability and personal history. the same would be true of an artificial human with pre-set language and history.

>>11974357
The alternative: dude MAGIC CONSCIOUS STUFF! Predictive and useful theories with possible applications to medicine and the treatment of various sorts of mental illness? Hahaha, FUCK THAT dude! Magic stuff is way more fun and mysterious!

Seriously, you people should be ashamed. It's really sad how people try to cling as much as possible to things we simply don't know in order to believe in something "deep" or "mysterious" that makes life seem more interesting than it is. This is what happens when you can't believe in something like God but still desperately need to believe that it can't all be just dumb matter interacting in complex ways. Sad!

>>11974440
the fact that this misrecognition is aware of itself as a misrecognition

>>11974466
what is consciousness?

>>11974464
Education is literally just the function of new information being written into our software, we've already made AI that can write their own software in order to learn. Once again, our ability to learn is just because our machine language databanks know the purposes of different lines of code and can use them with things it recognizes as information.

>>11974466
intellectual pseuds are more dogmatic than religious fanatics. because their ego is bruised by having never achieved anything. it's the same reason poor niggers buy expensive clothes.

>>11974463
>you don't understand the hard problem
I understand the hard problem completely. The hard problem is that you're too stupid to even consider approaching philosophy from a vantage point other than your own gut feelings and you deflect all opposition to these feelings by asserting that the problem is somehow fundamentally hard.

Confusion is a property of the map, not the territory.

>>11974490
what is the hard problem then?

>>11974464

That was a lot of effort spent on writing nonsense. Equating linguistic ability with consciousness? Dude psychedelics lmao? A piece of paper functioning within it's physical properties means it's self-aware? You literally wrote nonsense.

>>11974494
"The hard problem is that you're too stupid to even consider approaching philosophy from a vantage point other than your own gut feelings and you deflect all opposition to these feelings by asserting that the problem is somehow fundamentally hard." (1)

Works Cited
(1) Me, >>11974490

>>11974500
embarrassing

>>11974475
It most likely is an incredible complex physical process that maybe some day in the future we'll be able to fully understand.

>>11974498
it's nonsense to you because you are unable to unpack dense information.

>linguistic ability with consciousness
how conscious would you be without it? how dimished would your cognitive ability be? how does this scale across human society, culture and history? why does language change and differ despite the fact we are all humans?

>dude weed
from thousands of self-reported experiences we see the literal deconstruction of self-consciousness and then ultimate consciousness as they fall into a comatose stupor. oh i forgot, your 'consciousness' doesn't actually manifest in the real world and cannot be explained.

>a piece of paper
"functioning within it's physical properties" is the only valid definition of anything. because there is only function and only physical property. you might as well say things that exist, necessarily exist. duh. paper is aware of being paper. otherwise it would be something else.

and it wasn't any effort. effort would be convincing someone who doesn't want to be convinced they are wrong and don't realize it. im shaming you for being stupid.

>>11974520
this is a non-answer. physical descriptions can't account for subjectivity qua subjectivity.

do I need to say it?

If our brains are no different than other matter, then other matter is conscious too. I see no reason to believe that the universe itself does not have a conscious experience.

>>11974527
>paper is aware of being paper
LMAO. I'm not sure what is more laughable or pathetic: that this poster either doesn't understand how to correctly use the word "aware", or that he spouses a ridiculous panpsychism. In any case: hahahaha, what a stupid fucking faggot!

>>11974510
I know, right? That guy couldn't even get 15% of the way through the post. I hope he's okay.

>>11974540
The day that your a priori duality between subjectivity and physicality is able to produce a single useful (read: predictive) theory about consciousness, let us all know. Until then, keep your arbitrary a priori distinctions to yourself, thank you very much.

>>11974540
that's how science works, it doesn't pretend to know answers before it can demonstrate that knowledge. this is why your computer works, but your metaphysics is half-baked nonsense spread across thousands of books, each one more confused than the last.

philosophy is actually so similar to divination or palm reading you might as well put away words and start throwing sticks and reading their overlapping patterns. at least then you could make a living by selling advice and having cool props.

>>11974527
>oh i forgot, your 'consciousness' doesn't actually manifest in the real world and cannot be explained.

It can't be explained by idiots that think the simulation of consciousness is equal to emergent consciousness, so instead of questioning their dogma they dismiss the idea of consciousness wholesale.

>from thousands of self-reported experiences we see the literal deconstruction of self-consciousness and then ultimate consciousness as they fall into a comatose stupor

Let me know when your evidence isn't based on college kids trying acid for the first time.

>paper is aware of being paper. otherwise it would be something else.

I'm starting to think you're trolling, because I find it hard to believe that this is an argument made in good faith.

I understand you're probably a college freshman far too sure of his own intelligence dabbling in philosophy, but you should really take a lot more time to read and listen before you open your mouth on a topic that is remotely as complex as this.

>>11974545
awareness is innate ability to function according to form and structure assuming the rules of universal constants hold.

if paper did not have knowledge or awareness of it's nature (that it is paper) it would be completely unable to function as paper, and cease to be paper. exactly the same with animals in controlled environments who develop abnormally by adapting to another species having close proximity to it. eg. domesticated pets.

>>11974556
did you even read the post? can physical descriptions of consciousness satisfactorily explain it in its own terms, or not?

>>11974554

utility of the hard problem is irrelevant. we're talking about the domain in which these truth procedures are even valid in the first place. you don't understand the hard problem.

>>11974573
>Paper is aware of itself based on this definition of awareness that I just invented

>>11974578
I too have read Chalmers, buddy. Calm the fuck down. The "hard problem" is not a problem at all if you're not a retarded dualist. The problem is that you ARE a retarded dualist who can't conceive of consciousness not being explained in dualistic spooky irreducibly conscious magical stuff, and then get mad when someone rejects your entire stupid framework.

>>11974571
>college freshman
>far too sure
>dabbling
>read and listen
>as complex

yikes. way to address what was written. yes, everyone should read and listen the exact same way you did, in order to? achieve the same hivemind group think mentality that shits out people like you every year. obscurant irrelevants.

>>11974586
it's homomorphic to the standard definition, which is anthropomorphized due to cultural bias and has led to hundreds of years of needless confusion.

>>11974578
>can physical descriptions of consciousness..

nobody knows, probably yes since everything else has been described. that's the fucking answer you pseud, it requires more work being done in studying networks and information, which is going to happen quickly because the internet is only growing and desperately requires more efficient routing.

The obvious answer is substance monism, and that the universe itself is based on consciousness on some fundamental level. Otherwise you'd have to believe that the brain is magic or somehow different than the rest of the world. Qualia is a fundamental aspect of existence.

>>11974578
>uhh, if you can't explain sorcery IN ITS OWN TERMS using THE PROPER DOMAIN it doesn't count

>>11974611
Please publish your new definition of awareness and knowledge and have other experienced scientists and philosophers discuss it, because I think you've created an entirely new definition.

>>11974606
Chalmers isn't a dualist. Hard problem is not Cartesian dualism.

You don't know what you're talking about.

>>11974611
> probably yes since everything else has been described.

no, the hard problem is precisely the fact that consciousness is not explicable by the same terms we use to describe rote physical phenomena.

>>11974629
now why would you assume that matter as an object of consciousness, has priority over that consciousness itself? why is experientiality subordinated to content?

>>11974618
>qualia is a fundamental aspect of existence
Here's a cool exercise: try to think how you could empirically prove your assertion. Pro-tip: you can't, because it's either false or nonsense. I CAN imagine a universe without qualia AT ALL, so it very clearly is not a "fundamental aspect of existence" (on the other hand, I can't do the same with concepts like space and time).

>>11974643
>the same terms we use to describe rote physical phenomena
You mean English? Better get cracking on that new language then, bucko.

>>11974643
LMAO. Sure, buddy. A philosophical framework which pits the res cogitans against the res extensa and then claims that the first substance can't be accounted for in terms of the second one is NOT a dualistic and Cartesian philosophy at all. My God, way to out yourself as an ignorant moron.

>>11974663
>he tries to refute there being irreducible properties of subjective experience by admitting there are irreducible properties of subjective experience

>>11974681
Lol Chalmers is not a Cartesian dualist. Is Spinoza a Cartesian dualist for distinguishing between thought and substance? You don't know what you're talking about. Stop embarrassing yourself.

>>11974663
>I CAN imagine a universe without qualia AT ALL
Are you saying that you do not experience?
The only thing I can be certain of is qualia. Cognito ergo sum. Your ontology and epistemology is horrendously fucked. You believe your own experience exists, right?

Yes, sweetie, if you distinguish res extensa from res cogitans you ARE a Cartesian dualist, because that is exactly what the expression "Cartesian dualist" means.

>>11974697
>Hegel is a Cartesian dualist because he distinguishes between mind and substance


No.

>>11974691
>the only thing I can be certain of is this dubious philosophical concept
Lmao. Good luck buddy. Keep us posted on your deep and interesting theories about consciousness!

>>11974639
i understand you are being sarcastic, but for any third party confused by our interaction, the entire world outside of the big four jewish traditions (christianity, islam, judaism, secularism) always believed and still believes this. it's where you get reincarnation from, it's why they never developed predatory economic systems but relied on merit, it's why they lagged behind in describing the natural world and discovering new phenomena (because they weren't racing against the armageddon clock or obsessed with proving god's existence) daoism, hinduism, buddhism, shamanism, animism.

you're just unaware of this definition because you grew up and are drowning with the other 5+ billion believers in the one true faith(s), which simply cannot escape from the dualism trap, no matter how far behind you left god or the good books. the frantic pressure to uncover "THE TRUTH" has created most of the problems in the world today, and they are problems of success and overabundance, which can and will most likely lead to an inversion and huge catastrophe and once again the suppression of these types of ideas, which is why ancient empires persecuted the big four traditions for viciously. nothing good comes from separating things which are inseparable.

>>11974708
Ok, so you are admitting that you have no inner experience. I don't blame you for not believing in empiricism, because you clearly can't experience or observe phenomenon.

>>11974691
>I believe it, so I don't need your science!
Vermillion Parish called, they want their preacher back

>>11974722
>if you don't describe the phenomena with MY WORDS it doesn't exist!!

>>11974738
consciousness denialfags should be gassed

>>11974728
You are showing that you don't know what empiricism is. Empiricism, which is the basis for modern science, is obtaining knowledge by observation and experience. Empiricism puts experience first, to do otherwise is being completely un-skeptical. All that I am doing is saying that I know my mind exists (not necessarily in any kind of magic form or soul or whatever. I am a substance monist) because my mind is the first thing I empirically observe.

You are showing that you know nothing about epistemology or empiricism and you believe that you don't experience things.

>>11974643
wait are you actually arguing you are incapable of stating an argument because you know that argument (you cant state) is correct a priori, which conveniently is an assumption that contains your conclusion qed.

is this the actual state of the humanities in 2018? no fucking wonder blue hair tyrannies are taking over your departments holy shit.

>>11974748
Pardon me using this meme, but there is no better evidence for npcs than people who deny inner experience. These people are denying the empirically observable fact of consciousness.

>>11974748
LMAO. Imagine being THIS stupid!!! I'm in a good mood, so I'm gonna paste this quote right here; maybe you'll eventually see just how stupid your position actually is:

>The anti-vitalist says that there is no such thing as vital spirit. But this claim is self-refuting. The speaker can expect to be taken seriously only if his claim cannot. For if the claim is true, then the speaker does not have vital spirit and must be dead. But if he is dead, then his statement is a meaningless string of noises, devoid of reason and truth.

Paul Churchland, "Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes", in The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Feb., 1981), p. 89.

>>11974757
We know cognitive biases exist; we can see the ways in which our minds systematically fail to reflect reality. Empiricism is ultimately based on experience, but that doesn't make every experience true.

Also, did you mean to reply to my post? It seems like a couple of your replies have been tailored more to other anons' arguments and it's confusing me a bit.

>>11974780
>if he does not subscribe to my theory, he must be dead
This guy was pretty early to the NPC meme

>>11974757
why don't you say your body or your person or your being or your physical form or you exist? could it be because you're a pasty limp wristed faggot with a soft pudgy body and you are suppressing all natural urges to the point of reductio ad absurdum. well you got fucking one upped by the 20th century. science now builds models based on theory. we stopped using our senses to observe things about the 1930s when telescopes and later computers became advanced enough to work on their own without human observation. have you heard of radio, television, the internet, how are you experiencing all those invisible signals flying through your body right now? we collect data, run simulations, and do automatic proof verification all with machines built and designed to run efficient experiments far beyond the fringes of human perception, because "experience" is incredibly limited and gated by our biological needs and biases. for public consumption there are a bunch of conversion machines, designed to interpret tight packets of information into human usable/experienceable formats, but that is a temporary stopgap until we upscale the species.

yes this means we are rapidly approaching a future when nobody understands how any of the technology works. and that's a good thing because then they won't be able to break it.

>>11974759
no, once again you fundamentally misunderstand the argument, a prioricity is not being invoked here, if you don't get what's different between, say, the phenomenon of gravitational fields and consciousness, and how our study of each would naturally differ, you're lost.


>>11974780
this retard again. I remember you. you're an idiot. physicalism entails panpsychism.

>>11974818
>yes this means we are rapidly approaching a future when nobody understands how any of the technology works. and that's a good thing because then they won't be able to break it.

Or it'll start broken and nobody will be able to fix it

>>11974798
We only believe that some minds are capable of misinterpretation and such because our experience told us that. You see that some people are wrong, and that is why you believe that some people are wrong. We must start our thinking with our experience, because there is nothing else to start with. You can't step outside of your mind into some kind of god-like omniscience.

>>11974757
>because my mind is the first thing I empirically observe
No, not really. Sorry bud. You should clarify what you mean by "first thing", too. Because if you mean it in a temporal way, then this is clearly false (babies are conscious and I HIGHLY doubt that "the first thing they empirically observe" is their own minds). The fact of the matter is that you "observe" a lot of mostly external phenomena and only after the fact, by introspection and memory, can you ""observe"" the processes of your own mind. Cognition is a pretty obvious prerequisite for metacognition.

>>11974851
you're just splitting hairs, all he means then is that consciousness is immediate and given, and yes if a baby is conscious that would still apply

>>11974862
>consciousness is immediate and given
Meaning? Imagine using the predicate "is immediate and given" in any other context than philosophical discussion. Pro-tip: you can't, because it's meaningless. I certainly wouldn't know what the fuck do you mean if you say to me "this table is immediate and given", and if I can't make sense of it using something as mundane as a table, well champ, you can imagine how that predicate goes along with something a lot spookier like consciousness.

>>11974837
I did start my thinking with my experience. I noticed that some of my thoughts caused me to experience being wrong, so I started thinking additional thoughts to account for them. Then I experienced being right. For ease of reference, I decided to think of a concept called "objective reality", which I defined as the set of thoughts that caused me to experience being right. I enjoyed the experience of being right, so I decided to optimize my thoughts towards reaching more of this "objective truth". This concept has proven very useful to me and a surface-level understanding of "cogito ergo sum" won't change that.

>>11974875
there is no experience of an object without that which experiences it. for an object to be given, so must the subject

>>11974818
Wew. I guess I gotta unpack this bullshit now.
I don't start my thought process with my arms or my legs because that's not where my brain is. I start my thought process with my conscious mind because that's what doing the thinking. I start from the basis that my mind exists (this I can be certain of. The existence of my mind is the basis from which we define existence and certainty), then I think of what is necessitated by my mind. I know that there is world from which my mind originates, otherwise my mind would not exist. This is not reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum is what nihilistic tards do when they deny the existence of their own experience.

You have an incredibly flawed concept of experience. When you read a computer screen, how are you doing so? Obviously you observe and experience the screen. The ONLY way we know that the computer has done any calculations is by observing the computer. To say otherwise is against empiricism and is a horribly bloated epistemology devoid of skepticism.

Also, read my post below about flawed experience
>>11974837

>>11974691
Shit boi, I hope you never get visual anosognosia, because you'll get terribly disappointed in your pet philosophy.

>>11974890
Cool story, bro. Now please clarify the meaning of the predicate "is immediate and given", with mundane examples if possible. I'll wait.

>>11974834
>you fundamentally misunderstand the argument

because it is a fundamentally wrong argument and is incapable of being understood. it leads to contradiction and dead ends. you drove down a dead end street and now refuse to back out, insisting that you meant to park here to begin with.

>>11974901
yeah and you haven't given me any reason to take this with anything more than a grain of salt

>>11974898
time and time again i've found autists like you to be almost constitutionally incapable of understanding very simple arguments like this. maybe I'd actually make an effortpost if I had any reason to believe you're not just another droid who thinks subjectivity can be formalized

>>11974909
You just keep talking but refuse to give the meaning of the spooky expressions you use. Until proven otherwise, I'm gonna assume you're a retard who uses expressions the meaning of which he doesn't actually know.

>>11974909
If you can't formalize subjectivity, how could you "effortpost" about it even in principle? Your entire argument hinges on the premise that you cannot make an argument in favor of your position

>>11974892
Not being able to think about my own existence doesn't invalidate my philosophical view. You have misunderstood my viewpoint if you think this is the case. A person with anasognosia can still think. It doesn't matter if they're not self-aware, because they can still think about apples and electrons and feel pain and such.

>>11974898
Im not him, but I agree with what he is saying. Without something ultimately "immediate and given" all philosophical thought, and I mean ALL philosophical thought and scientific thought has no basis. There must be an ultimate foundation to the thinking. This foundation is the simple truth that consciousness exists.

>>11974891
are your arms and legs separated from your mind? im sorry are you a multi-person? why are you separating your mind from the rest of your body, have you by any chance copied or built a prototype body-less mind to prove your claim of experiential isolation?

i find your claim absurd on the face of it. I SEE THE SCREEN WITH MY EYES. I EXPERIENCE VISION AS A PHENOMENON OF HAVING A COMPLETE BODY. unlike you i dont claim to have plug in body parts. and experience stopped being a thing a long time ago, this is why so many modern people feel isolated, seek escape and are inconsiderate, chase temporary experiences. because the focus is on growth and human beings have been left on the sidelines of civilization serving as a utility for increasing the rate of growth.

keep repeating the word mind though when you mean entire being. and then just stop there, since you've never studied any scientific field in your entire life you can't actually address or understand what i am talking about (remember you're still stuck in a false separation you've imposed on your own identity between yourself and yourself, how can you even begin to understand the lack of separation between you and others or humans and their environment?).... so the other stuff i wrote went over your head, sorry i mean mind.

>>11974926
>This foundation is the simple truth that consciousness exists.
Animals are capable of some degree of thought, given that they can identify things such as food or hazards using the same mechanisms we do. Do animals have consciousness?

>>11974921
because he _feels_ correct. and he experiences his feelings. ergo he is correct.

>>11974926
You said the the only thing you can be certain of is qualia. Now, in the phenomenon called visual anasognosia, people claim to see when they clearly can't see. So, how am I to understand this bizarre phenomenon according to your philosophy? If I have to assume that every verbal report of visual perception is caused by the previous existence of qualia, I have to assume that the person with visual anasognosia does indeed have visual qualia. So here we have a case of someone who is perfectly certain of their qualia, but their qualia don't actually correspond to anything in the world. So if THIS is the only thing you can be certain of, you're gonna have a very hard time when your doctor swears to you that you're about to fall down a cliff despite what your sly visual qualia are telling you.

>>11974937
>are your arms and legs separated from your mind?
Yes? I'm not that other guy but it's not like I'd cease to think if you cut my arm off.

>>11974965
would your arm continue living as a separate you once we cut it off? you fooking nonce.

>>11974965
>it's not like I'd cease to think if you cut my arm off.
How about we try that with your brain, champ? Wanna bet on the results? :^)

>>11974970
I'm not sure how "my arm and mind are separate entities" logically corresponds to "my arm is capable of living on its own". Care to elaborate?

>>11974973
Like I said, I'm not the dumb dualist guy. I know the important stuff is done in the brain; that's kind of the point I was reaching towards.

>>11974937
Holy fuck you are the king of pseuds. I've finally found the poster with the lowest IQ and the largest ego. You are so incapable of discussing concepts like 'experience' and 'knowledge' that I'm not sure if this discussion can continue in any meaningful way, but I'll try.
Obviously I have a peripheral nervous system if that's what your referring to. Obviously my body is connected. Your toes and your ears are connected by the rest of your body. Does this mean that your toes and your ears are the SAME THING? Of course not. Of course your toes and ears can be identified as separate, but connected. Of course my mind is connected to my body. I believe in substance monism. My mind emerges from my body, but that doesn't mean I can't talk about my arms and legs without talking about my body.
Want a scientific experiment to prove this? Cut off your legs and arms and HOLY SHIT you still have a mind! Fully capable of experience and thought!
>and experience stopped being a thing a long time ago
No. I would like you to explain to me, in your magical way, how you can know the results of a scientific experiment without a mind to know anything at all? How can you read a computer screen of results without eyes? How can you discuss scientific results with other scientists if you can't discuss, know, or think?

>>11974945
Uh, yeah? I dont see why animals wouldn't be conscious...

>>11974921
I can't prove a negative. Prove you can formalize subjectivity.


>>11974945
Yes, but not self-consciousness.

>>11974963
the raw feel of a qualia isn't invalidated by what it is or isn't a qualia "of"

>>11974937
>I SEE THE SCREEN WITH MY EYES. I EXPERIENCE VISION AS A PHENOMENON OF HAVING A COMPLETE BODY

Why not the other way around? I experience the phenomenon of having a complete body as a direct consequence of the unity of my consciousness. Not consciousness as a biological phenomenon, mind you, but as integrity of my internal, first-person perspective.

>>11974997
Does that mean they're capable of introspection/qualia/reflective cognition like humans? This line of questioning isn't a challenge, FYI; I'm genuinely curious what your theory says about it.

>>11975005
>the raw feel of a qualia isn't invalidated by what it is or isn't a qualia "of"
So, in other words, "qualia" is a concept completely disconnected from publicly observable behavior, and thus, as far as science is concerned, perfectly useless. So much for qualia.

>>11974963
> If I have to assume that every verbal report of visual perception is caused by the previous existence of qualia
visual perception is qualia.
How many times do I have to explain this shit.
When my doctor tells me I'm about to fall off a clif, how do I know he's saying this? I can hear or see this doctor. You CANNOT step outside of your mind. The visual/auditory/whatever perception of the doctor is the ONLY way I can know what the doctor is saying.

>>11975015
not that anon, but yes, adequate to their internality. there is an internal state that corresponds to my cat jumping up in fear, how couldn't there be?

>>11975021
which would be a grand slam if we were arguing for the utility of qualia.

>>11975015
I'm a panpsychist, so yes, I believe animals are conscious on some level. They may not be able to 'think' and 'talk' about their own mind, but they are nonetheless experiencing it.

>>11975028
So you have a concept that makes you feel comfortable (in your ignorance, it is safe to say) but can't possibly aid in the scientific comprehension of consciousness. Geez, we have a true intellectual here!

>>11975040
Science is based upon qualia. How do you know the results of an experiment if you ad no visual/auditory qualia to tell you the results? Divine inspiration?
You don't understand science, empiricism, or qualia.

>>11975005
>I can't prove a negative. Prove you can formalize subjectivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative
"Saying 'You cannot prove a negative' has been called pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim."

The thread started with your assertion. If you could avoid burden of proof just by phrasing your statement as a negative, all I'd have to do is say "I can't prove consciousness ISN'T outside the realm of science, that's a negative and you can't prove a negative!" and then my work would be done.

>>11975057
Sure, buddy. Rest assured, I'm gonna inform my physicist and biologist friends that their fields of study rest on a shoddy philosophical concept with no empirically observable consequences. Boi am I LAFFIN.

>>11975057
>How do you know the results of an experiment if you ad no visual/auditory qualia to tell you the results?
By seeing the results. See how easy that was? No qualia anywhere!

>>11975068
I repeat, you do not understand empiricism.
Qualia is the basis of empiricism. Observation, experience, and sense-data form the basis of empiricism.

>>11975060
semantics. how would you formalize subjectivity? do you even know what subjectivity is? jesus Christ


>>11975040
no, in the philosophic comprehension of consciousness, in which you are so admirably failing

>>11975078
No modern scientist is a 18th century empiricist, and if you think they are, well... You just don't actually know any real scientist.

>>11975077
Surely you must be trolling. I will entertain you further, but note that I believe you are being ironic.
"seeing" the results is qualia

>>11975084
Please tell me, how do scientists know the results of their experiments?

>>11975094
By seeing their results. I'm gonna ask to have my biologist girlfriend if qualia are involved, wait a sec.

Nope, no qualia involved ("what the hell are qualia?" was her question. I didn't know what to say!). Sorry bud.

>>11975089
>the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions
>as perceived or experienced by a person
This definition directly implies that there are components to sensory experience other than qualia, and therefore that it is possible to sense something with no qualia present. After all, that's what computers do, right?

>>11975082
>do you even know what subjectivity is?
Yeah, it's that thing you hide behind when you can't connect any of your stupid arguments to reality

>>11975089
>being alive is the result of vital spirits!!1!11!!!

>>11975098
Shes not a philosopher. You are being intellectually dishonest by not given her the definition. Give her the definition then ask her. How many times do I have to explain this. Seeing is sense-data. Sense-data is qualia.

>>11975114
"Geez, anon, I don't know what the fuck sense-data are. I see objects, but I can't see these mysterious sense-data you're talking about!" Sorry champ, still no luck!

>>11974989
>you can know the results of a scientific experiment

modern day? you can't which is why most science is completely unknowable to untrained laymen outside the field and to experts in various fields requires heavy use of computers to check for the results and reinterpret them. so you are not literally asking how experimental results are understood, you are simply playing word games or lack the imagination to create a thought experiment that illustrates your point.

what you call you mind is not your brain. it is your subjective experience of reality, which exists mostly as language which parses your sensory input (including your experience of more language) and turns it from raw information into discrete quanta you can catalog, store and understand. what i just called language is literally segment lengths (physically represented as the changing distances of preferred electrical pathways connecting your neurons) which are adjusted through the mechanism of sense perception connected by your CNS and computed by the neural network of your brain. when you play word association games you can get an abstract feeling of how this works naturally when you aren't even conscious of it occurring. so 'mind' is a physical feature of your body, tied to your nervous system and working in the brain. you might as well be talking about your knee joint or your stomach acid.

b-b-b-but experience, sense of self, identity! it feels so real! so do optical illusions they look real. the same way an image can trick your visual system, the entire being of being a human tricks you into thinking there is something more to it that lazy computation across a 2 dimensional matrix of some determinate size NxN relative to the cavity of your skull/ size of brain. the difference between us is i can explain your 'mind' jargon into a meaningful representative measurable quantity we can test and replicate and improve. whereas you are completely mistifed by what im saying and convinced i am wrong, because your lack of understanding must be due to my incorrectness and not your own internal incoherence large due to ignorance and misplaced self-confidence in a word salad of meaningless jargon and regurgitation.

you can't even begin to understand what you don't understand, yet like the religious man which you are, you will defend to the death your belief in your belief.

>>11974979
i claim human experience relies on your contiguous body and to reduce it to the brain or to an ill-defined concept such as mind is dangerous bordering on ridiculous.

>>11975005
because you can't prove it the other way around, you just assume
>unity of my consciousness

>integrity of my internal, first-person perspective
ever been drunk anon? what happened did you die? did your body disintegrate? body makes the consciousness work not the other way around. that claim is spiritual and outside the ability of anyone to test it.

>>11975104
>computers "sense" things

jesus christ

>>11975123
>ever been drunk anon? what happened did you die? did your body disintegrate?

there is no body without consciousness, how does the body bootstrap itself out of the void?

>>11975108
Nope, i never used the term "vital spirits" I don't believe in a soul. You clearly cannot read.
>>11975104
Components to sensory perceptions may be the eye sending signals before it reaches the brain, etc. This is really a semantic argument. By using multiple sources we can see that qualia really just means the experience.

>>11975123
BASED AND SCIENCEPILLED. How will mystic qualia bois ever recover?

>>11975130
>Nope, i never used the term "vital spirits" I don't believe in a soul. You clearly cannot read.
If you cannot see the parallel between the vital spirits argument and your own qualia argument trying to make me look like an NPC, I'm afraid to tell you your IQ is in the double-digit zone, my not-so-bright friend.

>>11975127
>what is a simple animal like a snail.

>how does the body
so basically how does life work? evolution and natural selection assuming you have the right starting conditions. you can watch this. yes it's quite strange, and probably should not occur often.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF2uj0Oxqhg

>>11975127
>there is no body without consciousness

>>11975130
You're using a definition of "qualia" that does not support your argument. You claim a being that does not experience qualia cannot perform science, because science is based on qualia. A computer is capable of making observations about the world, analyzing those observations in the form of data, and outputting meaningful results, which I would consider to be the core of science. Yet computers do not have qualia, as per your definition. This is a contradiction, if you couldn't tell.

>>11975123
Nope. Very wrong. I am a substance monist. Infact, I don't think anyone here is arguing for Cartesian dualism or anything of the sort. Obviously the mind arises as a consequence of physical brain functions. This means that optical illusions, hallucinations, disassociated minds, and whatever other forms of conscious experience or minds DO EXIST. When I see an apple, and hallucinate and think of it as an orange, of course the physical components are still 'apple', but the hallucination of an orange exists.
>yet like the religious man which you are, you will defend to the death your belief in your belief
This may be the weakest form of argument thus far. I am not religious. I may have views about reality which can be called "spiritual", but that pretty much only includes panpsychism, which I think a lot of woo and mysticism is wrongly associated with.

>>11975164
Nope. Computers are made of matter that is not significantly different than the brain. The brain experiences inputs, and since I am a panpsychist, I believe the computer 'experiences' its inputs. Both have input of information, so both have some level of consciousness. This whole time I've been arguing monism, which means I don't believe that the brain is significantly different than computers.

>>11975177
I can't imagine how much soi you must have in your bloodstream. Just take a look at this guy: he's much too smart for being religious, but he still needs to believe in something mysterious. So here you have him, this small-souled, anemic creature, talking about SUBSTANCE MONISM MAAAAAAN, IT'S ALL SPIRIT MAAAAAAN. Tell me, and be honest please: what led you to believe in substance monism? Why do you like this belief so much? Does it make the world feel more meaningful or mysterious?

>>11975195
Ok npc. Do you know what substance monism means? Please define, in your own words, substance monism.

>>11975123
>i claim human experience relies on your contiguous body and to reduce it to the brain or to an ill-defined concept such as mind is dangerous bordering on ridiculous.
I guess I see where you're coming from. I don't really consider much beyond my brain to be "me" so much as data-inputs to me, the way you'd consider something touching you to be a data-input to you. I'm a medical engineer by trade and I see a lot of people with body parts missing or replaced with prostheses, so it's difficult seeing my extremities as "essential" in any meaningful way. But that's just a definition thing, and I don't think we disagree on anything of substance, so I won't pursue the matter further.

>>11975188
Are you the guy who was saying paper was aware of it being paper or something? I think I meant to argue with a different guy. Fuck, I miss IDs.

>>11975212
The belief in a spooky substance, neither mental nor physical, which somehow (don't ask me how, please: I have no idea!) gives rise to both aforementioned substances. Spinoza is the most famous philosopher who spew this kind of nonsense.

>>11975218
No I was not the paper guy.
There may be some confusion, so here are all of my posts:
>>11975212
>>11975188
>>11975177
>>11975130
>>11975114
>>11975094
>>11975089
>>11975078
>>11975057
>>11975038
>>11975022
>>11974997
>>11974989
>>11974926
>>11974891
..and several others posts but theres quite a bit

>>11975150
please point me to all these bodies that supposedly exist outside of the bounds of experience

>>11975177
>substance monist
so you're a pre-socratic like thales or laozi? do you adhere to a mental, material or neutral highest order substance? i have been arguing against you up to this point assuming you are a mental monist, and treating you as an idealist, if you feel this is unfair state your position clearly.

my refutation to material monism: how is this different than a universal body?
my refutation to mental monism: how is this different than a universal mind?
my refutation to neutral (third substance) monism: how is this different than a universal god?

it appears to me that you have not escaped dualism with monism, simply moved the goal posts outside the human body, but stuck to the same rigid line of thinking that forced you to argue against dualism to begin with. dualism is incorrect and should be ignored, things transform in this universe they are not constant, and the transform according to hard coded rules on transformation, which means they derive their essence from physical constants, which could themselves be purely coincidental, emerging out of emergence itself.

the universe is a flipping coin, not a coin, not a person flipping it, and not it landing on heads or tails. but the actual coin in the process of flipping, which includes the flipping as a necessary part of the movement of the coin and the structure of the universe. so when it lands or before it is flipped there is no universe, there is only the potential for a universe to exist, according to the pre-requisite coin, it's ability to be flipped and some mechanism which flips it, which if you imagine a special circumstance could be a property of the coin itself.

^ this is what i believe, but i don't structure my arguments, world view or scientific work around it. it's purely a nice story i tell to myself, while i focus on actually doing productive work.

>>11975234
Just look around you man, I'm sure you can find a couple of them! Lmao. What an moron. Try this experiment, please: kill yourself and record it on camera. That way we can see if the objects around still exist after your consciousness is obliterated from existence.

>>11975226
The separation of mental, physical, and what comprises the physical is a linguistic separation. Surely you know this and are just baiting me, but I'll take the bait. If we are going to make silly distinctions between substances, Why stop at physical? Why not say that matter and quantum particles are different substances? Btw, belief that all there is is a the physical is substance monism, as there would be no substance outside of the physical. But surely you knew that.

Stop playing silly linguistic games. Mind and matter are the same thing. The mental and physical are not different.

>>11975247
>why stop at physical?
Because it's the only one we need to make sense of the only worthy intellectual framework we possess so far for rationally making sense of the world: science. Anything else is a whim inspired by religious needs which I would rather satisfy by belief in the Christian God or anything else more respectable than chink panpsychism.

>ctrl + f "interaction problem
>no results
The interaction problem shows that it is impossible for something to be immeasurable.

>>11975247
Are you sure you're a panpsychist? This sounds pretty indistinguishable from pure materialism as far as I can tell.

>>11974097

>>11975239
I'm sorry if there was any confusion. I believe that a neutral substance is the highest order. You could call this 'god', but I avoid the term in these discussions as I find it misleading and unproductive. Although, I don't think calling it a god refutes neutral monism. I am mainly arguing that experience is real and cannot be ignored. My experience emerges from the physical faculties of my brain (and you could say they are indistinguishable) but since I only know this through scientific neurological studies and empirical observation, I must place my experience first before anything else. I only know about scientific studies because I read about them or see them, after all.

Also, since the brain is made of matter that is not significantly different from other matter, such as computers or the universe, I believe that my conscious experience of qualia exists in computers and the universe. So I'm a panpsychist, believing the universe itself to be akin to a "cosmic consciousness" If I may use that term.

>>11975218
i was using reductio ad absurdum to the mind guy by explaining that it's the body and not the brain that does the heavy lifting for experience. arguing he had reduced away too much of the body while still having a body (just ignoring it) and clearly his mind also included his arms and legs and torso etc.

there is a famous thought experiment in AI research dealing with copying a human brain atom by atom, and at which point would the brain no longer be itself and become two selves and if you kept the patient awake during the copying process what they would feel, this is an extension of Theseus's paradox (if you replace every part of a ship step by step is it the same ship once every original part has been replaced, what is it's shipness?) which if that anon was a philosophy student would've encountered at some point. believing in the existence of mind puts you inside that paradox. of course i'm not saying people missing limbs or disabled are not conscious or less human, i am saying that their consciousness is contingent on their whole body and not just their brain because their experience of existing is occurring with their entire being, it is just being interpreted by their brain.

>>11975123
>>11974937
>>11974901
>>11974818
>>11974721
>>11974611
>>11974556
>>11974527
>>11974464

is all the same person, me. yes the paper is conscious or aware, or nothing is and consciousness or awareness is not a useful way of thinking about things. either you have a broad definition like the monist where everything is the same thing, making it almost meaningless to talk because you're just talking to yourself (this monism shit is what my boomer dad believes btw, i've spent hours debating this idiocy with him before he finishes with something like: life is just the universe trying to understand itself son, everything is one). alternatively you STEAL the definition from philosophycucks and bulldoze their garbage lingo to just change the meaning to function and use. then paper is as paper is used or X is as X functions. this is for example the controversy of the modern art movement, when jewish women stick eggs in their vagina and give omelette birth from step ladders on public streets as an act of ultimate art is what art says it is. turns out hijacking other people's language works really well for getting your way. prepare the way for the science bulls.

>>11975244
God you're soft.

Try this experiment: go to sleep and check if your room is still there.

>>11975282
>I believe that my conscious experience of qualia exists in computers and the universe
Kek. This is the problem with qualia: if you completely separate it from publicly observable behavior, you can claim nonsense like this. The fact that people believe in qualia BECAUSE it allows them to make such claims is a monument to human stupidity.

>>11975282
Thanks, I think that clears things up. But we've been talking about qualia in a sense that inextricably ties it to sensory perceptions (sight, sound, etc.) which are mediated by the nervous system. How do you universalize the concept of qualia when only a negligible fraction of the universe exhibits these properties?

>>11975294
I've did this it's called AP

>>11975293
How is physicalism (the belief that the entire universe is physical) different in any significant way to monism? (The belief that the entire universe is one kind of thing)? Physicalism just states that the entire universe is one material substance, e.i. substance monism.

>>11975299
>Inb4 duuuuuuuude, the nervous system is made from the same matter as my COMPUTER!!!!

>>11975299
The human nervous system creates qualia that humans understand. This arises out of just the transfer of information. A bat has qualia that a bat understands. So I see no reason to believe that a computer, which transfers a lot of information, does not have a kind of computer qualia. It also makes sense to me that this occurs on any level, since physical properties occur on any level. It may be minute and reduced, but matter has simple qualia. Evolution shows us that there is a smooth gradient, not a hard line, between the human brain and tiny molecules.

>>11975312
Yup. You got it. The human brain is made of electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. The brain and computers are both made of atomic particles. If you deny this, have fun denying basic grade school science.

>>11974611
>it's homomorphic to the standard definition, which is anthropomorphized due to cultural bias and has led to hundreds of years of needless confusion.
YOU are homomorphic to the standard definition of being a huge fag

>>11975330
My man, the organization of matter MATTERS, very much! You can't possibly, seriously, be this stupid.

>>11975330
LMAO. So I guess my table is also conscious, shit! This seriously changes everything! I can't imagine the atrocities I've committed against my chairs and bed throughout the years. How can I possibly live disregarding the feelings of all these wonderful, conscious creatures that until this moment I foolishly considered dumb inanimate objects? Fuck! How do you live with this burdensome knowledge of yours, oh wise one? Enlighten me!

>>11975338
What are you trying to say here? I assume you mean that the human mind is a result of the complexity of the brain. There is a gradient between a human mind and a worm's nervous system, the main difference being size and complexity. I see no point in evolution that a "mind" was not there and then magically sprung into existence in humans. Obviously then, worms are conscious, just on a tiny, tiny, tiny level compared to humans.
Of course we can't stop at worms. There is a gradient between a worm and a single celled organism. A cell responds to stimuli, so I see no point in which the mind magically appeared within a cell or a worm. This gradient can be taken to lower levels, and implies tinier, less complex forms of consciousness.
The human mind is only complex because the brain is complex. A worm's nervous system is simple, so its consciousness is very very simple. I see no reason why even an atom shouldn't have a tiny and simplistic form of consciousness.

if you disagree, you must think that a mind magically appeared at some point in evolutionary history?

>>11975351
Nope. Dont put words in my mouth. I'm a moral nihilist and I eat plenty of meat, killing thousands of animals. Chairs and beds and tables dont have emotions, so why should I care about them? They may have an extremely, extremely, tiny, itty-bitty form of qualia and experience, but thats not a reason to have moral consideration for it. Again, don't put words in my mouth.

>>11975282
other than the eerie similarity between the monist triumvirate and christian trinity (father - mind, son - body, holy spirit - neutral/unknown) which i suspect roman catholics stole from the celtic triquertra knot since it doesn't appear in judaism which as far as i can tell developed some 11 dimensional kabbalistic sefirot graph (hello string theory) in the middle ages to one up everyone else....

if you believe that the universe consists only of a higher order neutral substance, that's fine but how is that even useful? from what i can see the meme particle physics standard model believes in at least 4 baryonic types and speculates as to the nature of dark energy/matter, making it a square foundation (leptons, quarks, gauge bosons, gravity bosons) with some unknown point connecting them all, like a pyramid with the mystery at the capstone. hardly any different than the chinese wu xing of wood, fire, earth, metal, water; or gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, dark energy etc.

so it's either one substance, or two, or three, or four, or five. im not convinced this is even a useful way to understand the universe, but at least the chinese had some kind of divination and medicinal system and the christians have a book of do's and dont's and jesus' adventures, the jews have blood and sex magic rituals and interdimensional larping and the physicists can burn through billions charging huge lasers and magnetic fields.

we come to the show me point, besides faith, what do you have to show for neutral monism? this is why i called you religious. to contrast your thinking with that of a true believer in something, all they need is faith.

>>11975311
im not a physicalist, you would have to ask someone who is. i know at least 5% of the universe is physical and i study the boundary between that and the rest, i don't come into it with any pre-conceptions, flipping coin or not. if i had to assume something it would be that as humans we are not equipped with the ability to understand the universe, but i am pleasantly surprised by the amount we are capable of understanding, and it gives me hope for the future. note i do NOT have faith that humans will ever understand everything, which makes me highly suspicious of people who not only exhibit blind faith, but make claims about it beyond their curiosity, desire or ability to test them. those people are convincers, they want to convince you, but the truth is convincing enough on it's own it doesn't need a spokesperson.

>>11975336
are you homoeroticising me?

>>11974520
Litteraly the fist post is a critique of this explanation

>>11975354
You realize words and concepts are inventions of the mind, right? For a mind to be existent in a human but not in a worm does not require it to be "magically" inserted; only that there is some lower bound on complexity past which it is no longer *practically useful* to refer to the system as a mind. We might not draw our lines at the same place, and I might not even know where specifically I draw my line; but this is not justification for supposing there is a mind inherent in all things.

In general, if I am solving a complicated equation for x, I might have a 95% confidence interval that 0.32 < x < 0.77, but the fact that I do not know x explicitly is not grounds for someone else to theorize that x must tend to infinity.

>>11975354
There really is no point in arguing with someone who completely separates the concept of "consciousness" from behavior. As far as I'm concerned, IF the predicate "conscious" has any sense at all, the ONLY way in which I can correctly employ it is in describing something that exhibits some kind of complex behavior (so by this definition a dumb unicellular organism which behaves in a easily-to-determine stimuli-reaction way is NOT conscious) which is difficult to describe purely in terms of stimuli-reaction chains. When I see such an organism, I say "that is a conscious organism". The correct use of this expression is also tied to the existence of a complex nervous system, which we empirically know is tied to complex behavior. So no, you absolute, colossal, mystical, panpsychist, irredeemable faggot: consciousness, as far as we can make empirical sense of this concept, is not present in every single thing that is made of matter.

>>11975368
Hmmm... I believe that if there were different 'substances' that were not the same on some fundatmental level, that the serveral substances could not interact. This is basically the 'interaction problem'. I'll use this analogy: How can a wheel and the ground interact? How can one move across another without phasing through? They both are material and interact based on the laws of material things. If they where not both ultimately the same material, how could they touch each other? There is a causal problem with several substances.

>>11975360
>chairs and beds and tables don't have emotions
Ohhhh, boyyyyy, this is RICH coming from you. Tell me, my deluded friend: if emotions are qualia, and qualia are completely severed from behavior, how can you possibly claim to know that chairs don't have emotion? Pro-tip: you can't, and this should show you how retarded your whole philosophy is.

>>11975418
They’re expressions of quantifiable processes in the brain. Chairs lack CNS’s ergo no emotions or qualia. The very notion of a coherent “qualia” is itself absurd. If its unique to most humans’ experience of their inner life its by definition not even categorically definable, if its common then it should be easily subjected to induction and used as a tool for prediction more useful than any neurobiological or genetic model. Its neither though.

https://youtu.be/wXgSnPsSgcA

this explains everything

>>11975390
they don't touch each other, the 'touching' or 'interaction' is mediated by the fundamental forces, which themselves do not directly interact as much as overpower each other at different scales according to the force carrier particles. these things are distinct from each other in the way oil is different from water. so if you look at strength and range you can get a feeling for at what distances one of the four force dominates, and if you look at the particle you see the irreducible 'thing' or 'substance' that mediates the interaction.

gravity bends reality (spacetime, the strata of the universe) and this is how it interacts with electromagnetism for example. this is what physicists believe. weak force is radioactive decay, strong force is the binding of atoms together which allows us to have baryonic matter (every "thing" that interacts with light through absorption and emission). gravity is still a bit of a mystery. electromagnetism is the full spectrum of light from gamma rays which are very small and energetic to radio laves which are very large and have less energy, a transformation between electricity and magnetism occurs using maxwell's equations and the lorentz force.

that's why i have been arguing ITT that experience has been left behind, because the idea that nothing touches anything else is outside the normal understanding of electrostatics and friction at human scale. but indeed, things are not actually touching.

>>11975378
>>11975381
This is obviously a mostly semantic argument, but a good one nonetheless. So, why do I call it a mind? Well its true that the term 'a mind' implies a kind of coherent system similar to an animal's, but there is still present a kind of qualia. If I disconnected certain parts of your brain, you may not associated with your eyes anymore. Visual signals would still be sent to the brain, but you wouldn't process it through a first-person kind of 'self' or a single mind. The visual qualia would still exist, even while not connected to different parts of the brain that create a sense of a coherent single mind. Tiny pieces of what we know as qualia would then be able to exist independently of a single coherent mind.

>>11975432
So... Let me get this straight... Chairs don't have qualia, but qua material things they somehow have some kind of primitive consciousness, and this primitive consciousness is completely devoid of qualia... Is this garbage what you believe? What makes you think that such primitive, qualia-deprived consciousness exists?

>>11975437
Yeah, I was using an analogy and speaking rather informally there. But the forces are connected in some way, otherwise gravity could not influence electromagnetism. There must be something they have in common that allows them to influence each other.

>>11975440
That was not me.
>>11975439
This is me.
qualia are the building blocks of coherent, conscious human minds.

>>11975439
>If I disconnected certain parts of your brain, you may not associated with your eyes anymore. Visual signals would still be sent to the brain, but you wouldn't process it through a first-person kind of 'self' or a single mind. The visual qualia would still exist, even while not connected to different parts of the brain that create a sense of a coherent single mind. Tiny pieces of what we know as qualia would then be able to exist independently of a single coherent mind.
This seems question-begging to me. The common-use definition of "qualia" is sensory perception as processed by the conscious/first-person mind; indeed, the concept of qualia is the backbone for the argument of the first-person mind to begin with. And since qualia aren't real phenomena in any practical or measurable sense anyway, the common-use definition is kind of our only recourse.

>>11975456
No. A person can have a functioning visual cortex that dissociates from their sense of 'self'. What makes a human mind seem 'coherent' is a sense of self that the brain creates, but this can be created separately from blind people. Blind people still have a sense of self.
There can be visual information that isn't used efficiently by the brain, but the visual qualia does not go away just because it is not connected to memories and audio senses.

>>11975469
Either way, it is getting late and I have to sleep now. I would continue but my body won't allow.

>>11975443
>must be something they have in common

why? according to observation and experiments they don't have anything in common other than the transformation from matter to energy (light) under the right gravitational conditions.

eg. a massive star under gravitational pressure can force fusion to occur by constraining the available space for hydrogen atoms to occupy, literally crushing them together. this creates photons as a biproduct of the fusion reactions which radiate outwards from the surface according to the propagation laws of electromagnetism being massless and unaffected directly by the gravity forcing everything else in, like squeezing water from a wet towel, the towel stays together but the water slips through your fingers. under the right conditions when the fusion fuel is exhausted radioactive decay or gravitational implosion can occur, creating either massive galactic explosions or black holes. so in a star all the forces may come into play, but it's just a natural result of the mechanism of the various forces and scales involved, like a river flowing downstream. what you need to understand is there are more basic things that a thing itself, and those are the mechanisms of potential interactions between the things (the flippiness of the coin in my coinflip example above is as much a part of the thing as the material coin - this is where you are getting stuck) in our universe the interaction between things is more fundamental than the things themselves, we just happen to be made of things but we are in a minority, the universe is fundamental forces interacting at different scales, and matter arises out of those interactions and then is further affected by them.

>>11975443
>>11975368
>proton: up + up + down QUARK [interaction: all four forces]
>neutron: up + down + down QUARK [interaction: all four forces]
>electron: electron LEPTON [interaction: gravity, electromagnetic, weak]
>photon: photon GAUGE BOSON [interaction: electromagnetic, weak, gravity]

so electrons and photons do not interact with the strong force.

>>11974464
Jesus Christ, what a complete retard.

>>11974406
>What makes you think the fact that you experience consciousness is not just the natural action of a machine processing information?
I actually hope that it is so. I've lost so much. These days, the human face is that of an ugly mammal. God deserves better followers and we need Russian AIs to rule us.

>here’s a great example!

What you people lack in information you make up for in biases.

Consciousness will likely turn out to be quantum. And trying to affirm or deny the existence of consciousness without even being able to answer such a fundamental question as, say, what “form” does a particle take when it travels through two slits at the same time as a so-called ‘wave’...is putting the cart before-, no, it’s putting the horse in the cart and setting the cart on fire. You’re in the intractable swamp of theology.

But really there’s no stopping these threads. Whether consciousness is real or illusory, you can always count on the urge to validate latent genius to fill up this bored with little blue boxes of brilliance.

>>11974097
>How would a physicalist account for witness-consciousness?

By abandoning substance metaphysics in favor of Whiteheadean process metaphysics. There is a deep relationship between the metaphysical nature of change, our perception of change (witness-consciousness) and the mathematical study of change (calculus) that proves that it is process and change that is a truly universal foundation of reality and not enduring substance and thing-in-itselfness. The fundamental theorem of calculus describes integration and derivation as inverse operations of the same process, with the physical intuition of integration being "cumulative change over time" and derivation "instantaneous change in the present." This corresponds to two reference frames of change that characterizes our perception of change.

In the presentist perspective a singular omnipresent moment is the fixed point of reference, and what is perceived is continuous instantaneous change in this ever-present. This perspective is cultivated by mindfulness practices. Privileging this perspective leads to the conclusion that the story of one's self (self-representation) and past and future are illusions as they are not experienced in this frame.

In the temporalist perspective the line of time is the fixed point of reference, comprised of many variable moments, and what is perceived is cumulative change through time. This perspective is cultivated by linguistic practices, i.e. reasoning and narrative. Privileging this perspective leads to the conclusion that the story of the self is the foundation of reality (I think, therefore I am) and that the present is an illusion, as it is gone as soon as it arrives - that which has persistence through time, enduring substance is the truly real.

The implications of the fundamental theorem of calculus correlated to these two perspectives is that both are simultaneously correct from their own point of reference, they are not in contradiction but are part of the same nondual nature of change - the process of reality itself, the way things come together while still changing. Whitehead's metaphysics mirrors this exactly, as the opening pages of Elizabeth Kraus' "The Metaphysics of Experience: A Companion to Whitehead's Process and Reality" details:

>>11975606
>Process philosophy is an answer to the being vs. becoming, permanence vs. change problematic which has been central to metaphysical speculation since the time of the Greeks. Most attempted solutions resolve the antitheses either by denying the reality of one or the other of the paired alternatives or by making it in some sense less real than, dependant on, or derivative from the other. Despite the implications of the name, the process philosophy of Alfred North Whithead does not opt for the Heraclitean alternative; nor does it attempt to make permanence in any way the subservient member of the pair. Rather, it asserts that beign and becoming, permanence and change must claim coequal footing in any metaphysical interpretation of the real, because both are equally insistent aspects of experience...

>What is permanent in the Whiteheadean scheme is not, therefore, some underlying stage upon which accidental change is played, but rather the value achieved, the world-unification effected by and in an entity whose self-creative process is the growing together of the public world in the privacy of a perspective. It is important to note that thsi permanence is not to be construed as the endurance is the "is" of "that-which-is." To exist in the Whiteheadian sense is to self-actuate, to create a moment of "for-one's-self-ness," to be now. The product of the self-creative act, being, is immortal and permanent; the activity, becoming, is not. The activity perishes as it achieves the goal of determinateness aimed at in the process. An actual entity "never really is," (PR 85). It is a drop of process, a pulse, a throb of existence, an event, a happening of value which sacrifices its immediacy in the instant it is gained, in the same manner as any "now" loses its nowness to a subsequent "now." Just as permanence cannot be attributed to the nowness of "now," so also the actual entity cannot endure in its subjective immediacy. By the same token, just as the content of any "now" becomes becomes an historical "then" to be taken into account by all future "nows," so the structure of the subjectivity achieved by an actual entity in its process is transformed into objectively functioning, stubborn, past fact. The final causality operative in self-creative process becomes efficient causality transcending the process. "For-one's-self-ness" becomes "for-the-others-and-for-the-totality." "Everything that in any sense exists has two sides, namely, its individual self and its signification in the universe" (MT 151). These two poles cannot be torn apart. Each finds its fulfillment in the other via their dialectical relation. Thus, becoming is for the purpose of being (signification in the universe,) and being is for the purpose of novel becoming (the emergent individual self.)

>>11975608
>Objectivity, facticity, is the permanent aspect of reality - immortal achievement immortally realized; subjectivity, immediacy, process, is its changeable aspect - its advance towards novelty. But subjectivity is not the result of an underlying subject's activity of relating objects to itself, of a one weaving a many into the pre-existent unity of its oneness. It is, rather, the "growing together" (con-cresence) of objects to create a novel subject which enriches the many from which it springs. "The many become one, and are increased by one" (PR 21). The entire world finds its place in the internal constitution of the new creature, and the new creature lays an obligation upont he future: that it take into account the value achieved by the new creature. Thus every creature both houses and pervades the world.

The being-becoming dialectic is expressed in conscious self-identity. The being-self is self-representation, an objective self or "I am." The becoming-self is self-awareness, and as awareness is a request for information this self-awareness is a self-query or self questioning; the becoming-self is a question questioning itself. Both of these are for the other: the being-self is a self-model used to satisfy a self-query, and self-query is for the creation of a novel self-model.

>>11975613
The view of conscious creativity that is derived from substance metaphysics is that of "free will," one is a rational agent that selects among objects according to some criterion inspired by God or (if the will isn't free) given by causal circumstance. A process model of conscious creativity is developed by analogizing the Darwinian process of variation -> selection -> reproduction to question -> choice -> action. Questioning is the generative aspect of conscious creativity, not mere absences of answers but vectors of desire, searches, and quests, motions through space and time. Free will is slavery to the will (pre-existant desire) while questioning desire allows one to change one's selection criterion themselves by creating lines of inquiry that can lead to alternate possibilities. We can question our actions, the cornerstone of learning, and question our questions, which is the act of metacognition. Human consciousness is the Darwinian process (the most elemental of creative processes, which is why it works in biological evolution, not requiring consciousness to satisfy) that has found a way through language and our ability to model past and future to fold on itself as a self-creative, self-modifying process; we are literally evolution evolved. Free inquiry is the process analog of free will, our ability to question, which isn't a contra-causal absolute but a skill cultivated through habitual self-inquiry.

We're left with the meaning of life as a major philosophical subject to address in regards to conscious exprerience. The meaning of life is often considered to be either a final terminal answer, or an answer created by the human subject who creates meaning ex nihilo out of a meaningless existence. The meaning of life isn't an answer but a question, an eternal question mark that allows for inexhaustible meaning and endless becoming. Self-creation isn't a human subject creating themselves out of nothing, but a co-creative endeavour co-authored by one's self and the rest of reality not as a singular unity but a multiplicity - which includes the lives of others. We are life-artists who co-create with the self-creating tapestry of existence, the dichotomy of creator and creation unified into an immanent creativity. How does one act, what should one do in the face of infinite potentiality? Follow your questions faithfully and they will guide you to where you need to go.

>>11975584
Okay, This Is Epic

>>11974097
>physicalist
the word you're looking for is reductive materialist, the absolute state of /lit/

>>11974097
what are either of those things?

>>11974357
fpbp

>>11974466
>stemfag can't abstract further than is and not-is

>>11974426
You have no idea what constitutes phenomenal awareness. For all you and I know qualia and phenomenal awareness is entirely physical and an emergent property of matter.

If you disagree, then I'll need to see a proof for the impossibility of physically constituted phenomenal awareness.

>>11978419
>phenomenal awareness
>is entirely physical

No.

>>11978610
Let's see an argument for the non-physicality of qualia, sweetie. If you claim spooky non-physical stuff exists, you have to actually give us reasons to believe it, you know?

>>11978656
Mary's room argument is the textbook one.

>>11978680
That argument just assumes that complete physical knowledge does not include an account of qualia though, which is largely what is at issue (that is, can physicalism, at least in principle, account for qualia? I've never seen a strong enough argument that led me to believe that it can't).

>>11978727
Congratulations, you've finally convinced me anti-qualia fags are legitimately retarded.

Mary's room is NOT about whether or not a textbook on the color red is going to talk about the experience of seeing red-ness, the question is whether or not talking about red-ness satisfies the same conditions as seeing it.

>>11978736
>talking about blablabla... satisfies the same conditions as seeing it
? I don't even know what you're trying to say. What "conditions" do I satisfy when I talk about something or see it?

Mary's room argument IS an epistemological argument, champ. The WHOLE argument is "A-ha! Mary had ALL physical knowledge about color, but when she saw color for the first time, she LEARNED SOMETHING NEW! PHYSICALISTS BTFO!", which just tempts me to say: "well now, it seems Mary didn't after all have all physical knowledge about color."

>>11978793
Then your definition of the physical has been expanded to include phenomenal knowledge, completely refuting the argument you're actually trying to make.

Lord give me strength

>>11978812
God you're thick. You just won't abandon your phenomenological-physical dichotomy, will you? What REASON do you have to postulate such dichotomy in the first place? Pro-tip: "I want to have cool magic stuff in my head" is not a good reason.

>>11978656
Not that guy, but claiming awareness is an emergent property of matter in its presupposing of awareness emerging begs the question where did that matter emerge which leads to a regress with only two options; that first phenomenon either emerging out of complete nothing or emerging/originating from something which is already eternal. The first proposal is ludicrous and can be dismissed out of hand, the idea that the entire universe (and all universes/etc) could have randomly sprung out of absolute void is nonsense. This leaves us with the second choice which is actually equally as inadmissible as the first. If there was an eternal first cause then there would be no way the non-eternal could emerge from it. Eternality in an absolute sense equals unchanging because the least change in the eternal marks a point where something about it isn't the same as was in the past or will be in the future, rendering the thing in it's totality not eternal; because some aspect of it was impermanent which becomes a contradiction in terms. Something can not be really eternal unless it is unchanging. This leads to the conclusion that (if you accept that there is any reality at all to anything whatsoever) despite appearances existence in it's totality is predicated on something which is eternal and unchanging; that there is fundamentally only one thing which is all there is and which is all there will forever. Because of the impossibility of the eternal becoming non-eternal through differentiation nothing can ever really emerge from it; the reality underlying subjective appearances is in its real nature eternal and unchanging and is the only thing which really exists.

Claiming that it is matter which is the really eternal and unchanging reality invalidates the asker because the it means the awareness of the person asking the question doesn't really exist, it's also inconsistent with experience, we can detect matter as changing through experience. if matter was really eternal and unchanging there is no way a biological-reductionist organism could evolve to even see it among numerous other contradictions. We also know matter to be non-eternal through particle accelator research, photons without matter colliding at certain speeds can create protons. Eternal means without beginning as well as without end, that which can arise where it wasn't before is non-eternal.

Pure awareness does fit the criteria of being unchanging insofar as all experience in life is contained within and experienced by the same grounds of awareness for a concious being. All experience is reducible to the same thread of awareness which is ultimately the only way you experience anything. If everything in reality merely illusions appearing to playing out in the same eternal and infinite undifferentiated awareness (falsely appearing as a multitude of awarenesses) it provides a consistent answer as to the question what is the eternal One.

>>11979005
The subject-object distinction and subjective experience cannot arise without there being some reality underlying either the witnesser or witnessed and so one of the two must be real (and eternal etc). The arguments for matter/witnessed being That are contradictory when analyzed and so the conclusion of the witness being the reality is a natural one. There can only be one thing which really exists and is eternal and unchanging. To witness something which is the only thing that actually exists necessarily means the witnesser is fundamentally the same as the reality underlying and constituting witnessed phenomenon.

>>11979005
>I don't like creation ex-nihilo, therefore it's not possible
Sorry sweetie, that's not how it works. I stopped reading after that because your post is most likely a waste of my time.

>>11979165
>I don't like creation ex-nihilo
Because it's bullshit and any attempted defense of it is inevitably embarrassingly bad. Prove me wrong

>pro-tip: you can't

>>11979005
>Something can not be really eternal unless it is unchanging.

>If everything in reality merely illusions appearing to playing out in the same eternal and infinite undifferentiated awareness (falsely appearing as a multitude of awarenesses) it provides a consistent answer as to the question what is the eternal One.

See my posts starting here >>11975606 for the true polar opposite of this.

>>11979005
>where did that matter emerge
supernatural force outside creation ;)

>>11979236

is your hand the same as you?

>>11979005
>only two options
>complete nothing or emerging/originating from something
>be dismissed out of hand
>equally as inadmissible

signs you might be a retard and arguing in good faith. yes mate if you build a bad faith argument you will reach your assumed conclusion from the premise. unlike the stemlord fags in this thread who actually want to find an answer, you smugly already have one, and are just attempting to construct some rickety word structure that confirms your innate bias.

like not understanding that matter is also an emergent property of fundamental building blocks called indivisible quarks and leptons. or refusing to accept that this model was proposed in the 60s and has been experimentally verified over and over again to the point we have an excellent idea that it's true. b-b-but where do quarks come from?

do you understand that you can ask a question about anything if you presuppose time is infinite? so where do YOU think time comes from? do you have any testable theory for your version of time? because without time, most of your questions are meaningless, there is no where, when why if there is no sequence of events.

why didn't the soup boil before it was boiling? because the soup can only boil when the conditions for it to boil occur. why were the conditions of the soup not fit to boil? because insufficient heat had not be present or applied. why wasn't insufficient heat not present or applied? because the ambient temperature in the room the soup was in happened to be below boiling. why was the ambient temperature below boiling? because that's how it was measured, and that's what is typically measured for rooms in which unboiled soup is sitting. why that? there is no generic why, in some rooms soup pre-boils, in another room it might never boil and in another it takes a normal amount of time when heat is applied for it to boil. in the case of the soup, AS IN the case of our universe, we only have ONE ROOM with ONE SOUP and we are simply reporting to you ONE SET of initial conditions. evidence does not extend beyond that, so you are free to speculate but you will never be satisfied. because soon you'll be asking about rooms, and what is outside of rooms, and what is outside the outside. but you're asking from the point of view of the surface of a boiling soup, so it's all meaningless.

>>11979641
im not him but

>so it's all meaningless.
realizing that
"what is outside" is a recursive question is exactly what shows that the "room model" is incomplete, is not meaningless at all

>>11979664
im sorry but recursion needs a base case where it ends, otherwise it is infinite. this is a basic property of recursion and has nothing to do with any model. asking a question and refusing to accept the answer forces another question. because of the limitations of natural language you can play this question game indefinitely as long as you refuse to accept that base case, because we have open ended questions like "why?"

why? reason 1
why reason 1? reason 2
why reason 2? reason 3
....
why reason x? reason x+1

you are just rediscovering the set of natural numbers, which is infinite, since any answer to any question will always lead to another question about the answer.

why? why why?
why why why? why why why why?
why why why why why? why why why why why?

this is concatenation, another bedrock of our ability to use language. without it thinking and talking would look very strange, but when taken to absurdity it stops being useful.

>>11979664
The "room model" is the Newtonian universe, with space independent of time. Modern physics unifies space and time. There wasn't a "before" the big bang because time didn't exist, and space didn't exist, the universe didn't come "out of" anything, including some primordial void-condition or nothingness.

To continue to peddle the "muh necessary first cause" bullshit in le current year is flat-Earth tier arrogance.

>>11979693
>im sorry but recursion needs a base case where it ends
thats when you are writing a recursive function , and you do this to stop the recursion so the program doesnt run for ever

recursive means:
>drawing upon itself, referring back.

My point is that when you make a model of the universe based upon the idea of a "room", which is what you are doing, "what is outside the room" is a completely valid question, and not only that, but its a question that wrecks the assumption of the model being complete because what happens when you attempt to answer that question through the room model is exactly what happens when you dont write a base case for a recursive function


The same exact thing can be said for your model for time

>>11979698
Explain better please

>>11979720
Not your claims on space or time or things coming out of anything, but rather your model

i wonder how many snowflakes ITT are wagies

>>11979712
you can't have a complete model, that's why it's called a model.

outside requires an inside outside distinction, you are not inside the universe you are the universe, made up of universal building blocks like everything else. you are not the room, or the soup you are the boiling surface of the soup. map a "boiling surface" across higher dimensions n, using topology. time and matter are the boiling surface. what was before the boiling surface? non-boiling surface, non-time and non-matter.

the problem is you don't understand what im saying.

>>11979733
>you can't have a complete model, that's why it's called a model.
yes you can

>outside requires an inside outside distinction
>made up of universal building blocks
a "lego" model (and specially an expanding lego model) still implies a dimensional plane, aka, a room


>what was before the boiling surface? non-boiling surface, non-time and non-matter.
your boiling metaphor doesnt make sense cause you need a temperature change to cause the boiling


>the problem is you don't understand what im saying.
might be you arent smart enough to answer this question definitively

>>11974372
>look mom I can imagine simple pictures!
>look mom the world is simple now!

>>11978862
No, it's a dichotomy you're implicitly positing by CONCEDING that the experience of a rose qualifies as new knowledge. You're so thick you're unintentionally supporting the argument you're trying to refute.

nominalists and anti-qualiafags should be shot into the sun

>>11979763
not sure you understand what the word model is.

>yes you can
Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that demonstrate the inherent limitations of every formal axiomatic system capable of modelling basic arithmetic.

_incompleteness_

>a "lego" model

this isn't a lego model. it is base reality of n dimensions encompassing everything across spacetime which folds on itself like an n-sphere.

>boiling metaphor, need temperature change

it's a dynamic process with initial requirements, that's what makes any process dynamic by definition. otherwise nothing would change, if the conditions for the change were not present. the temperature change occurs (probably due to a particle gravity well forming due to accretion, it makes sense that universes form like stars do) then boiling begins (time and matter start existing as dimensions in a universe which has just been born), but boiling is a process which leads to other processes like evaporation (heat-death trillions of years into the future). was the computer on before you switched it on? no because it was not actively drawing sufficient power from the wall in order to distribute it across it's components.

>this question

which question? this has nothing to do with intelligence, and everything to do with experience at doing something. it's very clear that you simply don't understand the concept of "things" without immediately relating them to other "things" until you have "everything", because you have spent little to no time thinking about these types of problems and solving them. in math it's simple, take X in Y for Z, demonstrate that for some statement some relation holds. X relates to Y to Z, this is called abstraction, you solve for general cases and show boundary conditions and therefore can prove for every case without enumerating it. avoiding the what if x is 1 what if it's 2 what if it's 3... physics is just an extension of this type of thinking with measurement and hypothesis that can be tested in experiment.

in human experience things are differentiated between each other, at our normal scale objects have boundaries, processes have origins, and time variance is just assumed underneath all of this. except im specifically talking about time invariant systems, with is outside your normal experience and in this case deals with the boundary conditions of the universe. at this point i have stated the same thing multiple ways. either you admit you don't understand something or you ask a direct question which can have an answer which will not provoke another question. if you are unable to think of what your answer might look like, then your question is pointless, and you have not thought deeply enough about it.

things, matter, time and forces are universal. non-universal objects are open to pure speculation and hold very little meaning. it's the same as asking what caused the temperature change in order to begin the boiling process. obviously heat.

>>11979836
No champ, I'm not conceding shit, because conceding new knowledge does not logically imply conceding that that knowledge is of a non-physical nature: that's what the argument ASSUMES and it's therefore its weakest point. Simply put: IF Mary learned something new, I WOULD say that her physical knowledge was not complete. I was just reconstructing the argument, but it seems you can't distinguish between a reconstruction and an endorsement, which is comprehensible given your ostensibly low IQ. Be careful with shooting me, because I might come back to haunt you as a spooky non-physical consciousness :^)

>>11979853
isomorphic models are complete models, and the godel incompleteness theorem is exactly why your cosmogony is crippled

>this isn't a lego model
Yes it is, you talked about building blocks

>then boiling begins
>theres no time before the boiling

>was the computer on before you switched it on?
was the computer there when it was turned off?


>which question?
the Cosmological Argument


>is very clear that you simply don't understand the concept of "things" without immediately relating them to other "things"
im just grabbing what you are saying, forming a simple analogical argument, asking a question where the model breaks, and just throwing it back at you so you can understand why the metaphysical deductions you are making from your ontological modelling are wrong

>if you are unable to think of what your answer might look like, then your question is pointless
when you throw in a valid statement that is undecidable you got an incomplete model

>>11979887
PHENOMENAL knowledge IS non-physical by DEFINITION you fucking troglodyte, jesus christ

>>11979902
>isomorphic models
isomorphic to what? that's like saying a copy with a distortion can be distorted back into the original.

>was the computer there when it was turned off?
yes. the universe is "the computer while it's on"
it's not "the computer" or "being on" or "the computer being off". im not saying the universe is a computer, i am saying the universe is a process not some static thing like computer, but the dynamic property of the computer while it's on.

>Cosmological Argument
so god exists because you create his necessary existence from your extension of time variance to some multi-verse? despite the fact it has been explained to you that time occurs as a biproduct of the universe not the other way around.

undecidable questions are invalid EXACTLY BECAUSE you need to invoke God to answer them. this is the equivalent of saying:

>why did this happen? because i said so.

just because you can imagine incoherent questions doesn't mean the answer also is incoherent. it just means you're bad at imagining useful questions.

>>11979919
an isomorphic model is a type of model that is complete, you claimed non model is ever complete


>yes. the universe is "the computer while it's on"
thats the room model again, you are posing two distinct rooms, or if you want: planes, one is, lets say, a virtual room, the computer's process, this virtual room has an outside room that is the computer, which is another room that is.... whitin another room?


> i am saying the universe is a process not some static thing like computer, but the dynamic property of the computer while it's on.
even more, using the analogy of a computer is talking about a dual world, because you are not only talking about rooms but are talking about an essential difference in the rooms *realities*, because you are defining the most proximate one (the material) as a product, shadow, reflection, virtualization, of the operations of a an external one (spirit)


>so god exists because you create his necessary existence from your extension of time variance to some multi-verse? despite the fact it has been explained to you that time occurs as a biproduct of the universe not the other way around.
I didnt argue for any position, i just told you "maybe you are not smart enough to give a definite answer to this question" "what question" "the cosmological argument"


>undecidable questions are invalid EXACTLY BECAUSE you need to invoke God to answer them. this is the equivalent of saying:
They are not invalid, i thought you understood Godels incompleteness theorem, you brought it up yourself, the question is valid, thats the whole point of it, its a valid statement within an axiomatic system, but is undecidable, which proves the system is incomplete

>just because you can imagine incoherent questions doesn't mean the answer also is incoherent. it just means you're bad at imagining useful questions.
the point is there is no answer, no yes, no no, theres no output, its undecidable

Why is philosophy of mind such a hot topic on /lit/ right now?

The truth is that physicalists have at least a reasonable basis for their theory but have no great answers to problems like the explanatory gap or split-brain phenomena, not to mention the complexity of linguistics which if explainable through physicalism will prove to be very difficult. Of course physicalists can always retreat back to the "science just isn't there yet' argument but you have to wonder at a certain point if you could ever honestly describe consciousness through empirical science, the subjective nature of individual human consciousnesses is already complex enough, but a complete physical model of consciousness would need to describe the consciousness of animals whose subjective experiences we can't even begin to imagine. Maybe physicalists are right, but I think a more interesting question is whether we could ever actually achieve scientific evidence that they are. Seems like a long shot to me.

>>11979953
it's a complete model of an incomplete model. way to be a pedantic pseud.

the universe is a banana being peeled, it's not a banana, or it's peel, or the peeling. it is act of "the banana being peeled". the universe and existence is an action, undergoing some process. there is no distinction because everything the universe is, is the universe. there is no outside of it or inside of it or separation from it, because _it_ is the fundamental forces and sub-atomic particles behaving according to their initial conditions and hard-written capacities.

the cosmological argument has many refutations, just go read the wiki page. indirectly you forced me to regurgitate them above, but i did so organically without formal definitions (infinite regression, no evidence, causal loops, doesn't agree with actual cosmology or physics).

so a question you can't answer is valid? that's your position? then why are you invoking the cosmological argument as an answer to your unanswerable question ::thinking::

"it's undecidable"

you summed up 3000 years of western philosophy. thanks socrates, good job. almost everything else you wrote is completely incomprehensible, rooms? computers? virtual room? realities?

the universe is a .gif of a dick cumming in your face. it's not the dick, or the cum or your face. it's the moving image of the dick cumming in your face.

>>11979904
So you say, champ. Your position precludes the possibility of a physical, scientific, future explanation of consciousness, and just assumes you already have the answer to it. Mine does not, and is thus more interesting and humble. So just fuck off, magic stuff obscurantist little man.

>>11980063
>Your position precludes the possibility of a physical, scientific, future explanation of consciousness

>he STILL doesn't get that an exhaustive physical description of subjectivity would be a category error

you're an insipid mongoloid and probably only semi-conscious. there's no other explanation. you people make me feel like I'm explaining spheres to flatlanders

>>11974438
But wait, who decides that the cheeseburger is a cheeseburger? A conscious observer, idiot. So you’re actually just asking the same question: how does lifeless matter arrange itself such just that observers are created who can, for instance, label this a cheeseburger.

>>11980106
good luck buddy might as well read Finnegan's wake to your fucking cat

>>11980083
Offer me a convincing argument that subjectivity cannot in principle be explained by (future) physical science. So far the only thing you mentioned is Mary's argument which doesn't convince me at all. I'll wait. You truly are tiresome my man. You constantly accuse me of not understanding when the fact of the matter is that I just disagree with your position. You my friend, are the worst kind of dogmatic: your behavior is exactly the same as the vital spirits dogmatic idiot example used by Churchland to refute idiots like yourself.

>>11974466
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do useful scientific research, you fucking half-wit slobbering drooling troglodyte retard pussy, with your panties up in a bunch and hysterically over-reacting to your misreading of a post. I’m simply saying this research should be free of hampering assumptions. We’re going to need extremely creative ways of thinking to really understand the nature of phenomenality, of experience, and how it’s related to the physical make-up of the brain.

Idiot eliminative materialists dodge the question by saying “umm it just comes from the atoms bro lol it just emerges after a certain level”

>>11980120
An alien species that lives on a gray planet lands on ours and asks us to explain what this 'redness' we keep speaking of is. How do you satisfy this alien's request without just showing it the color red?

>>11974466
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do useful scientific research, you fucking half-wit slobbering drooling troglodyte retard pussy, with your panties up in a bunch and hysterically over-reacting to your misreading of a post. I’m simply saying this research should be free of hampering assumptions. We’re going to need extremely creative ways of thinking to really understand the nature of phenomenality, of experience, and how it’s related to the physical make-up of the brain.

Idiot materialists dodge the question by saying “umm it just comes from the atoms bro lol it just emerges after a certain level.” The brain can just as logically well be intepreted as being a receiver and something like a transducer of consciousness as it can be interpreted as independently generating consciousness. Have you ever considered that? Do you realize that there is actually no definitive evidence supporting that the brain independently generates instead of receives and transduces consciousness?

>>11980122
The problem is that the cool creative thinking you people suggest or imply is metaphysical thinking, which we all know is completely useless from a scientific point of view. I'm interested in a theory of consciousness that would allows us to actually MAKE something, like, I don't know, mind-reading machines, and not just a dime-a-dozen philosophical explanation whose only real effect is making me feel comfy, deluding me into thinking that now that I possess a spooky, cool philosophical concept, somehow I'm less of an ignorant, regardless of the fact that I can't manipulate in any practical way this phenomenon called consciousness. The fact of the matter is that as of right now, the kind of theories you people LOVE to mock (despite the fact that the alternative theories you offer are absolutely LAUGHABLE) are the only ones who give us the slightest HOPE of achieving the kind of comprehension I wish we had. You are a bunch of idiotic obscurantists who love to pretend you already understand something we simply DON'T UNDERSTAND. Thank fuckimg God the reasonable people whose actual job is furthering knowledge won't ever pay any heed to the nonsensical verbal diarrhea you so desperately love and need to believe in order to feel special, because if that were the case we would still be stuck with magical thinking painting caves with our own feces.

>>11980128
You satisfy the alien by telling him the wavelength which elicits the verbal report "I'm seeing red" when perceived by a human brain.

>>11980145
funny how you castigate the other side for clinging to antiquated dualistic presuppositions but cling to yours just as stubbornly, namely that our comprehension of consciousness must necessarily scale with utility

you're a fucking retard. humble up and practice what you preach mongo

>>11980155
and then either 1) the alien asks what this wavelength must phenomenologically correspond to to elicit the report of "I'm seeing red" or 2) some shmuck comes along and hands the alien a rose and it goes "ooooooh"

apply yourself nigger

>>11980145
>I'm interested in a theory of consciousness that would allows us to actually MAKE something, like, I don't know, mind-reading machines,

And what’s the point of these machines, you absolute idiot?

Is creating any new machine necessarily good?

Not only that, but do you know some of the greatest and most remembered scientists of all time did not do research into things directly to “make things”, were not thinking of practical considerations first and foremost but simply wanted to investigate the beauty and wonder of the universe?

You are an absolutely pompous arrogant shit-eating fraud! I don’t care about you whatsoever! Your whole thinking is just mechanical social conditioning overlaid with smug narcissism!

>>11980170
>he thinks an alien being will use his same idiotic philosophical framework

>>11980197
>he thinks the alien is invoking an entire philosophical edifice to ask the question "okay, so what does he see when he says he sees red?"


mongooooooo

>>11980160
>>11980176
OK, so you're beyond any reasonable doubt an obscurantist, luddite, unimaginative cretin. Thanks for making that clear. I won't waste any more time arguing with you.

>>11980208
welp, I leveled with you twice and you're still functionally incapable of understanding very simple arguments. FUCK you're dumb. night

>>11980200
He sees a wavelength, champ. That's WHAT he sees. Let's say alien eyes can't see red and aliens ask you, Mr Qualiadude, what do people see when they say "I'm seeing red". What would you say to our poor sighted ayyy?

>>11980216
a wavelength whose phenomenal correlate is not a wavelength.

because it's phenomenal.

if you deny this, then go market your cure for blindness: reading off a list of wavelengths

>>11980225
How about you answer my question champ? See, that's the difference. I actually do give answers when challenged, you little pseud bitch.

>>11980229
the same thing I'd say to a blind man you fucking retarded nigger: I can describe it to you but I can't make you see it.

>>11980237
>lemme just describe this thing you can't perceive my alien dude
Hahahahah. Thanks bro, but I think I'll stick to my wavelength response.

>>11980247
you're clinically retarded.

>>11974097
"Objectively", witness-consciousness is an informational process mediated by the structure of the brain and shit, much like a computer program. However, mathematical (informational) objects possess as much reality as a "physical" world, think platonism, or rather physical world is in itself a mathematical object, which becomes increasingly obvious when you study high energy physics. The relation of consciousness to the world is that of one mathematical object to another that is mediated (the interaction between them being permitted) by the structure of the brain encoding consciousness and allowing it to exist within the different process, that is, physical world. Returning to the original question, the distinct experience of witness-consciousness comes from a human being that mathematical object, that process, which structure endows it with a property of having consciousness, that is, being able to reflect itself. There's nothing magical about it (like needing any substance or quality we don't know anything about to explain it), but at the same time speaking about atoms and cells and whatnot is missing the point because the issue is, before all, mathematical.
t. physicalist

>>11980139
>bro, like, the brain could just RECEIVE consciousness DUUUUUUUDE
Yes, it could. But then again, we have never, ever, observed the phenomenon of consciousness independently of its manifestation on a physical brain, so let me ask you: WHY then postulate that consciousness could exist independently of the brain when ALL our empirical observations incline us to believe that, in fact, consciousness CANNOT exist separate from a physical brain? The answer, of course, is: "Because I LIKE to believe it", presumably because it tickles some religious need of yours. The fact of the matter is that, while your theory is logically possible, it is not warranted by the data, and thus unnecessary from a theoretical point of view (you know, that razor thingy).

>>11979977
nice damage control friendo, every single thing you posted here is a grasp at straws and when you couldn't keep grabbing at it you just devolved into homosexual imagery to insult my character

gonna give you a further clue cause you are so fucking lost that is laughable: you keep throwing around the word "is", try looking at its definition on the dictionary, understand what things are a necessity for sth to be, and then think really hard how exactly it is, as you claim, that a thing "is... but really isn't" at the same time, then think about the recursive problem again. Specially before you bring up deleuze again

Oh and also go read about what modelling is cause you dont fucking get it

Not even gonna comment on you throwing around godel without understanding its basic terms

>>11980292
my on take on this:

consciousness is the decoding of the information getting inputed through our senses, there's no physical world, just information flowing through our souls, god speaking, its own speech listening to itself

>>11980575
why would you even bother replying with this nonsense after 4 hours?

>i said you don't understand what i'm saying.
>you said i don't understand what i'm saying.

you are directly attacking me and avoiding my points. hence my only avenue is to directly insult you back. i have no idea who deleuze is. i am a physics phd grad who works in computer modelling doing academic work. you are? if you think i'm lost, then you are going to have to abandon hope for the future of any scientific research, because the vast majority of people doing this work share my views, it's non-controversial, and we as a collective group like to read philosophy and politics to relax, because the people who do work in 'word games' are so horribly mistaken when they resort to talking about mathematical concepts or modelling or mind that it's like watching crystal healers or psychic mediums.

are you aware of your own argument? if so, are you aware of the arguments against it?

my argument is simple, if i can test it, build it, predict it and it works great, what i believe is irrelevant. if i can't test it, build it or predict it yet that sucks, let's try to work towards making it easier to understand and develop the necessary tools and language to deal with the future. if from the outset someone makes the claim that it is untestable, unbuildable, unpredictable, then i look at that person with bemused confusion, because how are you so confident in your non-confidence and so unaware of your own paradoxes, which don't actually exist in the world but are confused arguments you make because of the various syntactic quirks of natural language, like concatenation and being able to conceive things that cannot be enumerated by forcing abstractions which no longer capture all of the details present on the hypothetical superstructure you are discussing, like infinity isn't actually infinity, you do know that right? it's just a useful way of dealing with large data sets, if there was an actual infinity we would take forever to do anything useful with it.

im sorry im not manipulative enough to lower to your brainlet standard of human interaction, and deceive you into being convinced emotionally to my argument. for most intelligent people facts should be sufficient. re-read over our interaction, i have been more than fair dealing with your nonparticipation. given your position is 'critique' of what i've said and not saying anything of your own, the only 'damage control' is the massive projection you are hardcoping with. reference some papers to me, id be glad to review your academic work. do you know why we appeal to authority anon? because you want your pilot to actually be able to fly a plane.

>>11980604
>if i can test it, build it, predict it and it works great, what i believe is irrelevant
Just like that the stemfag admits to not actually existing, the point we suspected all along. You'll be swallowed by the coming Capitalist A.I. to an even greater degree than you are now and you'll lose even the dimmest recollection of how to exist that you have now and you'll welcome that change just as you are commanded to. You exemplify the greatest tragedy that can happen to a human and yet you don't even realise it.

Your perspective of your average, fairly intelligent and feeling fairly superior because of it, physicist working with computing, or programmer working with physics, your art of working with models within a certain perspective, is undeniably legit. I know it well even if I myself am in no way intelligent or superior enough to excel at it. But that's an instrumental perspective. It was developed for solving a certain kind of practical problems, at solving them it works wonders, and that's what you do. Not that different from a shoe making. What you lack is an awareness to realise that what you do is just it; a shoe making. Instead you elevate that perspective to a metaphysical level, stating that everything not involved in making your shoes does not exist because, for you, making shoes is the only thing that there is. And that's the tragedy. The shoes got the better of you. The shoes and the masters of the shoe factory.

>>11980652
ill make sure the AI eats you first you little cunt.

>>11980604
>are you aware of your own argument?
i dont have an argument, i simply am showing you why your deductions are mistaken

what you are doing are word games, you are trynna turn an observable description of matter into an ontological argument, you have no regard for the obvious and crass meta-jump you are doing between symbolic systems. Not to mention when i preassured the points you brought up you demonstrated you dont have a fucking clue on half the shit you brought forth, you demonstrated an incompetent understanding of Godels incompletness theory, of the concept of modelling, and of informational ontology. Not to mention the logical implications of your categorizations or even of Deleuzian open loops which you keep bringin up as some groundbreaking scientifical discovery

all over your posts you abuse and exploit linguistic duplicities and mix different usages of words, you are the living breathing image of a hermeneutic trap, you jump through systems all around without care , freely exchange signifiers and signifieds around when it suits you, and have a really unsanitized way of thinking and go from technical language to every day to slang to allegories of cum without regards, you are worse than a postmodern novel

i pointed you to what kind of philosophical argument you have rediscovered, what ontological neccesities your argument rest on, why this necessities are impossible to prove from your axiomatic system on both a mathematical and philosophical level.

>>11980762
>ontological argument
*argument about ontology

>>11980762
jesus christ wtf does any of this mean.

universes create time and space and matter and energy.

there is no before, because there is no time. if you are asking about the time before the universe you're talking about a different kind of time and using the same word out of confusion. the entire prime mover argument presupposes that the time t* before the universe is the same time as the one we think of in spacetime t. 19th and 20th century physics resolves this problem by explaining that no, t* is not necessarily t because here look there is a mechanism through t begins as the universe begins, so the confusion really emerges from conflating two notions of time together than have nothing to do with each other because you simply assume time t and time t* are the same thing and somehow exist outside of the universe, which is now abandoned because a simpler explanation can be provided, and we favor simpler explanations so the entire ontological argument is rejected prima facia as something that has an embedded assumption which is flawed.

literally everything else you said is incoherent. i am doing word games? yikes dude. i can literally write out every one of my posts in mathematical notation. are you even writing in english? hermeneutic trap? signifiers signifieds? unsanitized? again with some fetishim of deleuze.. nobody fucking knows who some random french philosopher from the 20th century is, anti-oedipus, capitalism and schitzophrenia? including literary theory, post-structuralism and postmodernism?


i think what's going on here is you have studied some meme continental philosophy, so since that's all you know, you reinterpret anything anyone says into your comfortable pidgeon speak language, and then accuse everyone of doing the same thing. i made an attempt to translate ideas of physics into every day language and gave some examples of what we believe the evidence shows us with respect to the universe, the universe is becoming rather than the universe is, it's a process rather than an object etc. what would be the point of going through dirac equations or wave functions with you? besides it requiring higher order math to verify, meaning i could be tricking you and hiding subtle mistakes just to be a dick, there are various competing ideas as to the correct way to handle the copenhagen interpretation, eg. bohmian trajectories in quantum field theory. rather than do what you're accusing me of doing, i tried to simplify the language but retain the essence of the idea.

the universe is not a thing, but a process. it has no beginning because the process created time and thinking about what comes before time is irrelevant to your type of thinking, because we can show it wasn't time, so whatever it was it won't be what you claim it is, blowing up the prime mover argument which assumes it was the same time. this is not my breakthrough, but the breakthrough of the early cosmologists and physicists of the previous century

>>11974361
>>>/r/eddit

I wish I had the necessary IQ to understand what is going on itt

>>11980835
Oops I meant to reply to this
>>11974357

>>11981094
Your first post was more appropriate, desu

>>11974097
>Anyone get away from material nihilism just to find themselves in the rabbit hole of spiritual nihilism?

Material nihilism is the product of Western spiritual nihilism with its creator-creation subject-object dualisms. Materialism got rid of the creator superficially, resulting in an orphaned creation, just a bunch of things bouncing around with no necessary relationship to each other. The solution is to unify creator and creation into an immanent creativity that characterizes all things, the universe as self-creating art not as a creative unity, but as a co-creative process among all the strands comprising it as a multiplicity, the mutual continual authorship of existence by all things. Taoism is the closest to this perspective, and removing the supernaturalistic and arbitrary elements of it results in the philosophy described in these four replies starting here: >>11975606

This video describes a similar view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qoom_a03loM

The future of spirituality is a sort of pan-creativist Space Taoism where meaning is omnipresent and inexhaustible - the physical universe is pure magic, pure creativity.

>>11981340
>video thumbnail has niggers in it
skip

>>11974433
The logical choice.

>>11974433
>Rather, I think that both the realm of ideas and the realm of matter are subordinate to something else.

This is what you want: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

>>11980360
>But then again, we have never, ever, observed the phenomenon of consciousness independently of its manifestation on a physical brain, so let me ask you: WHY then postulate that consciousness could exist independently of the brain when ALL our empirical observations incline us to believe that, in fact, consciousness CANNOT exist separate from a physical brain?

There are very very very well documented, many many cases, of near-death experiences in which people have vivid experiences, while, supposedly, their brain was not working at all and could not have generated these experiences. I’m not doing the research for you, you lazy fuck. You have Google. It’s only a militant secularism, actually just as unscientific as outright faith in a religion and conforming everything to this religion, which makes people ignore the vast troves of near-death experiences, which are actually believed, corroborated by, and have even been experienced by some pretty respected scientists and doctors.

>>11981851
>Muh near-death hallucinations.

Which always conform to the particular religious preferences of those experiencing them.

You may be able to convince the gullible, including yourself, but you certainly aren't going to convince anyone with a firm understanding of the requirements for scientific evidence. In the end you're just engaging in politics, not science or philosophy, and as such you should really just go to /pol/.

>>11981667
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/
Thank you for this my man

A major roadblock to the physicalist account of consciousness is the measurement problem.

Consciousness can only be directly confirmed through introspection of a conscious agent. There is no known way to empirically register a conscious event, or to even operationally define what a unit of consciousness is.

A measuring device is the essential piece of a scientific process. A measuring tool only works as an external verification means. It determines physical properties by acting as a external object on an external object. The sheer extrinsic nature of the measuring relation assures its validity in practical use.

How can we measure consciousness? Anything measurable must be physical in some strict sense. In pure abstract mathematics, nothing is measured per se, it is deductively determined. Therefore only objects which are physical can be measured.

We can't measure consciousness, either because we don't know how, or because we can't. If the latter is true, then consciousness is non-material in substance.

>>11981867
Shut up. There’s well-attested reports of people accurately reporting what doctors around them were doing while totally unconscious and claiming to have had an out-of-body-experience.

>>11981877
>Everything physical must be measurable
This doesn't exactly logically follow from the premise:
>Everything measurable must be physical

>>11981867
>Which always conform to the particular religious preferences of those experiencing them


they're not saying the light is jesus, they're saying jesus is the light. you're an imbecile

>>11981877
Sounds like a problem of bad definitions.

>>11981906
The trick is between substrate and process. We tend to think of consciousness as a substrate. It isn't, it's the product of a substrate, the brain--or whatever underlying organization implements it. It's a process.

If consciousness is like a software program, we might be able to measure it in the sense that we can clock various metrics of its performance. To do that however we'd need the appropriate testing suite, debugging breakpoints, console terminals and so on. We don't have that for the human brain as in a manner of speaking consciousness serves this very role inside the brain.

If we had some way of translating brain activity into a machine-readable code like binary, and then translating that into code that could be displayed on a computer, we might then be able to measure consciousness.

But at that point we'd need to stick chips inside the brain to get a sufficiently accurate reading.

>>11981925
That's a very Wittgensteinian take on it, but I'm not sure I agree. It's not so much bad definitions as an inability to define good definitions.

>>11981927
>consciousness serves this very role

>>11981927
What you describe wouldn't help to say the problem of a p-zombie. Your readings of a human brain performance won't be able to prove that "someone" is "experiencing" what your instruments measure: the thoughts, the visuals etc. That is unless you decide that the p-zombie problem is a non-problem and conscious experience is just a structural property of a particular computing process, qualia is fully contained in the information flow through said process and apart from that does not exist, and you ought to understand any human including yourself in this way. I like explanation, but it seems to be rather radical.

>>11981960
>I like explanation
self-fix

>>11981960
>I like this explanation
slightly less retarded self-fix

>>11981960
and that means qualia are radically immanent to experience and can only be that way, which is probably what guys like chalmers want you to understand, if appearances have no correlate outside themselves that doesn't diminish the fact they're still appearances despite being, of course, structural properties of information flow, etc etc whatever the shibboleth of the week is.

we're just playing word games in the void this is pointless. you just repeated hegel's "God is a Sense that is its own sensing" back to me in your jargon. that's it

>>11981950
>the most advanced biological process to evolve is just an epiphenomenon

>>11981960
I don't think p-zombies add anything to the discussion. We know we are conscious, right? I don't think I'm a p-zombie. I can vouch for it. Do the experiments on me.

>>11981960
Let's take my notion of machine-readable consciousness code one step further.

We set up a person's brain with two-way readable/writeable chips. We download their mental activity and translate that into repeatable code on a computer.

Later, we upload that same schema into the person's brain, and they press a button if they see what we expect them to see.

If it helps, you can imagine this experiment being done on you, since you would then see the qualia yourself confirming it subjectively.

In this case, we know there is a monomorphism between the schema and the qualia it produces. This may not eliminate the p-zombie issue entirely, but if you conduct the experiment on yourself that problem goes away.

the real story here is who will be right. clearly the people who have workable hypotheses and build the robots and not the armchair quarterbacks who spend time looking at styles for your beard catalogues. whether that means it destroys humanity or enriches it you can have that debate with your mirrorman 50 years from now.

>>11981997
I could take this a step further and begin talking about how we might then start building up a library of qualia schemas on said computer, and develop ways to combinatorially and iteratively construct new conscious experiences "in potentia" in the code.

We could then beam in a new experience to that person, for example, what it feels like to be a duck. Assuming the brain is a turing-complete computer, it should be able to run any possible schema its hardware supports.

>>11981906
Perhaps consciousness is like mathematics in some important sense then? Hence why it can't be measured?

>>11980825
Not the guy you're arguing with. Does this mean the universe itself is the 'uncaused cause' business?

>>11982068
to be honest with you i was blackout drunk for most of this thread. i was taking some ambien to help me sleep. and you know i can't control my physicsposting when that happens...

>>11982083
Ha. I think you did slightly misrepresent the cosmological argument, Augustine makes exactly the same point about 'our' time not existing before creation. Can never get my head around the physics stuff desu

>>11980825
God is fucking useless isnt? You are gonna keep both rejecting infinity and an initial point, gonna keep talking about matter and dimensionality and refusing to put this matter somewhere, gonna claim they are virtual then refuse to speak about what is virtualizing, gonna keep talking about processes but running from the question of what endures the process and what begets this process, gonna keep mixing what emerges from the process, the process, and what goes from the process. Gonna tie all this up with meaningless theory namedrop, gonna make no effort to understand another persons argument; and quite basically, you are gonna sit there and keep eating your buggers, theres absolutely nothing anyone can do.

>>11982017
Perhaps.

>>11982111
but i think god exists, it just doesn't care for humans or living things they way we would hope it would. look at all the suffering and empty space.

>>11982099
if St, Augustine said that it's insightful, given how he would've had to guess about the nature of time. maybe it was easier to think of time as continuous before clocks and measurement became to dominate thinking? and then you probably ask about discontinuities around certain special conditions like creation and that necessarily falls out. if god creates the universe why not time also. i always thought arguments for god's existence were just a type of special pleading, you can't get proof that why it's called god. people who want proof for everything are as unreasonable as those who will accept no proof that might contradict their belief.

>>11982134
How so? Tell me.

>>11974556
science is a philosophy

>>11982140
I'm not 100% sure. Mathematics isn't my strongest field and it is massive. I know more about phenomenology and consciousness studies, but I also know enough analytic philosophy to understand what math is about.

Mathematics as a practice is unlike mathematics the result. The results of mathematical practice include symbolic theorems, proofs, descriptions, assertions, arguments and so forth. The mathematical process that induces them however is very different from this. Utterly different.

Similarly, consciousness the process is unlike the qualia that result in its resulting field.

The process foregrounds the content in both cases. Therefore if you're just looking at the content, and not the process, you won't have insight into the problem.

>>11982139
>St, Augustine said that it's insightful, given how he would've had to guess
If memory serves he's trying to get round the awkward Sunday school question of 'what was God doing before he created the universe', and reasons that without any movement or matter or energy etc time is impossible, think its a line derived from Aristotle's physics

>>11982161
neat. why aren't smart guys like that doing theology or philosophy today?

>>11982139
>i believe in god

Fucking hell what a troll rollercoaster, fuck you lad i started very nice

>>11982166
They are, you are simply to uneducated for it

>>11982177
>>11982186

>>11975218
why were ids removed

>>11982159
Gettingit.jpg.

Check out these four replies starting here if you haven't: >>11975606

It's about a relationship between the process of mathematical change described by calculus, and our conscious experience of it. Moreover it characterizes consciousness as the evolutionary process that has found a way to fold on itself as a strange loop of self-creativity - Darwinian evolution in the form of variation, selection, and reproduction is actually a description of creative processes in their most elemental form, with biological evolution occurring because it satisfies these basic requirements. Douglas Hofstadter is a big influence of mine, and I think his work is incredibly insightful as to the nature of consciousness, but in addition to a self-representing self-representation (the self-as-being) there is the becoming-self, a question questioning itself, the process of self in addition to the self-product. Their relationship is the same as questions are to answers, being as to becoming: both are for each other, incomplete without placing both as equal in consideration. This relationship is a result of the nature of metaphysical change which is shared among the physical, mathematical, and mental.

>all this work and verbiage investigating reality and consciousness only to find out the Indians got it right first time thousands of years previously

>>11981851
Being declared clinically dead isnt objective and is in part a doctors judgement call - your brain isnt working and if your brain isnt working i doubt youd be able to be brought back. I dont doubt there are several arguments to explain those reports.

>>11981898
No, not really. The experiments that were made with people about to die showed that it is complete bullshit. The fact of the matter is that mainstream science considers near-death experiences as the religious lunacy it is. You won't be able to find a single good, credible source in favor of near-death experiences. And no, a book written by a shady doctor (who always just happens to be a Christian, how curious!) with shitty data is not a credible source. Try harder, faggot, your philosophy is false and stupid :^)

Ughhh... why can't people just not make up bullshit.

>>11983605
I don’t have to try to do anything because the supernatural will show itself to you whether you like it or not. Just wait for the synchronicity, you dolt.

>>11983605
>supernatural events are testable by natural methods

every time