/lit/ - Literature

I haven't read this, but his assertion that memories are not in the brain is correct.

https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

>>12866367
All this says is the brain doesnt operate in binary code.

>aKsUaEle ScAiEtEEFeCke

Philosophy (except Analytic) is just masturbation with words. Look at all these shizo-threads about Acceleration. Holy fuck.

>>12866365
Is matter really the fundamental 'element's that science still studies? What 'substance' is a particle or a wave? Ontologically there's a difference between a conception of the world which begins with subatomic particles versus a world which begins with matter. Not to say they are mutually exclusive aspects of reality, but you're a niggerfaggot that doesn't get the books you're reading.

>>12866365
Retard

>>12866428

unironically this

>>12866365
Why shouldn't he have any scientific understanding of memory? Being a philosopher doesn't render you unable to read and understand scientific literature.

>>12868028
Apparently nobody without a degree and position in a scientific field has no right to even comment on anything within the scientific domain. Heck, nobody should even form their own opinions. Just let scientists tell you what reality is, and you just accept whatever they say.

>>12868518
>I can understand physics better than PhD holding physicists
>academia is lying to me because what they say destroys my preferred worldview
sigh

>>12869307
Why do you assume that a philosopher couldn't understand scientific theories, in this case psychological/neurological theories?

>>12869319
>yeah bro, I've read Kant
>A PRIORI LMAO
>Modal logic XDDd
>I'm totally informed enough and can totally understand anything you dumb scientists could talk abo-

>>12869319
>>12869307
Also, I just looked the book up and it was published in 1898. There was barely any science about the topic back then, only very vague posthumous studies on people with impaired memory. So what exactly is your point? There was no hard science on the subject at that point. It also says that modern "cognitive science" (bullshit term made up by psychologists who want to sound more scientific) confirms much of what he wrotr

>>12868518
>Apparently nobody without a degree and position in a scientific field has no right to even comment on anything within the scientific domain
correct.

>>12869353
>modern cognitive science ... confirms much of what he wrote
definitive proof that he’s wrong desu

>>12866427
analytical is just masturbation informally with symbols, if you know anything about analytical philosophy its been dead for years and you have to really delve into complex mathematical sequences that are assumptions based on assumptions that even if you find the formula and a proper proof what it proves is just autistic logic useless to anyone not heavly acquanted in math, I rather modern philosophy devate culture,reason,ethics moral truths then a fuck fest over logic"" that isent worth the headache.

t.took both mathematical logic and logic courses in uni

>>12869363
Then who decides, in your opinion, what's scientifically right about memory? A physicist?

>>12869378
at the moment no one is qualified to decide which is why we have all this gay back and forth that accomplishes nothing. hopefully in 100 years neuroscience will stop being a meme and our grandkids can have serious answers

>>12869307
To be fair, PhD-holding physicists don't really understand reality either: look at "Lost in Math" for instance

>>12869393
hossenfelder is a who’s just mad that none of her actual scientific work gets any recognition

>>12869391
>at the moment no one is qualified to decide
So shut the fuck up retard

>>12869408
you first

>>12869359
The domain of philosophy includes the scientific domain. Scientists can talk about matter and energy all they want but they have no authority to comment about what constitutes knowledge of reality, the good, or beauty

>>12869405
Maybe but the points she brings up about physics being a funding con are valid
>w-we just need a bigger collider!

>>12869417
>The domain of philosophy includes the scientific domain.
Not since the 1600s. This is philosotard cope
>Scientists have no authority to comment about what constitutes knowledge of reality
Wrong
>the good
Right
>or beauty
Partially right

>>12869417
>what constitutes knowledge of reality, the good, or beauty
wew didn't realize I was living in the 19th century, which was the last time any of those delusions where taken seriously

>>12869425
No she’s literally just mad that everyone else thinks MOND is a waste of time. Particle colliders aren’t that expensive relative to other sciences, they just seem to be because there’s one big lump sum payment.

>>12866365
Do you think scientists are some kind of deity? Do you think others can't even remark on the same realms they do? Or can't even learn of the necessary science by themselves, and then comment on them from there?

If your scientists tell you things like "consciousness is chemical", "consciousness is not real", etc, are these assertions you personally accept automatically and unquestioningly?

I'm genuinely curious.

>>12869488
>If your scientists tell you things like "consciousness is chemical", "consciousness is not real", etc, are these assertions you personally accept automatically and unquestioningly?
the assertions are accepted because that's literally the reality.

idc about whatever coping narrative dummies have built up for thousands of years to lend their meaningless lives some brittle attempt at significance

the idealism/non-naturalist bubble burst a long time ago. you gotta accept that.

>>12869488
if they were capable of learning the science they would’ve become scientists

It seems to me that half of the people in this thread have never been in contact with modern scientists or they wouldn't say things like >>12869359
I attended a lab meeting of research group that made it to the front page of nature neuroscience this year and they were discussing about how to boost the twitter reach for optimal publishing outreach. Yes, research is done but at the same time no, if you invest 0.5-1 year you are as qualified to describe cutting edge science as well as the scientists themselves. Scientists are by no means gods hovering over non STEM folks.

>>12869516
You're just embarassing yourself, with every ignorant word you write. Neuroscientists haven't even made a dent in the mind-brain problem, but you possibly already think "it's solved", and that "the mind is actually just an epiphenomenon of the brain", with not even the slightest ability to explain how intelligence emerges through such mechanistic interaction. Don't worry, when mainstream science changes its narratives, as it is literally always doing, you'll change your worldview with it. But in the meantime and since you're so smart, care to describe to me exactly how consciousness arises from neurological activity, in such a way that it exists there and nowhere else? Be specific, I need exact details.

>coping narratives
Why does a purely biological entity even desire to be something beyond this? Does my phone desire to be more than a hunk of matter? Why does biology need narratives to cope with itself?

>meaningless lives
Where does the concept of meaning come from? Why is it there? You're going to say "evolution" of course, so tell me why such an element entered evolution and the survival value it offers, compared to a creature with no such concept, being a mere machine following mechanistic behavioral protocols.

>idealism/non-natural bubble
What are numbers?

>>12869529
Or you can just comment on science, like anyone else comments on anything? Why is science insulated from outside judgements on it?

>>12869616
>if you invest 0.5-1 year you are as qualified to describe cutting edge science as well as the scientists themselves
this is not true at all in real science

>>12869642
obviously anyone can make whatever dumb uninformed comments they want in the public sphere, I’m not disputing that

threads like this remind me why i stopped coming to /lit/. know for a fact that i'm one of probably 2 people on this site to have actually read this and other bergson works.

>>12869649
Maybe my first post was a bit misleading - you cannot become as good as the scientists in every aspect of their discipline, but if you focus on one topic, you can read yourself into that, eg you can't become a better biologist than someone working in protein folding, because he knows a lot more than just this specific topic, but you can get literate enough to understand the newest bioRxiv papers on the same level as a biologist.

>>12869659
So all comments made by non-scientists on science are automatically incorrect? And all comments made by scientists on science are automatically correct?

When someone like Gödel uses his own revolutionary mathematical theorems to argue his anti-materialistic stance, namely that the brain is not a machine, Platonism is true and materialism false, even publishing such remarks like below...

-The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.
-Materialism is false.
-There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
-The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition.
-Concepts have an objective existence.

...he must be automatically wrong, right? He's no scientist, and he's disputing mainstream scientific narratives. He's therefore wrong, and an idiot, correct?

>>12869733
>So all comments made by non-scientists on science are automatically incorrect? And all comments made by scientists on science are automatically correct?
retarded disingenuous questions. obviously normies can sometimes get things right accidentally and scientists can be wrong. Gödel wasn’t dumb in general but those comments are all pretty stupid

>>12869692
>but you can get literate enough to understand the newest bioRxiv papers on the same level as a biologist.
not with no prior training in biology no. being able to read through a biology paper without getting totally lost is not “on the same level as a biologist”

>>12869755
What makes a scientist so superior to a mathematician? If anything, science has its grounding in mathematics, making people employed in the latter have greater authority than those in the former.

At the very least, surely you hold that scientists have no right to speak on mathematics either, by the same token? An intellectual is only allowed to speak of their domain, and none other?

>>12869777
>What makes a scientist so superior to a mathematician?
no one ever said anything about superior, that’s just weird (and probably disingenuous again) projection on your part. there’s no autistic abstract “””authority””” tier list, it’s just a matter of who knows science and who doesn’t. most scientists don’t know shit about math, the exception being (some) physicists

>>12869801
Fields of reality are not completely disconnected from eachother, wherein someone can only comment on materialist narratives by themselves being a scientist who investigates such a domain, and can't approach the same investigation through the conceptual lane in the manner a mathematician like Gödel did. You might not agree with that, but I think there are multiple ways to approach the same subjects. A person only needs to "understand the science" to the extent they are commenting on the specific elements found within it - referencing particular biological concepts, for example. But larger, meta-domains of investigation, such as the question of materialism versus immaterialism, do not always demand such specific types of knowledge from their investigators.

>>12869874
if you want to conclude that 11-dimensional aliens exist because of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem that’s on you, as I said from the beginning I can’t stop you from investigating whatever “””conceptual lanes””” you want

Having a scientific knowledge is essential to do philosophy in modern day.

>>12869907
I was just adding that bit there to show you an example of a very respected modern intellectual believing in things vastly different to the materialism which reigns today, not that I believe in those notions or consider them true.

But Kurt's main thesis, regarding the mind being more than a machine - as shown by his famous theorems and their implications of mathematics as being unable to be wholly piloted by any computer program - is a great challenge to the materialist worldview, and hasn't been overturned to this day.

If you're speaking on biology, you need to understand biology. The same with physics, chemistry and any other discipline. That said, if you're speaking only of larger, more abstract realities, like that of the mind-brain problem, consciousness and similar, you only need a scientific background to the extent you need to invoke such concepts. If you speak of the brain, you should know about the brain. If you want to speak of consciousness, however, you should have some understanding of the neural correlates between it and the brain, understanding the basic relation between them - but you can then go beyond that biological information and speak from a purely abstract, philosophical ground. That's all I'm saying. I'm not even slightly anti-science, or of the position that "anyone can speak accurately about science regardless of their background in it". I have very deep respect for the scientific discipline and am currently trying to learn as much as I can about it's many areas, which I was too uninterested in to learn of in school (I'm reading into DNA, for example). But the nature of the discipline must be recognized, including its limitations, else it'll just become a new religion.

>>12869942
Depends on what you're philosophizing of. For many things this holds true, but not all subjects.

>>12870072
“speaking from an abstract philosophical ground” is mental masturbation

>>12870105
Okay anon, I don't think our discussion is likely to end up anywhere productive. You can keep to whatever views you do. Peace.

>>12866367
Memories are encoded in the brain. However, the initial stimuli are in the world. So you cannot think of something that doesn't exist. It's existence is made of things that exist, i.e. unicorn.

This is the gist if materialism. I understand the holes, but this is the gist of the argument being made, and the holes don't mean it isn't true, just not understood.

>>12869692
I don’t know much about biology, but that’s not at all true for math or physics.

>>12870384
>So you cannot think of something that doesn't exist
so this is what an NPC looks like

>>12866365
>I don't understand the difference between physics and metaphysics
retard

>>12870958
>metaphysics
if you still believe in this then you probably shouldn't be going around calling other people retarded

>>12866365
Do you have a relative with dementia? One that is completely lost and drifts somewhere between complete nonsense and confusing you for his dad? You shouldn't argue with him that cold war is over or whatever. You just let him stay within his bubble until he dies.
This is pretty much how everyone was dealing with philosophers for the last 50 years.

>>12869337
bruh, these are high school level physics equations...

>>12870996
If you BELIEVE in Metaphysics?!??

Pffffff
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAH

Metaphysics is not a fucking religion you fucktard Holy fucking shit :3

>>12871084
literally 99.99% of philosophy grads would be baffled by them desu

>>12871101
metaphysics isn't anything but philosophy's equivalent of phrenology. calm down.

>>12871101
based as fuck
all you have to do to break a materialist's mind is ask them how they know they can trust their senses, à la Descarte's demon.

>>12871120
That’s also a terrible analogy. I doubt you even know what Metaphysics IS, let alone any of the key tenets or principles

Jfc im requesting an underage ban on you

>>12871127
>I doubt you even know what Metaphysics IS
I doubt you do. go ahead and give me a definition.

be sure you don't randomly turn your capslock on while you're at it

>>12869376
>he thinks logic is all of analytic philosophy
yikes

>>12871133
Okay nice debate next time I want to do one I’ll just re-ask the questions that someone asks me.

Jfc

>>12871165
That's a long way of saying "I can't", but alright.

>>12871180
I asked you to define Metaphysics for me because you said that someone is ‘believing’ in it. Metaphysics isn’t something you believe in, it’s a set of principles that helps you define things and help categorize things. Darwin used Metaphysics while writing the Origin of Species.

Our founding fathers, particularly James Madison, were excellent Metaphysicians, as any good lawmaker or statesman should be.

>>12871191
>Darwin used Metaphysics
name the principles

scientism is gay
>but you're posting on a message board made by science
it's ephemeral

>>12869692

This is so insanely wrong holy shit

>>12871204
Genera, species, you know, the same terms as Aristotle defined them in his Metaphysics... used in the exact same way.

Imagine thinking Metaphysics is something you ‘believe’ in, it’s not some occult shit you fucks

>>12871266
>used in the exact same way.
nah

>>12871277
Buddy you’re fucking retarded.

You think Metaphysics is something you ‘believe in’. It’s more of a way to categorize thoughts and relate them to reality

>>12871286
i'm not that guy

Reminder Bergson was so highly regarded he literally had a public debate with Albert Einstein on the nature of time and Bergson was widely considered the winner.

>>12871313
Based. Link it please?

>>12871313
>and Bergson was widely considered the winner.
by other philosophers no doubt

>>12871328
It is often considered a major reason why Einstein didn't get his Nobel prize
>>12871329
I think there's a transcript in French, not sure if there's one in English though

>>12871394
the muh nobel prize cope is propaganda

>>12871409
Bergson directly challenged that relativity was an epistemological theory and not a theory of physics, which is a pretty damning allegation if you are competing for a prize in physics. By then Bergson had already won a good amount of support in the scientific community for his work on Darwin too.

>>12871434
Too bad his idea of time turned out to be wrong

>>12871434
>Bergson directly challenged that relativity was an epistemological theory and not a theory of physics
and people fell for this shit jfc

>>12870996

>>12871449
>>12871450
I'm in no position do debate either of these thinkers, they are both giants in their field; but even Einstein admitted in private letters that Bergson had completely grasped the theory of relativity.

>>12871472
You got a source for that private letter?

>>12869630
Good post

>>12871472
Can us plebs get a translation

>>12871576
in English the work is called Duration and Simultaneity, I don't have a link but it shouldn't be too hard to track down.
>>12871512
https://youtu.be/ztruZVkMoek?t=846
14:05, this is a historian of science talking about it. I don't have the actual letter.

>>12871660
Even if Bergson really did understand the basics of relativity that doesn’t in any way validate his own theories about time though. And to be fair it’s not that difficult to grasp the fundamentals of relativity, it’s taught in high school and intro college courses.

>>12869319
in most cases they can't pass 1st semester calculus so how are they going to understand scientific theories? it'd be like me trying to comment on critical theory without understanding the jargon they use, except in principle I could learn it (but I do not care), whereas the converse is not true of academics in the humanities in most cases.

>>12871692
again I'm in no position do debate either of these thinkers, I'm not trying to say he's right, but that's a pretty big deal for Einstein to read a philosophers critique of his new theory and say that, at the very least, it is based on a valid interpretation of relativity. trying to compare it to an introductory interpretation of relativity is ludicrously disingenuous or stupid

>>12871692
Are you sure you understand bergsons critique my man?

>>12871753
the math in all of these images is the exact kind of basic relativity 101 they teach to high school students though

>>12871753
Why is that a pretty big deal? The quote was that Bergson "grasped the essence of relativity". We teach the essence of relativity in intro courses. The math is not complicated at all.

>>12866365
Srly i hate these. Brainlets

>>12871764
yes

>>12871797
Please give a synopsis

>>12871787
firstly the quote was "fully grasped the essence of relativity". secondly it wasn't just anyone who being paraphrased, it was Einstein himself. thirdly, this was 1922, a time when not even all physicists understood the essence of relativity. fourthly we don't teach the essence of relativity in intro courses, we teach the essentials of relativity (these are essential philosophical terms, not the essence of philosophical terms, see?). why are you so resentful about Bergson?

>>12871814
no

>>12871827
Its plain to see you are in over your head

>>12871867
Why is that? Because I don't want to waste my time summarizing for you?

>>12871821
First is semantics. Second, why is that important? Einstein wasn't a god, he himself had very incorrect ideas about physics (cos. constant & qm). Third, special relativity was 17 years old at that time, any physicist fully understood the essence of sp. relativity. Fourth, sp. rel is a fairly simple thing to describe, I would argue the essence and essentials are mostly the same. I'm not resentful of Bergson, I just don't agree with him.

>>12868518
this but unironically

>>12871901
>Einstein wasn't a god
did you really think I was trying to say Einstein was a God? the reason why it's important is that it was his fucking theory that Bergson was responding to. this conversation is obviously going nowhere. I assume you're not stupid, so the next logical assumption is that is a practice in wilful and malicious ignorance.

>>12869630
Nice.
Even better question: where does spite arise from? What evolutionary benefit does spite allow a species?
Or
Where does the impetus for intuition even arise? What starts this process?

>>12871937
Why is that so important? Is it not common in debate for each party to understand the other's arguments? No need to get so worked up over this

>>12871976
Why did you bring up spite, specifically?

>>12870676
Not him, but the example of a unicorn(doesn't exist). Composed of a horse(exists) and a horn(exists). When I visualise an angel, I think of the winged beings of light from paintings. I cannot conceive something completely new, not composed of things I've already seen - but maybe I AM an NPC, and I would be interested in a counter example from you. I think this is what he meant.
(unrelated but it's interesting what that fact, that people from 2000+ years ago could conceive of angels, says about the existence of angels)

>>12872030
>>12872030
and an angel is just a winged (bird) being of light (the sun).. so the people from 2000+ years ago derived their image of an angel from the things they were observing in the natural world that they then prescribed supernatural qualities to to explain why a drought happened.

and even if you take the most extreme imagery of divine beings, like whorls of flames around eyes or whatever else is going on there, it's all still based on observable phenomena and things that held cultural significance to their tribe or what have you. these people worshiped the sun, those the sea, etc.

bump

>>12870384
>Memories are encoded in the brain
Then where are they? You can't claim this without being able to tell exactly where in the brain memories are stored.

>>12872018
Because it is a prime mover. Much of what motivates peoples actions is the act of spite. Many experiments have been done showing human beings will take actions that do no enrich themselves in any way, in fact will actually cost them, if it will harm or in some way lessen what another has. It is a phenomenon that comes up in every facet of human relations and is usually obfuscated with another ostensible motive out of shame.

>>12869337
>Cant understand HS level equations
Lmao

>>12872773
>You can't claim this without being able to tell exactly where in the brain memories are stored.
retarded

>>12873242
Try answering the question. Why do you believe memories are stored in the brain when neuroscientists have no idea where memories are stored?

>>12873271
neuroscience being a meme doesn’t dmdisprove obvious facts

>>12873271
There is a person inside that building. We saw him walk in, and we know if we bulldoze the building he will never be seen again.

>actually unless you know exactly what room he is in and what position he is in you can have absolutely no idea where he is

>>12873283
We didn't see the person walk into that building. We have no idea if anyone is there or not. The brain could be a conduit to some spiritual realm where memories are actually stored. We don't know.

>>12873282
It's not an obvious fact, it's an assumption.

>>12873300
>It's not an obvious fact
Are you just pretending to be retarded?
>The brain could be a conduit to some spiritual realm
oh ok lol

How some people can go through serious brain injury, sometimes where even chunks of brain are removed yet they continue living normal lives? There are surprisingly many cases of this happening where people have various parts of their brain removed.

>>12873305
You can't distinguish established fact and assumption yet I'm the retard.

>>12869429
Lol, but you’re objectively wrong here. Popper and Kuhn have had a tremendous impact on the epistemological practices in Science in the 20th century.

>>12873320
Kuhn was literally a scientist and no one cares about Popper

>>12873305
Not him, but just reminding you that pretending to understand more than you actually do only embarrasses you in the end. It doesn't make you look smarter than everyone else, it makes you look foolish.

Tell me, here and now, exactly how consciousness arises from neurological activity, and prove to me conclusively that it cannot be found on any material object besides the brain and it's associated network.

Don't even respond to me if you won't explain exactly how this process works. If you can't even simply explain the doctrine you claim to be "fact" (which actual scientists don't even assert), then you have no doctrine in the first place - just a blind theology that you can't even coherently articulate to others.

>>12873380
Why the gotcha of "cannot be found on any material object besides the brain"? Wouldn't the standard materialist position be that consciousness is an emergent property of any sufficiently complex system?

>>12873380
it’s extremely telling of your mental state that you think anyone would try to “look smarter than everyone else” on an anonymous Internet forum, as if that was something that normal people would even think of as an option

>>12873412
>Why the gotcha of "cannot be found on any material object besides the brain"? Wouldn't the standard materialist position be that consciousness is an emergent property of any sufficiently complex system?
Because he is using a strawman to try to win the debate. Of course, he will never actually define the position of dualism, which is that the consciousness is literally some kind of magic that defies everything we ever observed just because (Avshalom Elitzur's position), or the idealist one, which is that the world stops existing when you close your eyes except not really because "lol god I guess", which actually aren't strawman despite sounding like one.

>>12873412
I've heard different viewpoints from different materialists, but alright. Explain exactly how "complexity", be it of a biological kind or the technologically variety, brings the emergence of awareness. How exactly does this process happen? And what defines "complexity"? At what point of connectivity, in any material system, is consciousness created? Such that you could distinguish "non-conscious" material systems from "now-conscious" ones?

Remember, you aren't panpsychists. So you can't say "there's always a small amount, it's always there", you have to take the position of it being binary - "off" until it has been "activated", after a certain level of complexity has been reached, and to demonstrate what that level is.

Lastly, demonstrate to me that trees and stones are not equally conscious to my brain or my cellphone.

>>12873426
It's extremely telling of your mental state that you call assumptions of yours as "facts", and anyone else who does not agree with them as "retarded".

>>12866365
Sounds like a good book! Thanks for the rec

>>12871107
I highly doubt that.

>>12873446
I'm not a Berkeleyan, no. Everything exists regardless of whether a subject is presently encountering them.

>Defies everything we ever observed
It is observation itself, actually. Do you mean to say that the things observed, are themselves the act of observing? Ergo, awareness is located in the material itself? Well look at that, you just reached panpsychism. The only difference is that I consider consciousness to be behind whatever it observes, and not conditioned by the properties of objects it views.

What is your position, then? Is matter inherently aware, and reality therefore panpsychist in nature? Is observation an illusion, making all the material phenomena observed, and their properties, similarly illusory? Or do you deny the existence of observation altogether, and similarly deny the existence of all subsequently observed phenomena?

>>12873452
>Remember, you aren't panpsychists. So you can't say "there's always a small amount, it's always there", you have to take the position of it being binary - "off" until it has been "activated"

This is loaded. a bacterium shows some level of awareness -- a single rock does not.

>>12873320
Kuhn was a theoretical physicist

>>12873492
Prove it. "Awareness" and "reactivity" are not the same thing. And since you hold only the bacterium to be aware, explain what exactly about it brings it alone to being such.

>>12873490
>It is observation itself, actually. Do you mean to say that the things observed, are themselves the act of observing? Ergo, awareness is located in the material itself? Well look at that, you just reached panpsychism. The only difference is that I consider consciousness to be behind whatever it observes, and not conditioned by the properties of objects it views.
Observe as in perceive in physical phenomena. It don't have nothing to do with what observation is, but rather that Elitzur literally says that in order to dualism to be true, then it have to be accept that the magical realm of consciousness just creates energy ex nihilo and then shoves it in the material. It was so absurd that he kind of backs down a little because even he realizes the nonsense he was spouting and just says "maybe science will figure out one day 'wink to the audicence'".

>>12873305
A radio receives a signal. When I damage a part of the radio, I distort the signal. If I destroy the radio entirely, I no longer find any signal. Based on this, was the signal inside the radio?

Memories are stored in the soul and the brain acts as a conduit to the intellect. When we die our soul drops the body but our mind and memories remain, and this is why I dedicate as much time as possible to study. I want to gain as much knowledge as I can before I die.

>>12873529
>Awareness" and "reactivity" are not the same thing
Thats the rub. Do you think p-zombies could exist?

>>12873579
Do you stop working when are you put inside a lead box, or when you enter a tunnel?

>>12873629
that's not how analogies work

>>12873691
Make a better analogy next time, buddy. Saying that the brain tap on a magical realm don’t answer anything and just raises more questions.

>>12873629
The question is whether an "immaterial" (used loosely, since radio waves are still phenomena) thing can interact with a material thing, while still ultimately being separate from it, and existent beyond it. All the specifics of radio signals as compared to brains is not relevant, this is merely a specific analogy we've picked out - the fact is that memories have so far not been found "in the brain", but given their obvious interaction with the brain, the question is: can memories exist outside the brain, while still being accessible through it?

>>12873718
That guy wasn't me.

>>12873771
Regions that store memories have already in brain, unless you mean a literal “pick a memory and show it on a screen”, which is a case of lacking enough understanding of how exactly they are stored and interpreted, which doesn’t equal to say that it is impossible, much less the magical memory realm that is being supposed, which is no different than just saying that is magic which is a pretty obvious God of the gaps style argument.

>>12873845
>already in brain
already been identified in the brain*

>>12873845
Well, ultimately we're speaking within the "mind-brain problem" domain here, and every question invoking all the central components of this dilemma. I don't personally know what memory is, and how it works, but like the whole mind-brain problem that science will likely be working on for many centuries from now, it's not something I claim to have any understanding of. I have no clue, at all, how physical processes cause subjective experiences to arise, or if they even cause them at all - perhaps the relation is from something immaterial, down to something observable. I don't know how any of this works, but unlike some people today, I'm not pompously pretending to either.

>>12873579
if your brain was giving off any kind of waves you could detect them
>no they’re magic spiritual radio waves that are impossible to measure or observe but they’re definitely there
ok sure kid

>>12873948
By this logic, this would apply far more to the dualist position than the materialist one, and honestly dragging an immaterial explanation both fails to really explain anything and raises a shitload of questions, even if I get that neuroscience is still a relatively incomplete field with a lot questions.

>>12874017
It's not about dragging a "immaterial explanation", it's about an explanation, period, for how the objective world we study can be the sibling of a completely subjective one, found literally nowhere within itself. I'm not trying to appeal to anything unnecessary or superfluous - neuroscience literally has no answer, of any kind, to such a fundamental quandary. I don't deny a single biological reality which has presently been observed and studied, but I also don't hold it to have explained a single thing regarding the subjective dimension which we ourselves know it to be. How does a completely objective phenomena have a completely subjective dimension alongside itself, where neither can be found within the other?

>>12874016
It's an analogy involving corporeality vs immateriality, and a feasible interaction between them that still retains their separation.

>>12874017
The material explanation doesn't "explain" anything though, regarding the subjective side of things.