/lit/ - Literature

>>15116381
Stop acting like this profound. We've known this for years.
Only people illiterate in science believe in freewill or immaterial consciousness.

>Everything humans experience is rooted in the physical senses.
Obviously, but they are still processed by both the conscious and subconscious. Our consciousness, like you said, deals with what is immediately in front of us, or on our mind. The subconscious deals with the rest.
>There is no "you".
Yes there is? Just because "you" is an amalgamation of sensory data that's gone through cognitive processing particular to your genetics, doesn't mean "you" doesn't exist.
>Art is just another form of language
Sure, but it's also an expression of the subconscious

>>15116381
>"you" is nothing more than the amalgamation of a lifetime of data
How's highschool treating you?

>>15116440
He's right faggot

>>15116381
>There is no "you"

How old are you?

>>15116436
The subconscious is still physical, it's just information running in the background that you're not aware of because it's not as important as the foreground and anything that is found out to be important will be catalogued for later retrieval when it becomes relevant.

>>15116455
>retarded brainlet
He's right

>>15116381
the word "physical" is a concept though. don't get me wrong, i am an empiricist and a mechanist es well, but one must not fall for the naif version of this.

>>15116474
I didn't say it wasn't.
I don't really understand what the argument being made here is. This is just obvious stuff. There's no profound conclusion or information to be gained from this.

>>15116381
>https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/how-consciousness-evolved/485558/

>The Atlantic is an American magazine and multi-platform publisher. It was founded in 1857 in Boston, Massachusetts,
>Jeffrey Mark Goldberg is an American journalist and editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine.
>Goldberg was born to a Jewish family[3] in Brooklyn, New York, the son of Ellen and Daniel Goldberg,[4] whom he describes as "very left-wing."[5]

>>15116498
If it's so obvious why does religion exist, why does spirituality, why do people believe in ghosts and vampires?

Just because you currently are aware of it doesn't make it obvious you obnoxious pseud.

>>15116447
There is evidence to say processing of senses is physical, but you'd have to be genuinely retarded to think how we process information is the same problem as consciousness. The brain filters out stuff, big whoop, everyone knows this from the age of 3 after staring at a pencil for a while and noticing the edges of their vision get blurry. That
>consciousness is entirely physical
Doesn't follow from
>thoughts are all rooted in the physical senses
Our brain is physical, so no shit sensations and therefore thoughts are rooted in material, but how we manage to actually feel these thoughts is unexplained and there is no material explanation. "Look pa, my computer's got physical methods for transfering data, it's conscious!". I'd sooner believe Descartes pineal gland theory than reductionist retards like OP.

>>15116536
>but how we manage to actually feel these thoughts is unexplained
No it's not.

You "feel" these thoughts because it's you speaking to yourself in your head about what's going on in front of you.

>>15116381
>Consciousness is entirely physical
or
>Consciousness is an emergent property of matter
Or is there simply no difference?

>>15116520
Please go back to /pol/ Nazinigger

>>15116536
> how we manage to actually feel these thoughts
your problem is that you think there is a "we" or an "i" managing its thoughts, while in truth there is only thought(s) managing its(their) own "we" and "i".

>>15116475
Only in a contrived sense where words don't mean what they actually mean. The desire of faggots that speak in memes to undermine free will is interesting. The political purpose of undermining free will is clear since you allow your betters to control context for you. But why would an unfunny wanna-be intellectual citing a 4 year old article desire free will to not exist? I suspect it has to do with low self esteem/failures. The brain is physical, is this a revelation for you youngling?

tl;dr

can someone who truly understands what the hard problem of consciousness is tell me if this actually answers it

>>15116600
>tl;dr
I literally summarised the article in the OP you ADHD subhuman cretin.

Drop out of your 1st year of college right now because it's wasted on your zoomer brain.

>>15116600
it doesn't, it's just appeals to muh neuroscience to pretend that there isn't a hard problem, which has already been refuted before

>>15116536
>everyone knows this from the age of 3 after staring at a pencil for a while and noticing the edges of their vision get blurry
I have only just noticed this. Weird.

>>15116432
Stopped reading at the admission that he was an epiphenomenalist.

>nature created something completely superfluous which has the ontological status of being a metaphysical black hole that is a causal effect of underlying neurological-physical states that is itself completely causally inert, thus violating the precious constancy that epiphenomenalism was conjured up to save

>>15116381
How do these people still not understand the hard problem of consciousness?

>>15116381
Consciousness stems entirely from the physical. Colors you see are your brain's interpretation of light waves, yet the sensation itself that is experienced when seeing "blue" or "red" is not physical and has no basis in it.

>>15116832
Feelings are keyboard shortcuts for well established situations and the appropriate reaction.

For example, death is so common to us that the feeling of sadness is pretty much programmed into us to activate upon the death of someone we care about. Feelings are as physical as your finger, they're a stimulation to encourage you to act in a way that increases the survival and propagation of humans as a species.

>>15116853
I'm saying regardless of the physical root from which these things stem - Seeing, feelings, touch - the qualia itself is immaterial. In the very first place, your point of view when viewing things is immaterial. Your fingers are real, the stimulation of feeling them when typing on the keyboard isn't.

>>15116908
>I'm saying regardless of the physical root from which these things stem - Seeing, feelings, touch - the qualia itself is immaterial.
That doesn't even make sense. They have a physical root, the "feeling" you see as nonphysical is actually physical your brain just obscures the physical mechanisms from you because it's not relevant.

You feel sad because a part of your brain signals to release a chemical mix that makes you feel bad.

>>15116770
>>15116600
>hard problem of consciousness
I just read the wiki entry on that. That's a retarded non existent "problem"

>>15117078
>I just read the wiki entry on that.
Yeah, then you're one of those people who doesn't understand it either.

>>15117078
lmao what a retard

>>15116520
He's reporting on the work of neuroscientist Michael S.A. Graziano, who is Italian.

>>15117086
>>15117095
It's a dumb non-problem for zoomer navel gazers. You are marveling at emperor's new clothes

>>15116908
Qualiafags need to get the rope
DUDEWEED bullshit

>article from 2016
Outdated.

>>15117140
Show me the hot fresh 2020 counter hypothesis then, faggot.

>>15117127
>zoomer navel gazers
You're the zoomer. Instead of trying to understand the problem you read a wiki entry and reflexively dismiss it.

So many people ITT havent experimented with psychedelics, these poor nibbas actually believe consciousness only exists because of evolutionary psychology.
Man souls so lost.

>hard problem
I got a hard problem for you in my pants

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332480-000-true-nature-of-consciousness-solving-the-biggest-mystery-of-your-mind/

Our consciousness and feelings are the only physical "things" for certain. Everything else, including other's consciousness and feelings, are entirely stimulus and one cannot be certain if they are similar to oneself.

>>15117160
>Souls
Hahaha that shit got you believing in fucking phlogiston and luminiferous aether. Jesus Christ, Cheech, put down the pipe

>>15117149
Do you understand how science works? It doesnt need a "counter hypothesis" it needs to prove itself against the countless other theories that came before it.

>>15117191
Well you're not showing me that failure.
And your post said "outdated" implying there's something newer to contradict it, which you won't, nay, CAN'T provide.
You cheese faced bitch

>>15117203
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4407481/
Just read this, AST is fucking stupid.

>>15117220
That's btw from 2015.
I've actually read his book on this, Consciousness And The Social Brain, and am reading his second which goes further, Rethinking Consciousness.
You just claiming it's stupid because it defies your mystical bullshit isn't going to make it so, no matter how much you try with your magickal siddhis

>>15116381
why do these fools endeavor so tirelessly attempting to prove the meaninglessness of their existence?

>>15116474
in the background of what

>>15116381
This is an article from The Atlantic, literally a mouthpiece for the scientific elite. If consciousness is just a mechanism for processing data, like a fucking computer, then why do we have conscious experiences? Why do we feel emotions, pain and have subjective experiences instead of just being a data center. As far as I can see it just skips over the whole problem.

>>15117261
Why can't you deal with meaninglessness?
What's so scary?

>>15117152
>In "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness" (1995), Chalmers wrote:[4]
> It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.
>In the same paper, he also wrote:
>The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive there is a whir of information processing, but there is also a subjective aspect.
Non-problem, the debate should have stopped after the advent of modern medicine. There is no "experience" just elaborate information processing. If they want to find God they should just believe.

>>15117274
The process of brain function.

>>15117277
>why do we have conscious experiences? Why do we feel emotions, pain and have subjective experiences instead of just being a data center.
By design.

>>15117277
Who says we don't have the experience of all that? The fact it's a process of data modeling and attention doesn't stop it being very interesting to the person it's happening in.

>>15117242
yet it isnt a click bait journalism article, its an actual scientific paper

>>15117261
No, they tirelessly attempt to persuade the majority of the meaninglessness of their existence.They don't believe it for a second.

>>15116381
Precognition events are too common (dream a relative's death: it happens; unsettling feeling imploring X not to do/go to Y: bad shit indeed happens). Consciousness is nonlocal and this is the greatest impediment to advancement in the sciences, especially physics.

>>15117285
>Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?
Because it makes people want to live, marry, have kids who live, marry and have kids. It fits perfectly with evolutionary goals.

>>15116853
>increases the survival and propagation of humans as a species.
I have the feeling of killing myself without procreating

>>15117321
Why are the greatest artists in history without family and children then?

>>15117320
OR the unconscious/subconscious processes underneath the waking attention have more detail (and they do, which is why you just can't see the solution to a problem until you give up and it suddenly comes to you) and that full sense data set has enough to predict it.
Like how people with arthritis can tell you a storm is coming, the pressure changes in the air hurts their joints, it's not something psychic.

>>15116926
>That doesn't even make sense.
That's the point, I think. Consciousness doesn't make sense, feeling your fingers brushing against your beard doesn't make sense. It's your brain experiencing the pressure applied on these points and translating them into something that you perceive as physical, yet isn't. What I'm doing is detaching the feeling from the release of chemicals.

Input(Stimuli) -> Process(Brain) -> Output(Release of chemicals) -> Feeling(?)

At some point, the transformation from chemicals to sensation creates some illusion of experience that subjectively exists and objectively doesn't. Even if the experience wouldn't exist without the brain/chemicals. Your brain releasing chemicals to mark something

Maybe I'm wrong and this is all my brain thinking that reality is subjective and things like pain and pleasure are physical. I dislike talking about this subject because I always feel like I come out sounding like a dudeweedlmao.

>>15117332
Artists are a minority and they are all emotionally unstable, especially the "greats".
It only makes sense they fall out

>>15117321
Why is it that people have "wants" to begin with? If I want a computer to do something for me I program it to do it, I don't program it to have a rich inner life and then create incentives for it to do what I want it to do.

>>15117345
This is what Graziano talks about in the first few chapters of Consciousness And The Social Brain btw.
You're right, Consciousness is a liar, a cartoonist, a quick sketch artist. It gives you just accurate enough a model to keep you alive. So yes, it manufactures bullshit out of raw sense data.

>>15116381
coooooope

>>15117351
You don't know shit about programming, obviously. It's often all about making objects look for things and do something to get them in order to return to a standby.

>>15117282
I got a good question that will stump you, why does reality exist? DURRR RANDOM CHANCE xD xD

>>15117351
Because we are social beings and we can survive best by pair bonding, thus we need strong affects towards others. Conscience and rich inner life isn't something woo woo special

>>15117321
IDK how you materialists haven’t been hit by a bus yet when is the depth of your metaphysics LOL

>>15117383
Define reality? I'm not a materialist in that sense, I think there's intelligence in nature and God. I just don't think there's a supernature. Ultraterrestrials are what they are called. See picrel

>>15116381
>Method of inquiry that presupposes everything to be physical finds X process to be physical
HOLY SHIT. I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE

>>15117380
Right but is the computer actually having a subjective experience of doing those things in order to do them? No.

>>15117390
Precisely. And really enjoying a hamburger keeps you going to work to get more of them. Feeling love for a sex partner makes you defend and feed and keep fucking them, and feeling terrible pain at a friend's death makes you avoid whatever caused that death.

Feeling awe at new scenery keeps you exploring for more mates and food etc

>>15117394
Imagine having that impoverished metaphysics that you need to find proofs in the material world lmao

imma go drop a couple tabs of acid and stand on the crest of a hill thinking im about to fall off the earth
fuck science lmaooo

>>15117398
>Method of inquiry that presupposes everything to be spiritual finds X process to be spiritual
HOLY SHIT. I FUCKING LOVE MYSTICISM

>>15117390
Yes we are, the question is why are we? We could just as well survive by being hard coded to pair bond without any feelings at all.

>>15117412
How could you possibly know that? Have you ever been a computer?

>>15117413
And what makes you leap into a burning building to save some random kid you don't know?

>>15117422
Obviously not, or that would be the case.
Perhaps if we were less complex creatures.

>>15117432
Because it could be my kid someday and once I was a kid.
Saving kids from things is an absolutely perfect evolutionary strategy.

>>15117445
But at the risk you die, no longer being able to pass on your genes.

>>15117454
And before any other replies,
>dying so you can let some other person continue his lineage
>literally being a cuck
>this is considered perfect evolutionary strategy
Materialists are literal cucks lmaoo

>>15116381
When I imagine an elephant does that mean my brain forms a representation of an elephant inside itself?

>Buddhism was right all along!
It only took you 2,500 years to figure it out.

>>15117445
And if you are childless? Staying alive gives you a chance to procreate in the future; if you die saving the kid your line ends with you. If we are programmed to pass on our genes there is no reason to go in there.

>>15117321
The ability to teleport would so fit evolutionary goals, yet we can't do so. Why is that?

>>15117282
>Why can't you deal with meaninglessness?
Everyone does. With meaning.

>>15117422
By evolutionary directive, by chance, by divine design. Pick what you like. The question will go back to the unanswerable how it all began/ why should be something and not nothing etc.
>>15117454
>>15117475
Kid's life is more important for the community and it's a calculated risk not a suicide mission. We are programmed to care for other people that's how we survived
>>15117478
Yet

>Open article
>Ctrl F "Hard Problem"
>0 Results
>Close the article.

It is that simple. Why do people bother with midwittery?

>>15117467
When you experience an elephant irl your consciousness created a model of it and that's all you ever know. Your imagining it later is calling up that model.

>>15117471
Buddhism still thinks there's magic shit like eternal souls that inhabit bodies.
So no

>>15117484
>People deal with heroin addiction by doing heroin

Indeed

>>15117429
>The AI has developed consciousness
fuck

Was taking a stroll around the waters of the harbor and I heard monkeys. Had to stop.
This isn't Africa, there are no monkeys in Sydney. But that noise is monkeys and its real.
The Zoo was 200m across the water, could see the monkey enclosure. Yeah, its monkeys.

Let me be 100% clear.
Holding on to magical nonsense like souls, panpsychism, meaning is the quintessence of C O P E.
You're literally the meme of the mentally weak person who needs fear of hell to live a moral life.
It's pathetic.
Why do you need all this mumbo jumbo to feel good about whatever bullshit you're doing? I don't need to feel any way about what I'm doing.
What are you so guilty about?

>>15117583
You're missing a lot of self-awareness in that post.

>>15117593
Is that a valuable commodity?
Fuck awareness, that's the bug in the system that needs repair

>>15117583
I was programmed to be fearful why are you being so cruel?

>>15116520
Goyim, you're not real. Keep suffering and working.

>>15116545
Hylic or bait?

>>15117655
>Gnosticfag
At least read Mani or the Avesta, you basic bitch

>>15116381
Literally nothing in that study is actually tested nor is it confirmed nor is it anything but an opinion piece by a guy in the field. It's not actually scientific literature and if you take it seriously, you are low IQ.
Reminder that the vast majority of the field of neuroscience is pseudoscience:
>"And then the brain LIGHTS UP when this happens!!"
Literally midwit bullshit, if you take it seriously you are not smart.

>>15117669
You think we are allowed to perceive ourselves to the point we have correctly identified internal hierarchy. Feeling becomes talking. Of course! It can't be feeling itself...
I presume you are a mutilated variant of the human male.

>>15117683
>Nothing was tested
See picrel, lying faggot

>>15116381
>dude we’re just carbon-based machines! Bro!
This argument leads nowhere and I fail to see the answer having a large impact on broad metaphysical questions and the way live our lives. Treachery, whether it’s from a grey matter machine or supernatural demons, is treachery all the same.

>>15117709
Because I told you to look into Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism due to them being what Gnosticism sprang from?
Or do you mean to reply to another post?

>>15117721
>"and then the brain LIGHTS UP when this happens!!"
literal midwit pseudoscience, if you take it seriously you are not smart.

>>15116574
Holy cope.

>>15117725
>dude! There's a little man inside me that's the real me and when I die the little me inside me will leave to heaven or maybe enter another body!

Yours is the more dudeweed opinion

>>15117751
You are the little man. Your body is just a tool.
There is no other little man inside you, sometimes as a little man I guess you could split into two little men, one to observe the other during certain experiences. Then you join back into one little man.

>Thus whiteness, colours, and all other objects of mentality are deemed metaphysical. Let us delve into the physical to examine the point. A man is seeing a patch of white. Where is this whiteness?
>(1) We cannot say it is in the physical object as such, say a cloud. Here there exist the molecules constituting the cloud, which themselves are not white (akin to Berkeley’s emphasis[iv]).
>(2) Further we cannot say that whiteness is in the certain reflected electromagnetic wave as
>>(a) the wave without a perceiver will not be white,
>>(b) the same wave can be perceived as different colours (inverted spectrum, synaesthesia), and
>>(c) the same perceived colour can have different waves (metamerism).
>(3) The whiteness is not actually in the anatomy of the percipient nor in its functioning. It is not in the eyes, nerves, brain: within the skull pervades darkness. The brain does not turn white when intuiting whiteness, as it does not turn triangular when intuiting a triangle.
>(4) Though the object that is whiteness is correlated with activity in the brain, with the electromagnetic light wave, and with the cloud, this correlate is not thereby determined as identical to any of these. Whiteness is neither an emergent property of the brain, as such a notion commits the Emergence Category Mistake,[v] erroneously presupposing brute emergence and an analogy between nature’s otherwise physical-to-physical acts of emergence (e.g. liquidity from molecules) and a purported physical-to-mental emergence. Emergence is the magic with which materialism is spellbound.
> (5) Whiteness is thus not identical (1—–3) to its various correlates, it is not an emergent property (4) of those subvenient correlates, but nor is it simply the abstracted common feature of white objects as this would entail that those objects had the whiteness from which one could abstract it as such.

>>15117751
It’s takes serious effort to misrepresent and strawman this hard, congrats.

>>15117321
>>15117327
>>15117332
>>15117583
>>15117086
>>15117078
please actually attempt to understand the hard problem then present an argument. a philosophical zombie would be how you would imagine a really humanoid robot to be. functions exactly like a human and a human brain but it doesnt actually have a first person perspective. now, i dont know if that robot brain would have conscioussnes or not. but evolutionary psychology or neuroscience doesn't explain why we aren't philosophical zombies. they just explain how consciousness operates and those are soft questions.

its easy to imagine a universe without consciousness where living things were philosophical zombies and nothing was experienced but this isnt our universe. thats where the hard problem lies.

>>15117174
based. ill check out the article

>>15116616
sorry but i wasted too much time arguing with people who don't understand the hard problem

>>15116623
>which has already been refuted before
the hard problem? care to say how?

*btfos this thread*

>>15116832
How do you know qualia is immaterial?

>>15117454
Humans evolved in small groups of genetically related people. One guy dying for the betterment of the group is still evolutionarily beneficial because they can pass on your genes. Evolution is gene-centered not organism centered.

>>15117846
I don't 'know it' for sure, that's why I'm entertaining the opinion I'm wrong.
If I had to seek a reason for why I believe in it though, It probably stems from the belief inanimate objects can't/don't have experience/qualia.

>>15117327
Haha you sure showed him

>>15116574
Then, rare as it as, why are there people who can truly change how they think and act, to lift themselves up as better people? How do people break their heroin addictions? You are completely dismissing the concept of willpower.

>>15116545
He said how, not why.

>>15117332
It's a desprate display of talent or intelligence, usually in the hopes that someone else will like it.

>>15117846
You can do the distinct property argument if you want to:

Liebniz Law states that for any X, X is identical to Y iff for every property P of X there exists a property P of Y.

If the mind is identical to the (material) brain, then every quality posessed by qualia would be posessed by the brain.

But the mind has a distinct property not shared by the brain: it has qualia (felt quality, the what-its-like bit).

So, by applying Leibniz' Law, we know the mind is not identical to the brain.

One way of trying to say what exactly makes the mind different is that, while the brain is material, consciousness is not: it is therefore "immaterial".

Of course this is debatable: you can reject the whole material-immaterial binary if you want to, because the concept of matter is itself somewhat blurry.

But to argue this more clearly you are going to have to work your way through a problemmatic associated with what "matter" is, which will bring you into some strange metaphysical territory.

Most neuroscientists are rather dim people, so don't expect most of them to tell you anything valuable about the nature of consciousness.

>>15117965
edit: meant to write
>then every quality possessed by the mind would be...

>>15117767
>>15117751
What does dicks have to do with the subject at hand?

>>15117965
>But the mind has a distinct property not shared by the brain: it has qualia (felt quality, the what-its-like bit).

This is the tricky premise, of course, and the one identity-theorists would attack (unsuccessfully in my opinion). For a spirited defense of it, I would recommend reading Chalmers' article "Facing up to the hard problem of consciousness."

>>15116381
Well after reading a single article from the Article I am convinced

>>15116536
>staring at a pencil for a while and noticing the edges of their vision get blurry
That's more due to your eyes focusing. Your eyes contain lenses n shit that physically change shape to change how incoming light is focused.

>>15117814
So really it's a transposed question about the beginning of everything. Great philosophy lmao
>>15117965
Mind isn't identical to brain, it's what brain produces. The material organ processes and stories information that adds up to what incel dyalists ,hungry for a crumb of metaphysical hope after rejecting God, call conscience.
These arguments should have stopped after 1900. The people that take them seriously are either paid to do so or are retarded

Literally all evolutuionary psychology is post hoc rationalization. Its all unfalsifiable bullshit. Not even testable.

>>15116381
>when really you're just unaware that "you" is nothing more than the amalgamation of a lifetime of data being processed and filtered
How is this any different than any other version or naive concept of selfhood apart from the redundant terminology?

>>15118154
>Mind isn't identical to brain, it's what brain produces
This is a respectable position known as epiphenomenalism. Still, most epiphenomalists acknowledge that the position doesn't really explain anything at all. You are in a tricky position of trying to explain how in the world the various functions of the brain "produce" something which is seemingly so bizarrely unlike anything material. How is it that electrical firings and neurotransmitters produce the painful feeling of pain, or the felt color of red?
Unfortunately you are thus still caught by the hard problem.

How do science niggers explain samadhi ,enlightenment states >ITS JUST UR BRAIN HAVING A STROKE BRO
there was a study of monks influencing an rng machine , any psyhic phenomena science cant explain.

>>15118154
>Mind isn't identical to brain, it's what brain produces.
Where is the qualia then? How does the prain cause pain or color or sound? Where are these thing going to in the brain? If we recieved sensory input from our sensory organs and then these get convereted in to neurosignals, when does it eventually become the sound you actually heard and not the one that was originally made? Consider the phonetic reconstruction effect, a word was made, and your brain reconstructs it to produce an expected word, not the ine actually made. Were is this resulting sound being made? How do YOU hear it?

>>15116381
You missed the point

It´s almost like we´re abstraction.

You´re arguing text in a book cant exist cause it´s just ink
and ink is not text.

>>15118154
>So really it's a transposed question about the beginning of everything. Great philosophy lmao
well its a question about why the universe is the way it is. it might be impossible to answer but that doesn't erase the question.

>>15116532
Read Jung

>>15116381
CONTINENTALFAGS BTFO!!!

>>15116381
Have you heard of Franz Hartmann? There magic in the universe

>>15116381
duh.

talks about consciousness is just lacking realization of its physical grounding.

hard problem of consciousness is a spook btw. chalmers is a troll.

>>15116432
t. philosophical illiterate

>>15116381
But this is working on assumption. consciousness isn't the filter.
Read Doors of Perception.

>>15119843
No, faggot. I won't waste hours of my life reading your gay recomendation.

If you have something to say then say it, otherwise shut the fuck up.

>>15116583
you're the one coming across as the child, throwing a temper tantrum because you dislike the possible political consequence of what he's saying.

Wait there are people on this board who haven't even read Kant yet?

>>15117920
what does it even mean/have to do with what i said? i said that everything is thought, perception, consciousness, call it how you want. WITHIN though, thought experiences, among other things, the "i". therefore there is no need for a "soul" or a non-mechanist device to "mangae" or "feel" "our" thoughts.

>>15116555
underrated post
checked

>>15120493
in other words,
1. brain is an element of thought,
2. thought is also an element of thought, 3. the second element (thought) is caused by the first (brain) for empirical, inductive reasons , as experienced by thought.
4. one can always think there could be thought without brain, but that would be a subjective belief, not a logical consequence of any premises whatsoever.
5. indeed what's the difference between objective claims and subjective ones? as kant says, experience and experience alone (which is always experience of thought)

>>15116381
You can in fact utilize synthetic a priori knowledge to validate the transcendental nature of consciousness. The only part that is computer-like stems from the visible subconscious as it interacts with the conscious

consciousness is not a property.
the idea that consciousness has a location is a mistake. you have a location, and it's physically determined. you also think yourself conscious, but that's part of the internal schema of the representation of self.

-onionring

i can't figure out tripcode oh well

>>15120532
for dummies: what is placed outside of the "realm" of experience doesn't automatically fall in the "realm" of possibility, but rather in that of the arbitrary, the non-objective.

>>15120555
good point
checked

>>15117261

They are npc's

>>15118213
>there was a study of monks influencing an rng machine , any psyhic phenomena science cant explain.
Can you link it?

>>15117557
Kind of but not exactly, think of methadone. Meaning is pharmakon, some say.

>>15116381
Why do scientists always deconstruct everything without ever reconstructing it after?

>>15116381
Uh huh. Now try to explain that but only in terms of atoms. You realized neurons are nothing more than an abstraction right?

>>15121120
Holy

>>15116555
There is no such thing as emergent properties, you're confusing map with territory, there are only ever atoms and subatomic particles. Now try to explain consciousness in terms of those.

>>15121120
You should learn what the word abstraction means one of these days

>>15121141

>>15121134
There definitely are emergent properties, they even are directly empirically observable

>>15116381
>Consciousness is entirely physical

>>15121091
>why do surgeons remove tumors without replacing the cells?

>>15116381
Correct. Yet asserting so was appealing to the nonphysical in that you derived enough "ought" from it that it needed to be established.

God is unavoidable. There will be some magic which you regard as true enough to guide actions, so choose it well.

>>15121120
>You realized neurons are nothing more than an abstraction right?
Neurons are literally a type of cell that physically exist. They are not abstractions.

>>15121265
Everything is some abstraction of some other thing that came before it bro, like big bang and shit

>>15121265
the physical demarcation of a cell from its environment is an abstraction

>>15121279
What's an environment bro

>>15116381
>Unironically using an article in the Atlantic as some sort of authority

>>15120092
>/lit/

>>15121281
whatever is around the cell was what I meant by environment. You could extend it arbitrarily in space and time

>>15117579
Nice

>>15121141
> He actually thinks things are more than the sum of their parts!

Boy, if they ever make an AGI it's gonna be a rude awakening for you. It is impossible for humans to live without irrationality.

>>15121169
They are cognitive shorthands we come up with because trying to define everything solely in terms of fundamental physics is overwhelming to human brains.

A non-human superintelligence would not be subject to such shorthands on a more than contingent basis. It would discard them at will. These shorthands include literally every single thing you care about, including the notion of caring.

But sure, people subject to scientism love to pretend science hasn't dissolved everything, leaving only nihilism behind, which would be fine, if they didn't also claim that they're being rational or hardheaded realists.

what people call 'irrationality' are just, in AI terms, frame structures. heuristics built to adjust to set environments.

evolution does this for humans.

it's not different at all.

>>15118258
not the same anon. you can also think about it in this way: think about the experience that "emerges" from listening to music. music is, of course, a material object in the world, and as such is experienced by our oganism in a material way. where it gets complicated is when you add the particular experience some have when listening to a specific arrangement of material sounds (their favorite song, for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocZK5DHzkh4).). the "feeling" i experience is not intrinsic to the "material sound" of music. not everyone experiences the same emotions i do when they hear that same song. or at least we have no way of truly knowing feelings are experienced in an identical fashion between human beings.

The Syllogistic Arguments:

1. AEE, Figure 2

A All physical things are particulars
E No universals are particulars
E No universals are physical things

2. Conversion of Conclusion: No physical things are universals

3. EIO, Figure 2

E No physical things are universals
I Some concepts are universals
O Some concepts are not physical things

4. OAO, Figure 3

O Some concepts are not physical things
A All concepts are in the mind
O Some (things) “in the mind” are not physical things

5. Translated Conclusion: Some things in the mind are not physical

6. OAO, Figure 3

O Some things in the mind are not physical things
A All things in the mind are part of the mind
O Some part of the mind is not physical

7. Translated Conclusion (Obversion): Some part of the mind is immaterial (where immaterial means the negation of what is material/physical)

8. Materialism/Physicalism Thesis: E No part of the mind is immaterial

9. Modern Square of Opposition: the contradiction of E (No S are P) propositions is an I proposition (Some S are P)

10. Therefore, the I proposition (Some part of the mind is immaterial) refutes materialism/physicalism by way of counter-example.

>>15121706
>Therefore, the I proposition (Some part of the mind is immaterial) refutes materialism/physicalism by way of counter-example
This is bait, right?
Please tell me it's bait.

>>15121552
I didn't say that things are more than the sum of their parts, I said that you don't understand what abstraction means because a directly observable particular thing like a neuron is always concrete, only properties can be abstract. If your point is that a neuron is just the sum of particles that make it up you shouldn't have said that neurons are an abstraction, because these statements aren't equivalent.

>>15117110
>(((reporting)))

>>15121600
Okay let's argue about it. Are you denying that we experience eg. the visual perception of a tree when we look at a tree? Or at least that it appears so?

>>15117320
>>>/x/

>>15117463
cringe

The motivation for the philosophy "consciousness is physical", or basically ontological materialism applied to the mind, is because these guys want to believe that they will be able to "upload their minds into a computer" and that is only possible if the mind is purely computational in a physical/electric way.
The problem though is that even if consciousness is purely physical, you won't be able to upload your brain. The process to do so has been proven to be an incredibly large exponential time algorithm that will take billions of billions of billions of years to complete EVEN IF you have an artificial super intelligence with the computational power of a whole galaxy.
Reminder that one way functions DO EXIST despite the fact that it isn't yet proven.

>>15118197
This

>>15121874
nah. we can trace physiological function and change through evolutionary history.

>>15121401
DISCUSSION of literature

>>15121790
I'm not an eliminationist if that's what you're implying. But the only reason I'm not one is that I don't believe empiricism can provide a full account of reality.

We definitely perceive stuff yes. But what we perceive is closer to a dream than it is to raw reality.

>>15118197
As is every other evolutionary theory. None of it can be tested.

>>15123364
Wrong.

>>15121757
But neurons are an abstraction, they only exist as a concept in the mind, an idea. "Neuron" is literally a label for a bunch of atoms, nothing more. The big promise of physics is to get further and further away from such abstractions and into direct reality.

>>15123396
>>15121141

>>15123372
It's exactly the same logic to invent reasons that body features evolved as reasons that behavior evolved. Exactly.

>>15116545
>you speaking to yourself
I thought "you" didn't exist.

>>15117583
>I don't feel the need to feel any way about what I'm doing
You obviously do otherwise you would be dead. You just use noise and sophistry to drown out how meaningless your life is. Following conventional morality while not believing in any foundation for it is the ultimate definition of a cuck mentality.

>>15118258
by constituting a symbolic system of such complexity it's impossible to reduce or reproduce in a fully logical/understood manner by the limitations of the reality that it makes use of. It's no different to some electronic circuit interpreting a signal and doing something within the context of that circuit. just that we can easily model such a circuit, from our persective, endlessly so actually if you wanted to though following orthodox science/engineering would probably be the more descriptive and grounded, therefore the most usable. we can't understand that which we use to understand in the same way. and we can't feel the electronic circuit without being it either. the circuit, though not sufficiently complex to be capable of an analogue to thought and mind anyway, wouldn't have the conceptual space to explain itself. it would be tough to model itself just as it is for us, need to be piecemeal and assumptive like our every explanation of so-called reality, which is not the same as the literal symbolic system comprised of 'material' or whatever the hell you want to call it, either as a model (which is 1:1, a complete copy) within a symbolic system or as the felt symbolic system. a symbolic system can't put a 1:1 model of itself into itself nor can it assume the felt symbolic system of any other without changing itself. on that note, although our meat as it were is probably to strict/limited (being an evolutionary product) for proper extension like adding a whole new sense, you could repurpose the senses we do have in rich ways and come with new inputs too. but imagine a new sense added to you, you've added something other humans are incapable of. in the same way no human can feel the circuit, though most of your system is roughly equivalent to other humans so there's still room for relation and communication. it's like that or something.

sorry im not educated in this stuff at all but it's interesting to think about sometimes. i guess you could still believe there to be a disconnect between this symbolic system and actual feeling. i dunno.

>>15116381
>Consciousness is entirely physical
Nah.

>>15123396
And how does from the fact that neurons are just a bunch of atoms follows that neurons are just an abstraction? I think what are you trying to get at here is a form of eliminativism where the macroscopic structures like neurons are merely apparent, and the only things that are fully real are those at the microscopic level, just atoms dancing in the void. Yet I don't see how that follows. The fact that a house is just a collection of bricks doesn't entail that the house is an Illusion and that.only the bricks are real. The house simply is a collection of bricks ordered in a certain way. It doesn't seem like there is any reason why we can't talk of atoms and neurons in the same way.

>>15123350
>I'm not an eliminationist if that's what you're implying.
Then I am not sure what do you mean by saying that emergent properties are just a cognitive shorthand because of the limitation of human brains to describe things in physical terms, and that science has dissolved anything, including the notion of care, in a bleak nihilism? That reads directly like a Scott Bakker blogpost.
>But the only reason I'm not one is that I don't believe empiricism can provide a full account of reality.
Well first off Eliminativism doesn't follow from Empiricism. It denies the empirical evidence of introspection as an illusion because of some technical philosophical difficulties of reconciling dualism with the causal closure of physics. Yet I don't see why empiricism can't provide a full account of reality, what is the data that it fails to explain?

checking back on the thread and no one has still argued against the hard problem

>>15116381
I reject this gay hypothesis

>>15125789
I don't the type of people who write shit like the OP even understand what the hard problem is.

>>15124825
>what is the data that it fails to explain?
that remember me to a guy who always talk about stadistics when he talk about basketball. and he say that stadistics is the only "real" and "objective" way to know basketball. and still you feel he failed to understand why someone is a good player. i mean. the data is only data... a computer cant give definitions. you need a conclusion of that data and conclusions are entirely human, conceptual. more data is not necesarily better or give a more "true" conclusion.

>>15116381
>>15116432
He doesn't believe in the astral plain

>>15116616
It literally says nothing about the origin of consciousness, just things we've observed from it

>>15126110
The origin is physical, you're just unaware of it because it's unnecessary information. It's explained very simply in the article.

>>15116381
>Language is comparing consciousness notes
How does that imply with it being entirely physical?
As carved letter on a tablet?
You can't even be a proper behaviorist. You complain rightly that basedlosophers treat consciousness as a gaussian object, though you do the same.

>>15126157
>How does that imply with it being entirely physical?
Because you're comparing one persons physical observations with anothers. You then use your own experiences to reenact their point of view and assimilate any useful information.

All of that can be done with the physical, none of that requires an ethereal magic aspect.

>>15116475
so what does this mean on a practical level? what does it change about anything to say something meaningless like "there is no you"? does it change perception or our sense of identity?

>>15126223
It changes everything.

It means there's no free will, that all our artsy fartsy jerking off is programming, that there is no world but the physical world, that there is nothing before life or after it in terms of self awareness, that everything you did, do or ever will do wasn't your choice.

>>15126139
>>15126110
of course the origin is physical, the question is why its there at all. a philosophical zombie is the same thing evolution wise but we arent that. hard problemm ahaaaaaagggggggh

>>15116381
Well, that's like, you know, just your opinion, man.