/lit/ - Literature

>>15133861
>>Your brain can only handle so much information your senses pick up,
Maybe yours can, but generally people above a certain IQ can think about things beyond what is currently in their field of perception.
>>You're deliberately unaware of the physical origin of consciousness because it's not important information
What? Look up the word deliberately. Also you just called your own thread 'unimportant information' so why did you post it?
>>You project consciousness onto other humans and they do it to you, and you both do it to yourselves so you think you're "you" when really you're just unaware that "you" is nothing more than the amalgamation of a lifetime of data being processed and filtered to increase your chance of survival
>There is no "you"
The fuck are you talking about? Even if consciousness was physical that's not proof against the existence of a self. You are literally too retarded to talk about this.

>>15133895
>Maybe yours can
Oh, so you can see radio waves, UV rays and solar radiation huh?

>>15133895
>The fuck are you talking about? Even if consciousness was physical that's not proof against the existence of a self.
The "self" is nothing but accumulated data and your "personality" is nothing but that data + your slightly different temperament every human is born with. You're no more unique than your dog is unique among all dogs.

>The "self" is nothing but accumulated data and your "personality" is nothing but that data

>>15133861
>You therefore assume these thoughts are coming out of the ether, but they're all rooted in the physical senses
>rooted in
This is not the same thing as saying that consciousness is "entirely physical". If it is an emergent phenomena that arrises out of physical connections/process in the brain, then "something" non-physical is still emerging from a physical process.

>>15133927
And what does that have to do with the nonexistence of a self? You are literally defining the self, implying it exists, and continuing to argue that it doesn't exist. I don't know what to tell you except read more or fuck off.
>>15133914
I can process non-empirical information. I can also "handle" empirical information which is not currently in my field of perception through the use of imagination or memory. The post is retarded.

>>15133895
>generally people above a certain IQ can think about things beyond what is currently in their field of perception.
Keyword is "think". We can conceptualize things outside our perspective but can't feel or see them.

>>15133959
I'm sorry, are you asking a question or something?

I can't tell because you're being a passive aggressive bitch refusing to quote me or formulate an original thought.

>>15133861
>Consciousness is entirely physical
And yet physical is a concept created within a conscious mind

>>15133985
>This is not the same thing as saying that consciousness is "entirely physical"
Yes, it is. You can't go from a physical root into a non physical branch, that's retarded and the same as saying the root of consciousness is non physical.

>>15133861
>gives you a running commentary on what you're thinking about

>>15134012
best post in this thread

>>15133989
>I can process non-empirical information
Only based on what you already know.

You cannot know something out of thin air, you can only come to know it when all the pieces have been observed at one time or another. You could never just have the idea of a toaster pop into your head fully formed without prior knowledge of heat transfer, metal conductivity of heat, electricity etc.

>>15134018
>You can't go from a physical root into a non physical branch
why not?

>>15133989
>You are literally defining the self
Your idea of the self is that you are a unique "you" and are in control when you're not. The "you" is just the same as a slug. More complex, but the same fundamental being. You operate solely on what your genes dictate.

>>15133861

You're only describing what consciousness is useful for, not what it actually is. Why would it being evolutionary beneficial mean that it is physical?

>>15134040
I can vividly imagine having sex, so you're wrong.

>>15134040
2+2=4

>>15134039
>>15134012
The physical exists for ants and squirrels, it's not a human concoction because if you remove consciousness from the equation it remains.

Fucking morons.

>>15134040
>You could never just have the idea of a toaster pop
But that's the defining feature of a toaster. It pops

>>15134046
Because that's redundant, that's the same as saying consciousness is non physical.

>>15134055
>not what it actually is
I just told you, it's a physical system that processes data. It's in the brain, there's no deeper meaning.
>Why would it being evolutionary beneficial mean that it is physical?
Name one thing that isn't physical if you accept consciousness is?

>>15134066
>The physical exists for ants and squirrels
Becuase you're consciousness says it does

>>15133861
There is currently no physical explanation for the process of consciousness. Just a bunch of faggots who say it's emergent without explaining how it emerges or how the different function of the brain contribute to the emergence. Ironically those people are basically saying it's unexplainable magic. It's pretty clear that consciousness is beyond our understanding for now, but that doesn't mean we won't someday make a discover that fits consciousness into out model of physics.

>>15134087
>it's a physical system that processes data
My gamecube is a physical system that processes data, do you think it is conscious?

Pre-Newtonian physics were entirely mechanistic, no spooky gravitational pulls and other mystic forces. Infact, Newton was a massive problem for the Cartesian tradition of science and physics in general, Newtonian mechanics were called "occult forces". Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is another expansion of physics, which, at the time of say neo-platonism would have been just a theorem of metaphysics.

Saying "consciousness is just physics bro" is ignoring the relevant discussions of the philosophy of science and semantics. David Chalmers famously argued that we ought to expand our axiomatic systems of physics to include "conscious" stuff to be able to account for qualia and such. Say Chalmers succeeded in his revision of physics, then we would be compelled to say "consciousness is just physical", but of course, if you've been paying attention, this is a semantical trick. Before you start talking about physicalism vs non-physicalism, I'd like to hear you put forward a definition of physicalism.

>>15133861
>The Atlantic

>>15133861
filtered

>>15134073
Do you not understand the concept of "emergence"? I would recommend looking into it.

>>15134094
>Becuase you're consciousness says it does
If you wanna play metaphysics then go jump off a cliff moron

>>15134153
>Do you not understand the concept of "emergence"?
It's pseud wank, it's not real

>>15134202
That's not even metaphysics, are you retarded? Are you the OP?

>>15134140
Your gamecube isn't a living being

>>15134212
>pseud wank
Holy fucking shit, I get it now, you are a braindead moron. It is literally a bridging concept between different kinds of sciences, and even has application in maths, philosophy and systems theory. You are wilfully retarded.

>>15134243
Science is pseud wank too, so is math

>>15134225
Define the physical relation between life and consciousness.

>>15134066
I'm not sure how you can say that knowing we have not and never will observe the physical without consciousness. In fact, your own awareness seems to be the only constant within reality as you've never observed anything to truly exist outside of it.

>>15134054
Kind of strange to tell someone else what their idea of self is. There are plenty of philosophical traditions and perspectives that define self as something outside what we commonly perceive as 'individual' beings.

>Buddhists were right all along
It only took you 2.5k years.

>>15134054
>There is no free will
>Therefore there is no self
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>15133861
>Everything humans experience is rooted in the physical senses. There is no "you".
?

>>15133861
A reminder there was never a self to began with this is correct >>15133927 everyone else in this thread is wrong. We have no free will, no freedom action we have as much freedom as a computer.

>Focusing attention can help an animal find food or flee a predator. It also may have led to consciousness. Tracing evolution over millions of years, Michael S. A. Graziano uses examples from the natural world to show how neurons first allowed animals to develop simple forms of attention: taking in messages from the environment, prioritizing them, and responding as necessary.


>Then some animals evolved covert attention—a roving mental focus that can take in information apart from where the senses are pointed, like hearing sirens at a distance or recalling a memory.


>Graziano proposes that in order to monitor and control this specialized attention, the brain evolved a simplified model of it—a cartoonish self-description depicting an internal essence with a capacity for knowledge and experience. In other words, consciousness.


>In this eye-opening work drawn from his and other scientists’ experiments, Graziano accessibly explores how this sense of an inner being led to empathy and formed us into social beings. The theory may point the way to engineers for building consciousness artificially, and even someday taking the natural consciousness of a person and uploading it into a machine for a digital afterlife. Graziano discusses what a future with artificial conscious might be like, including both advantages and risks, and what AI might mean for our evolutionary future.

>Rethinking Consciousness by Graziano
https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=4A21D7EAFAEBF07271E6520153E4639F

>>15134340
? ???? ???? ????

THAT'S NOT A FUCKING QUESTION YOU UNDERAGE CUNT. STOP RESPONDING TO SHIT WITH ???? FUCKING USE WORDS.

>>15134264
But an article from the atlantic isn't? Oh, i get it, I'm being baited. Nevermind, carry on, good to know that consciousness isn't physical at least.

>>15134354
>? ???? ???? ????
>????
What did he mean by this?

>>15133861
Disproving consciousness using science, a construct of consciousness.
Pottery

>>15134356
>But an article from the atlantic isn't?
It's all rooted in common sense. Anyone could come to that conclusion with or without science.

>>15133861
>Consciousness is entirely physical

Are you familiar with the idea of supervenience? Proceeding from naturalistic presuppositions, one can trivially say that all things are "physically based." Higher-order human social phenomena (e.g. morality) can be "physically based," *and* we can talk about them w/o regard to their material aspect. The Germans have even called the social sciences Geistenwissenschaften (ghost sciences).

Consciousness is like Being: we have largely exhausted metaphysics in pursuit of it. But we can still talk about consciousness, and its meaning is not lost in transmission between such a conversant party.

I reiterate. You do not say anything non-trivial about consciousness when you say it is "physically based." A mathematics textbook is "physically based," but it somehow contains real meaning that is cogent to the student of mathematics. Do you think this fact defies the materiality of the book?

>>15134374

>According to Thomas Metzinger, no such things as selves exist in the world: nobody ever had or was a self. All that exists are phenomenal selves, as they appear in conscious experience. The phenomenal self, however, is not a thing but an ongoing process; it is the content of a "transparent self-model." In Being No One, Metzinger, a German philosopher, draws strongly on neuroscientific research to present a representationalist and functional analysis of what a consciously experienced first-person perspective actually is. Building a bridge between the humanities and the empirical sciences of the mind, he develops new conceptual toolkits and metaphors; uses case studies of unusual states of mind such as agnosia, neglect, blindsight, and hallucinations; and offers new sets of multilevel constraints for the concept of consciousness. >Metzinger's central question is: How exactly does strong, consciously experienced subjectivity emerge out of objective events in the natural world? His epistemic goal is to determine whether conscious experience, in particular the experience of being someone that results from the emergence of a phenomenal self, can be analyzed on subpersonal levels of description. He also asks if and how our Cartesian intuitions that subjective experiences as such can never be reductively explained are themselves ultimately rooted in the deeper representational structure of our conscious minds.

>Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity
https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=ABC6E7FDAB2AA319B75B929FD4E67B74

>>15134356
>good to know that consciousness isn't physical

Good to know that people are settling their minds on matters of philosophy with the simple power of a contrarian attitude toward the Atlantic.

>>15134374

>>15134395
Dude you just said maths and science are pseud wank. You are in no position to talk about other people's contrarian attitudes.

>>15134390
>inside cover posting
stop

>>15134409
>Dude you just said maths and science are pseud wank.

If I printed every word you've ever spoken as the contents of a buzzfeed listicle, you would cease to be.

>>15134442
We get it, you're overly familiar with trash journalism. No need to keep reminding us of your midwittery.

>>15133861
bro, you're on /lit/, consciousness is a sacred cow here, none of these plebs will accept that by all indications it is an illusion. They'll just cling to shit like quantum uncertainty as if that gap in knowledge allows for free will

>>15134457
>consciousness is a sacred cow here
It kinda has to be, we can't be /npclit/, can we?

>>15134457
'Consciousness' is not equivalent to 'free will.' May the dust of your volumes clog your computer's cooling system.

>>15134442
It would be extremely shameful.

>>15134663
For "you"

>>15133861
A reminder this man refuted all of /lit/s favorite philosophers thus bestowing him as the philosopher king.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NvuhC8IvdSs

>>15134504
You're speaking to a hylic. The prison built for psychics, like determinism and other anti-freedom cosmologies - is not seen by them. They react to a mechanical system, and they are not processing any of this, there is no one there to process it. Might as well talk to cleverbot.

>>15134691
Based.

>>15134374
Based and common sense pilled

>>15134457
>by all indications it is an illusion

It is literally the only thing we know isn't an illusion you fucking retard. Everything else, the universe, our bodies, time, space, whatever could be an illusion except consciousness.

>>15134691
Read Mani and Zarathustra, gnosticbro

>The hymns of Zoroaster : a new translation of the most ancient sacred texts of Iran
https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=FD2491509C82880E3619AA42B44D6C09

>Manichaeism
http://www.gnosis.org/library/manis.htm

>>15134691
I knew you would say that

>>15133861
Nothing typed in this post or in the article is proof of what you're trying to assert

>>15133861
>theatlantic.com
Stopped reading right there.

I'm not going to read your propaganda mouthpiece, get back to ruining the world Billy boy.

>>15134894
>Comes from a badthink source
>Whhhrrr click: DISREGARD

You fucking npc

>>15133861
>Consciousness is entirely physical
Okay, so where is it?

>>15134054
A slug cant choose which side of this argument to sit on, can they?

>>15133861
'Physical' is entirely consciousness. If you try to define physical substance you end up with a noumenous unsensed reality- a completely non-empirical entity. Why? Lets say a fire is matter. You see the fire as a human does- red, orange yellow. But how would a snake perceive the fire? We cannot conceive of it, but we call their perceptions infrared. Humans only perceive 'visible' light, 'visible' here being a term relative to humanity, because for a snake infrared is 'visible' light. But the fire also has radio waves, UV rays, both of which are not perceivable to humans. The fire then is a posited unperceivable and unperceived entity that has latent within it the ability to be perceived- what is perceived depending on the structure of that which perceives it, i.e. snake vs. man, infrared vs. visible light. Then what is matter? Matter is a non-empirical singularity of possible perception. It is only known through a consciousness's synthesis and actualization of it. Everything here boils down to human perception- everything normally thought of as 'matter' is really 'reality which human consciousness can interpret.' Which is to say, a chair that is hard and brown and wooden, is really a collection of synthesized perceptions- the 'matter' is an unknowable singularity which allows for these perceptions. The best definition of 'matter' is the mathematical and conceptual framework which we use to understand the flow and transformation of reality- gravity, expressed through mathematics, shows the transformation of things through space and time. So matter is, when boiled down, only mathematical equations which describe the process of consciousness. Materialism is the stupidest fucking philosophy on the face of the earth, held true by midwits who cannot think past 'science good,' and don't understand that the concepts of matter is itself a constructions of consciousness. This doesn't even get into the hellish moral existence which Materialism implies, which is an existence of pure nihilism. The unfortunate bullshit of it all is that, because consciousness is real, this era of belief in materialism does not actualize a nihilistic universe where nothing matters, because consciousness fundamentally is and meaning fundamentally is- what belief in materialism does then is obfuscate with language games an understanding of reality which would allow us to get out of this miserable hellscape of materialism and base animal hedonism. Materialists enjoy your time while it lasts, teleology will overcome you, and you'll be looked back on with as much pity and contempt as we look back on the Aztecs with.

>>15134942
Neither can you.

that's still a stupid reification of consciousness. my "consciousness" filters out radio waves? no, my sensory organs can't process them. consciousness is not an entity that does anything, to claim so is crypto-cartesian, recycling the same bullshit you're trying to refute. what do you mean by running commentary? that there's a constant monologue running through my head that tells me "this is a computer, this is a keyboard"? this is not necessary to know what things are. and who would my consciousness (which is not a thing, again) tell this to if you're trying to argue that there's no you? and how am i deliberately unaware of the physically origins of consciousness? how on earth would i be aware of this? that's a theory, not sensory information. and if the "useless" information of the true origins of my consciousness are filtered, why would i believe that it's "coming out of ether" in its stead? not really useful either. so there is no "me" it's just a projection for the sake of increasing my survival? whose survival? i thought i don't exist. what you're arguing is that my "self" is not some spooky ghost entity? great revelation, of course there's no "i" or "you" as a separate, immaterial entity but from this it does not follow that there's no "me". your whole post is just gibberish.

>>15134927
It's a process in the brain, Jesus Christ.

Read
>>15134347
>>15134390

that's still a stupid reification of consciousness. my "consciousness" filters out radio waves? no, my sensory organs can't process them. consciousness is not an entity that does anything, to claim so is crypto-cartesian, recycling the same bullshit you're trying to refute. what do you mean by running commentary? that there's a constant monologue running through my head that tells me "this is a computer, this is a keyboard"? this is not necessary to know what things are. and who would my consciousness (which is not a thing, again) tell this to if you're trying to argue that there's no you? and how am i deliberately unaware of the physical origins of consciousness? how on earth would i be aware of this? that's a theory, not sensory information. and if the "useless" information of the true origins of my consciousness are filtered, why would i believe that it's "coming out of ether" in its stead? not really useful either. so there is no "me", it's just a projection for the sake of increasing my survival? whose survival? i thought i don't exist. what you're arguing is that my "self" is not some spooky ghost entity? great revelation, of course there's no "i" or "you" as a separate, immaterial entity but from this it does not follow that there's no "me". your whole post is just gibberish.

>>15133861
>haha we are purely material, right? nothing will happen after I die so I don't need to worry, RIGHT?
nice cope

>>15135016
You're ignoring the truth of nihilism: it is the gateway to pragmatism, a radical reversal of outlook, in that because nothing matters, we are not only free to, but forced to make social organization and meaning for ourselves in biographical time.
Because these two Realities are real and true:
Linear Time is real.
There is only one universe.

This is why the enhancement of life right now is so important.

>>15135078
No, this makes life matter MORE not less.
If there's no afterlife, life right now becomes intensely important

>>15135078
the opposite is also cope
>haha surely we aren't only matter, right? of course death won't be the end and i will live forever in heaven in a state of everlasting joy, right?
what now?

>>15135016
>So matter is, when boiled down, only mathematical equations which describe the process of consciousness.
Stop reading right here, all intellectuals deserve to be thrown off a bridge

>>15135070
His post is poorly written, he didn't fully understand the theory.
Read this inside cover summary:
>>15134347

>>15135130
>may have
>proposes

>>15135100
So the truth of Nihilism is the recognition that there is no truth in nihilism. I agree, in a sense, but I wouldn't call that nihilism's truth so much as truth's evolution when it contacts nihilism. Universal eudaimonia is the only end worth pursuing.

>>15135126
The whole point is mathematics is not enough. Say something that isn't an ad hominem meme, I dare you.

>>15135130
he tries to derive some edgy "redpill" revelations from it that sound like out of some lousy philosophical, nihilistic sci-fi shit. there's no self, you're just a bunch of atoms floating through space blabla. the author of the story is also an idiot because he uses the word consciousness differently from its common use to draw attention to his (likely solid) scientific research by suggesting that it offers some fundamental truths about the human condition. which it does not obviously.

>>15134872
Will do. I've ignored the sacred texts for too long.

>>15135060
But a "process" is still of a higher order than matter. You can describe a process in terms of the physical, but a process itself is supra-physical (or purely conceptual). Therefore, I can ask, "where in the (physical) world is the process?"

>>15135157
>Universal eudaimonia is the only end worth pursuing.

"Eudaimonia" is most likely the biproduct of good digestion.

To assert that consciousness is entirely physical means it must be reducible to the laws of physics.

Tell me, how does consciousness reduce to the laws of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, entropy, and so on. How is explicable in terms of gravity? How is it explicable in terms of the fundamental interactions?

>>15135228
A situation where you never have to excrete because you finally ate pure food and don't have to filthy yourself any more?

>>15135116
I'm not a christcuck

>>15135238
then what? do you believe you get reincarnated? go into nirvana? there aren't that many options. or just a self-hating atheist who compulsively has to mock his own beliefs?

>>15135255
>or just a self-hating atheist who compulsively has to mock his own beliefs?
You called?

>>15134066
The physical is not the concept of the physical, you "fucking moron".

>>15135174
>he uses the word consciousness differently from its common use
wtf are you talking about?

>>15135220
>a process itself is supra-physical (or purely conceptual).
Again w t f are you talking about?
These are like, your opinion, man

>>15135235
>Tell me, how does consciousness reduce to the laws of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, entropy, and so on. How is explicable in terms of gravity? How is it explicable in terms of the fundamental interactions?

>>15135288
That deserves blackhole where brain goes, not s o y guy

>>15135213
Original Magic by Flowers is also good as a supplement
https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=389D009F8618379020AE60A6E178FF5D

>>15135255
reincarnation
consciousness is the finest product of nature, it must go somewhere and not be discarded

>>15135406
Souls are bullshit.
At least take a panpsychism or monist perspective if you're going to hang on to consciousness as an external self-sufficient entity.

But that's bullshit. Consciousness is the action of the attention modeling machinery in the brain.
There is no ghost that lives inside you, except for bioelectricity which may be capable of having consciousness, because energy can do complex things and Bohm showed that plasmas self-organize in an intelligent way.

Perhaps energy rules everything. PicRel

>Consciousness is entirely physical.

Wrong
https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY

>>15133927
>Says there's no "self"
>Describes the "self"
Right, so there is a "self" then & you refuted your own argument. You're welcome to argue that the self is, what, a slug with no free will is it? That's still a self. This reminds of rediculous arguments about how "conciousness is an illusion", and misses the fact an illusion implies an awareness of the illusion - which regardless of what it is, is still part of some kind of conciousness & the whole thing is a bunch of semantic quibbling & category errors.

>>15134320
/thread.

>>15135648
No, because self presupposes an entity and doer. There is none, think of the human organism as a machine, which is a good metaphor about how we function

>>15135679
Cool, so then the self is a machine? Or is the human organism not an entity?

>>15135694
There is no self there, it's just happening. There is no separation ie no self/ entity. When a thought arrives can you explain how that thought was crafted? We think thoughts are self-generated, but they're totally inconspicuous in its formulation, if there is a self that means there's a separate entity from the body controlling things, can you show me where it is? Thoughts are mostly affected by the outside world and the senses.

>>15135648
Nobody has said there's no self or consciousness, just that consciousness is a caricature artist and liar, and that both self and consciousness are brain-nervous functions, not magical ghosts.

test

>>15133895
really cringed at this

>>15133861
Didn't you make this thread with this exact image a day or two ago?

>>15135607
>because energy can do complex things and Bohm showed that plasmas self-organize in an intelligent way.
>>>/x/

>>15135406
nature routinely discards the most magnificent of it's productions

>>15135220
could you describe the type of answer you would even accept to your question? because otherwise you're talking pure drivel

>>15136106
Yep, very /x/.
Deal with it, you guys are the ones defending /x/ shit like magic ghost consciousness nonsense so

>>15135220
what a cope lmao

>>15133861
>>>/his/

this only supports the notion that consciousness is caused by physical forces. it is not physical in and of itself. has anyone refuted the 'factory of the brain' argument yet?

>>15134005
one word to btfo
>schizophrenia

>>15135839
>Nobody has said there's no self.
That's what's claimed in OP, but Ok.
Oh, and here too: >>15135807
I agree, conciousness may well be reducible to electrochemical interactions inside the brain - that doesn't mean it isn't real or doesn't matter. If anything, that makes it even weirder & still doesn't explain why it's experienced the way it is. There's a reason the qualia problem & the problem of conciousness are so intractable - if they weren't, AGI would be much closer than it currently is. And even if you reduce conciousness to a set of material interactions, what the hell is matter anyway?

>>15135807
>t. If there's an operating system controlling the computer, it must be seperate from the computer, can you show me where it is?
The eternal fallacy of reductionists - that because something is made of components, the higher level "thing" doesn't exist. Plus more category errors.

>thoughts are mostly affected by the outside world and the senses.
Ok, so by implication you also think thoughts are affected by the outside world WITHOUT the medium of the senses, is that right? And who or what experiences the thoughts? And you say "mostly", so what else affects them?

>>15137943
>Ok, so by implication you also think thoughts are affected by the outside world WITHOUT the medium of the senses, is that right? And who or what experiences the thoughts? And you say "mostly", so what else affects them?
I said senses/brain too acting as the medium, the brain acts like an antenna picking the thoughts why? No clue. But, if there was a "you" that would mean you crafted the thought from scratch, but you didn't did you? Who experiences the thoughts? Thought, what you call "you" is thought, you are thought, you have separated yourself from the world around, which has isolated you trapping you into a world of thought (illusion)

>>15133861
If I were to perfectly recreate my brain as it is in its physical state, would I, all of a sudden, be conscious in two places at the same time?

>>15137987
It's a possible result since the Universe would count it as a single unit that's merely distant. The interaction would ignore any spatial differences in interaction.
This is how quantum teleportation works.

However, it might induce schizophrenia on you since the information transacted this way is scrambled.

>>15138247
>However, it might induce schizophrenia on you since the information transacted this way is scrambled.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJLhnts9-oQ
Wait a second...

>>15136074
Yea, I did. So what. What's your point?

Oh you haven't got one? You're just whining like a baby about a reposted thread? Fuck off and die you fucking woman.

>>15133861
The way we measure physical and chemical behavior of the world, and then in our bodies, is reliant on a multitude of learned processes, which are reliant on sense data and a more primordial knowledge.

It doesn't matter what pain looks like when zoomed in, it's felt and that feeling causes the reaction to it. Turning everything into a visual format to sterilize it is a cope, a way to ignore the pain of knowledge.

>>15134340
keep on sleepin bby

>>15134340
>he doesn't get it
Rational man

>>15134040
>You could never just have the idea of a toaster pop into your head fully formed without prior knowledge of heat transfer, metal conductivity of heat, electricity etc.
not sure what exactly you are arguing here. most people can quite easily conceive of a toaster without those other things. people use toasters every day without knowledge of the scientific principles behind how they work. it would be quite easy for me to think of something that is currently impossible without worrying too much about how it would work. fiction writers, especially science fiction writers, do that all the time.

>>15133959
>nothing but that data
The Human body gives the brain the data that shapes your personality.
Persons are given meaning by the human(ity) they are part of.
>>15133861
no shit, Sherlock. we are the action of the human's brain. it's just that we forget it

>>15138802
>not sure what exactly you are arguing here. most people can quite easily conceive of a toaster without those other things.
You're a fucking drooling moron.

Obviously we're pretending BEFORE toasters were invented. Before electricity, before all the collective knowledge a toaster uses was discovered.

>>15138802
>most people can quite easily conceive of a toaster without those other things
is conceiving a toaster a Reward? if not, we won't think about a toaster.
let's not dig into consensus
And I don't wanna meme but
"This is a very pleasant toaster"

>>15138890
>You're a fucking drooling moron.
of course it is possible to conceive of things before they are invented. are you saying you've never daydreamed about something completely insane, something completely beyond anything that humans have ever invented? you must be a fucking drooling moron.
furthermore humans have been toasting bread by other means since the dawn of time. the idea of a device that could do it for them is not that far outside normal human understanding. did you never toast anything over a fire when you were a kid? you fucking drooling moron.

>>15138903
>is conceiving a toaster a Reward?
no, but a piece of good cheese on toast is.

If consciousness is physical why can't we create it in a lab?

>>15139317
Because it was forged over billions of years and humanity has had science for barely 200 years

>>15133861
didnt you get btfo enough last time ?

>>15136385
>you guys are the ones defending /x/ shit like magic ghost consciousness nonsense so
See >>15134133 your ideas are equally /x/

>>15133927
Cringe and fremdschämpilled

>>15134072
>>15139293
toastiest posts in this bread
in fact, the only toasts I'd bother posting
I mean, I wouldn't post anything but toast in this shitty thread for retards

>>15140657
toastin

>>15140667
perceive this toast
IMAGINE it entering the mouth of the biological deterministic machine "you" call (((You)))rself

who's witnessing the perception of the imagination of the toast? who's witnessing the witnessing of the witnessing? nobody—there is only the basedness of the TOAST

>control f
>hard problem
>no results
>leave thread

>>15141771
we're not interested in your mom's pet name for you

>>15141771
>I LOOKED UP THIS ONE TERM AND NOW I'LL SPAM IT ENDLESSLY TO TRY TO APPEAR SMUG AND INTELLIGENT
Either participate or shut the fuck up moron

>>15139709

>We can totally perceive and understand this billion year old force even though we've only been cogent of it for a few generations!

Hm

>>15133861
>Atlantic
Stopped reading there.

>>15133927
‘Data’ is entirely rooted in human conceptualization. You’re using a human conception to try to reduce human consciousness. Midwit.

this is wrong view, specifically the 3rd one mentioned here
this has been refuted multiple times by multiple thinkers
>"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
>It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self...

>>15143326
also, the fourth mentioned here
>Herein, housefather, the untaught manyfolk, who discern not those who are ariyans, who are unskilled in the ariyan doctrine, who are untrained in the ariyan doctrine... they regard body as the self, they regard the self as having body, body as being in the self, the self as being in the body.

>>15143198
Lazy dismissal usually associated with sjw faggots. I am disappoint

>>15143215
We don’t know words by knowing their “definition” but by the complex models we have for them in our head. When you take the effort to define a word (or anything, for that matter), you’re just encoding (translating) that model into speech.

When you define a word, it’s more like a description, really: you’re trying to transfer a particular understanding (a subset of the whole) about that word to another person, and you can’t communicate the complex model as it lives in your head telepathically, so you have to resort to something more rudimentary.

Consciousness is a caricature artist, it just makes quick models of sense data. It's very inaccurate.
This blows your bullshit right out, bud