/lit/ - Literature

>>15365133
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
No, and materialism is wrong, and no materialist should be taken seriously.

>>15365133
The real answer is Maybe, but none have done it yet in a satisfactory way

>>15365133
No, but that doesn't mean it's immaterial.

>Can a soul be explained in immaterial terms?
>What about a ghost?

>>15365141
There is no way to explain why subjective experience exists when looking at it from the outside.
When brain matter is destroyed, various functions turn off, but as far as saying why neurons flickering gives rise to subjective experience, there is just no way to ever cross that bridge.

>>15365133
Uh, yeah. Brain electricity go *bzzzzt*.

>>15365133
Yes.

>>15365196
No.

>>15365133
It can't be explained in any terms.

There is literally no problem of consciousness. There is nothing about consciousness to explain.

>>15365278
Elaborate.

>>15365152
Just because human's can't explain something doesn't mean it's impossible.

>>15365133
Not unless you redefine "physical" so that it includes the metal.

>>15365152
Just because humans can't explain something doesn't mean it's impossible.

>>15365133
no

>>15365133
Yes. Panpsychism.
>[conscious] material world go hmmmmmmm

>>15365324
Sure, but that's not justification enough to cling on to physicalism if it fails to account for all phenomena.

>>15365330
>Civil servant
Makes sense.

>>15365333
But the mental states still aren't physical. They're something other than the matter that they are associated with.

>>15365196
Man, Hurssel lived in such a different time. This guy was doing phenomenology, yet he was mathematically and scientifcally informed. It was a time when you could do a largerly humanities field like anthropology or sociology and you took it seriously, not like, it’s all just an opinion bro, let immigrants in,

>>15365346
>But the mental states still aren't physical.
They are, the mental and physical cannot be separated.

Man, sure are lots of people talking about stuff they have 0 knowledge of

>>15365399
Present arguments.

>>15365383
You need to do DMT, but don't dive right in start with some mushrooms or other easier psychedelics

Question here, if the hard problem of consciousness as laid out is unsolvable, then can we even be sure that phenomenology is restricted to organic beings? Could consciousness not be the by-product of physical processes taking place? Meaning: is it not a all-too-human prejudice to assume that consciousness is restricted to those beings who are capable of expressing it?

>>15365133
>subjective experience of every living human is emerging from nothing into something
>but once you are dead you are dead forever :^)
Materialists: not even once

Stimulus -> sensory receptors -> neurons -> other nuerons(?)

Im pretty sure consciousness is just a conglormorate of different physical products. We have a mind that is computing and a body that is feeling. Physical experience is just neurons firing and an associated cognitive calculation that attaches a value and idea to it. “Who” feels it? Your body.

No. Your thoughts aren't physical

>>15365468
All atoms and phenomena (fire, electricity, etc.) are basically interchangeable and have no identity.
But your specific consciousness is a unique phenomena localized in your head that has a beginning and end and will never recur.

Either -
1) Consciousness is no different from any other phenomenon (has no identity), and so wherever there is consciousness, your consciousness will be.
2) Consciousness has the unique property of identity, and so can't be expected to obey any of the laws of the identity-less physical universe.

It's probably 2, because humans have subjectivity (identity). So materialism is wrong. QED.

There is nothing to do but get lost in vast tomes of neuroscientific gobbledegok.

>>15365133
Yes, why wouldn't it be?

>>15365501
every person has a different brain, different neurons, and neurons firing at different times. how does your argument even make sense?

>>15365501
>All atoms and phenomena (fire, electricity, etc.) are basically interchangeable and have no identity.

Anon, im afraid this crazy mumbo jumbo can be btfo’d really easily. Identity is a material quality as well, determined by physical properties and composition. Personaly identity is an abstract calculation that need not be there (see: Buddhism). It’s a logical signifier. Computer have self-identities too, do they have consciousness? Is programming immaterial?

Daredevils who dare to ask such questions. Demons of the unknown to ponder the phenomenon of consciousness. What you consider consciousness, you foolish forgetable ignoramuses is nothing but the vibration of motion, of energy workings. Numbero Uno your consciousness is not your body, it concentrates within your body due to the high-density input and output of particularly nervous signals but if you let your prejudices fall you will quickjly notice that between you and the lamp on your table, there is no real distinction. The lamp in it's entirety is part of the conscioulogical process taking place in your vicinity as are your feet. Do you really believe that there is a separation here? The only reason you believe your feet to be yours is due to the nervous signlas emitted from it, yet you would not be foolish enough to reduce the attachment of your feet towards you solely to the parts which react to nervous stimulus, dont you? The bone as well belongs to you, just as does the lamp on the table in front of you. So does the keyboard as my fingers tap on it.

If you were to consider this you would understand why i am taking DMT all the time. EVERYONE DENIES ME for doing it, but they it is because they have falling into the stupid dichotomy of consciousness, and non consciousness. It is not true, if you are intelligent you will know this. If you have taken psychedelics you will know.

I once took DMT in my room and invited my then gf charletto to my place and as she walked in i got a real heavy laugh attack because that girl was sweating fear and anxiety. The sweat was in my eyes, in my brain, it actually ticklet my scalp, because i was already tripping and sucking it all in with my drug-enhanced antlers. I walked up to here while laughing and i felt how her vagina restricted itself due to self-security measures enacted by her some part of her brain but all i needed to do was give her the DMT and say: Just take it already, you'll be fine trust me. Even though i can sense how out of your fucking mind anxious you are right now, i know that you are the kind of person who will take this experience well. I made my eyes look confident to emit waves of trust which would settle down in her FungusBrain and smiled kindly, forgivably, forgivably for being so human in her instinctive reaction towards the unknown. She responded well to this, and this is just a single example of how our consciousness extends beyond ourself. She adopted to play a challenging role, which truly communicated her desire to take the drug, looking at me disapprovingly and saying that it seems i'm really tripping, because she isn't some girl named Charletto but actually my sister Helena, and told me i'd better not act crazy tonight because mom and dad are pissed at my lifestyle and they gonna flip if they find out i'm tripping on heavy psychedelics and that i should really do it at my friends place if i have to because she cant bother with the drama. I fell back down onto my bed laughin

>>15365429
We can't be sure of that. It could be that we're unknowingly creating phenomenal experiences in computers without the ability to express or even know that they have them.

>>15365535
All the sciences speak of moles and lumps of matter and interchangeable atoms.
Your subjectivity is an identity--you look out from a perspective.
What is the perspective? There are billions of them.
Are they recycled? What decides whether a perspective stays its perspective?
You can't handwave that shit away.

>>15365537
We don't know if computers have subjectivity.
YOU know you have your subjectivity.
What is your subjectivity? It has identity. It is distinct from my subjectivity.

>>15365524
You can't equate a qualitative experience, like seeing the color blue, with anything physical. There is no blue inside the brain that is identical to the subjective blue. There are only correlates.

>>15365539
Unfortunately you suffer from schizophrenia and you are generating word salad.

>>15365546
the particles themselves are interchangeable, but they form complex composites which are not.

>>15365330
This story is likely not true

Who else starts consciousness threads on /sci/ just to see the shitstorm?

>>15365289
Chalmers suggests a functionalist mind.
Chalmers suggests that p-zombies still behave as if they have qualia and that this is reasonable because they have brains.
This renders qualua epiphenomenal which seems unreasonable.
Qualia is intrinsic, irreducible, private and ineffable which renders it unusable in any discourse.

>>15365564
But your brain is also changing all the time over the course of your life, but you subjectively experience looking out from the same porthole over the course of your life.
What is the identity of subjectivity? Where does it emerge from?

If one atom was removed from your embryo, would you be dead, because the subjectivity of your embryo would be a different subjectivity? Obviously not.

Nothing makes sense without the idea of "souls", period.

>>15365539
oh my god the fucking sign limit. i wasnt even done yet. That really fucked me up. I had written like 4000 signs into the posting window before i was notified, no, i was notified before but i was so into telling my story that i didnt even realize that the red letters had appeared on the bottom.

In any case, to anyone really interested in exploratory experiences then i can really recommend to write on 4chan while being on psychs. It is really enlightening i think to notice how we relate to symbols, how deeply involved we become with sentences and how powerful they are at constructing realities. I know, it's all been said before but i mean on a really deep and intimate level. Sometimes i read sentences here while on psychs and i feel like a single combination of words, a single image conjured just warped everything around me. Like a single violent and malicious post has drowned the light out of the sun and shit like that. It's really intense and insightful in regards to the fragility of what we consider human nature. My take back is that we are too powerful. That even without malicious intent the powers we wield are so damn powerful that we can destroy lifes, fuck people up, destroy the whole fucking universe with a single post. Do you get that? You make a single post and it can transmit symbols into some innocent forsaken souls fungusBrain that will alter his life to such a degree and we are really careless with that. We dont pay enough attention to how we do but we do it nonetheless and so there's this really amazing vortex of symbolic interferences on this website, really really amazing vortex but very dangerous as well. Not as much on /lit/ because people here are mostly cheaply ironic and pretending and often do not go as deep as some people on r9k or v or tv or fit or whatever do. Lit is really stale in this regard but yet, sometimes, you can read an insecure voice here and i feel like i'm crying as a child myself, like i can feel it how i cried as a child, it echoes into my FungusBrain like you wouldn't believe and there's this really deep connection but mostly this connection is entirely based on information, you get that? Like you don't really connect but the information does and so i realize how this part of me that has cried as a child, like it connected with the world around me but not with the godman, which are people in general, because if they connect with it they can suddenly warp everything around you. You may be crying and sad but a person does the right thing or says the right words and suddenly you're good forever and things cant do that. They are a part of me but energy wise they are weak at influencing the world around them. Okay, Lamp, like hell, nice job spraying all that light on my wall and of course the energetic impact is massive but you're like a little i dont know just a little thing. But if another human was right here, it would be like Zeus would have descended. Each word sending me into massive vibrator

>>15365584
but you dont experience looking out from the same "porthole" your whole life, your perception and your perception of your self changes throughout your life

>If one atom was removed from your embryo, would you be dead, because the subjectivity of your embryo would be a different subjectivity? Obviously not.
right, no one is arguing that every atom is essential, its a complex system with redundancy

>>15365575
>which seems unreasonable.
nigger how could you possibly know

>>15365133
buddy, you have no idea.

>A YouTube video that was posted years ago is trending again amidst talk of various vaccines and treatments that are under development to battle the ongoing coronavirus pandemic that is infecting millions, killing hundreds of thousands and crippling economies worldwide.
>The video from 2005 was posted on December 29, 2012 and has garnered over 223,000 views, 1,700 likes and 550 comments as of the publishing of this article.
>In the 4-minute-long clip, a Pentagon speaker and small audience of about six individuals are present. The speaker flips through a series of slides while discussing some disturbing information as it allegedly relates to vaccines.
>Partial transcript:
>Speaker: “…Excuse me, on the left over here we have individuals who are religious fundamentalists, religious fanatics, and this is the expression, RT-PCR, real-time PCR, expression of the VMAT2 gene…”
>Audience member: “…[unintelligible] holes in your theory here.”
>Speaker: “So, let me complete. So, over here we have individuals who are not particularly fundamentalists – not particularly religious and you can see there’s a much reduced expression of this particular gene, the VMAT2 gene. Another evidence that supports the hypothesis for the development of this approach.”
>Audience member: “So, what you’re suggesting here is by spreading this virus, we’re going to eliminate individuals from donning on a bomb vest and going into a market and blowing up the market.”
>Speaker: “So, our hypothesis is that these are fanatical people. That they have over-expression of the VMAT2 gene and that ***by vaccinating them against this will eliminate this behavior.***”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ayxj5YoIyQA

https://cloverchronicle.com/2020/05/13/leaked-pentagon-briefing-reveals-some-vaccines-are-allegedly-used-to-modify-human-behavior

>>15365558
Why can't you? Neurochemistry is very complex, and though we don't know everything now, we know enough to say the basic aspects of consciousness occur in the brain, and there's no real reason to say otherwise. For example lobotomies drastically impact the conscious experience. Advances in neurochemistry will tell us more. Just because experiential knowledge like you say can't be explained in physical terms, doesn't mean it's non-physical itself. What causes that feeling can be explained in physical terms and is.
I think you will find the following texts illuminating
>Churchland, P., 1985, “Reduction, Qualia, and the Direct Introspection of Brain States”, Journal of Philosophy 82: 8–28
>1989, “Knowing Qualia: A Reply to Jackson”, in P. Churchland, A Neurocomputational Perspective: The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 67–76.

>>15365133
Consciousness is what happens when a nervous system gets too cocky and sprouts a brain stem. At first its pretty cool, you're upright, you're thinking, you're talking, you're using tools, using your upright verticality to navigate your environment better, orient yourself and so on– but then as civilisation starts to develop you realise you're capable of feeling so many things you didn't used to feel, like joy, rage, misery, despair, depression...

As you grow, you relive every evolutionary break that eventually gave rise to the shape you have taken today. Your gestation, incubation and growth periods are nothing more than the relived catastrophes in your genetic history re-enacting themselves on you at incredible speed. Thus we all possess this ancient memory that runs right the way back to the beginning of life itself. Of course, because life likely started in the volcanic rocks of the oceans, we must dive down into the very centre of the earth to find our source. In the process, we find– the volatility of trauma.

Turns out– shit was a mistake. Shit was a real big mistake. Turns out consciousness is an aberration of inorganic matter, a consequence of organic matter developing the ability to simulate its reality through nervous stimulation. Apparently, this wasn't good enough, so it developed a commanding control centre at the front to increase its processing power. The organism could now simulate– with even more precision and clarity– the world around it. So much so that this simulation became its own second world inside their heads.

And what did these poor creatures with worlds inside their heads discover? That what the universe really wanted for them, that all of space and time wanted from the human beings, is for them to return to the inorganic exteriority from whence they came. The universe was a hellish place. To exist was to suffer. Every atom in the world screaming at them to eliminate consciousness completely, to just pull their shit out from the brain stem down.

What else was there to do but abide?

>>15365133
If it could, then it couldn't.

>>15365567
>The government wanted to be sure that their investment in remote viewing was going into a valid enterprise, so to find out whether people can really view things from a distance using remote viewing, the government agencies commissioned the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) to perform 154 experiments with 26,000 separate trials over 16 years. At the end of that testing period, Edwin May, Ph.D., a researcher in low energy experimental nuclear physics, headed a team of researchers that analyzed the experiments and reported to the government.

>They concluded that the odds against someone merely guessing what remote viewers had described when focusing on a target at a distant location, was more than a billion billion to one. His only explanation was that they genuinely were seeing without using their eyes and without regard for how many miles away the target was.27

Oh shit, again. This sort of turning into a bad trip for me haha!
>>15365558
Dude. Really think about what it means if someone has schizophrenia. Like why people are called schizo on 4chan nowadays. Really think about it. Like really REALLY think about it. Sit down for 10 Minutes and think, what it means and what you are expressing. I'm not schizophrenic, and yet you are right but you arent even aware because you havent really sat down and pondered the PHENOMENOLOGY of Schizophrenia. If you see it as an illness you are so far off the mark, buddy. Like holy hell, you hit yourself with the baseball bat in the face! It is a certain configuration which does not correlate with a state of illness. It does not determine functionality, nor does what you call a world salad make any considerable judgement on what is being said. First of i would say WORLDS Salad, not world Salad because this is exactly what it is. The Schizophrenic has a disattached level to several modes of subjectivity, he will experience the world to such differing degrees despite being a a somewhat singular center of phenomenological input, he will experience within relatively similiar states such differeing degrees of subjectivity, that it may sweep him under the rug, but it may also give him a playful inclination regarding constellations of subjectivity. One of the most known examples of a schizophrenic truly honing his Worlds Mastery is David Lynch. From all but the particular time of the 21st century since his emergence to this day, and only on the fringe of the popular mainstream, from any other time people would have just like you called it World Salad. But in the case of David Lynch the status of his persona has invited people to engage more deeply with his world salad, to decypher the complex manifestations of subjectivity as he protrays them. Is it not the absolute testatement of schizophreny how he moves from Eraserhead to Straight Story to Twin Peaks to Elephant Man to Inland Empire. It is a vast multitude of subjectivities through which he shifts and adapts, because he is a master, without the slightest of issues. So really think about it. Really think about what Schizophrenia means.

Anyway back to my story. So i fell back down on my bed and i was laughing but then suddenly i wasn't really sure if Charletto was really playing the fool with me. I wasnt even sure if either Charletto or my sister existed. It all seemed possible in that moment, that i didnt live at home, that charletto was a girlfriend of mine in the city, that i had a sister, that her name was helen, that my parents would be pissed and i got some really intense imagery in my head, shifting in and out of different interpretations of reality. But then again, when we set our mind free it becomes overdaring, its such a thrill to really move your antlers beyond yourself that you may grow to believe that reality itself is a whirlwind. It is not. It is fucking PSYCHO but it is stable within itself, it follows laws a

>>15365575
The p-zombie argument isn't really made to sell the idea of epiphenomenlism actually being true in our world, the idea that we can conceive of a possible world (ie there is nothing logically ruling out the idea) where p-zombies do exist. If we accept that, then in that world they have all the functional properties, but still lack consciousness. Unless you can prove that this is logically impossible, then we have pretty good reason to believe that functional properties can't explain consciousness, even in our world.

>>15365627
But what is the identity of subjectivity?
What would it take for "you" to look out from eyes again after you die?
The same atoms put together the same way?
That can't be it, because you constantly change the material in you as you grow and eat food.

Therefore, dualism is true, and the soul exists, and materialists are just fucking stupid. I can't put it any more plainly.

>>15365704
The soul is the illusion of continuity, the everchanging states of perception only delude themself into believing that there is a consistency among them due to the consistency of the organic body creating the perceptions. There is no you, there is no soul

>>15365721
Then after I die, I should expect to exist again anywhere consciousness exists, because all consciousness is really the same.

>>15365721
>the everchanging states of perception only delude themself into believing that there is a consistency among them due to the consistency of the organic body creating the perceptions. There is no you, there is no soul
What a brainlet take

>>15365763
it's a pretty reasonable take, try to argue against it

>A large number of studies have demonstrated that people can know information without having any contact with what they have learned about. From the 1880s to the 1940s, there were 142 published articles describing 3.6 million individual trials with 4,600 people attempting to identify the number and suit of a playing card face down in front of them. In addition, ESP tests performed on the radio added 70,000 participants to the database. The studies were performed at over two dozen universities around the world by hundreds of respected professors.36

>The result was that participants were, on average, able to identify the cards at rates higher than chance. They knew information they could not have received unless their minds were able to obtain it without using the body. The results prompted Professor H. J. Eysenck, chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of London, to write in 1957, Unless there is a gigantic conspiracy involving some thirty University departments all around the world, and several hundred highly respected scientists in various fields, many of them originally hostile to the claims of the psychical researchers, the only conclusion the unbiased observer can come to must be that there does exist a small number of people who obtain knowledge existing either in other people’s minds, or in the outer world, by means as yet unknown to science.37

>>15365759
-It- never stops existing.

>>15365763
brainlet response.

>>15365704
there is no single "me", just different versions of me through time. so you could put the atoms into any arrangement of me through my life. although this depends on how strong outside influences are to forming that version of "me", so maybe you couldnt do it

>the one pseud who read Metzinger is back
*yawn*

>A number of verified near-death experiences on record provide unusually convincing evidence that the brain is not involved in the near-death experience. A small sample of these cases documented by physicians and nurses follows.

>Maria, a migrant worker brought to Harborview Medical Center’s cardiac care unit in cardiac arrest, near death, felt herself floating upward out of the hospital. As she rose, she saw, on a third-story window ledge of the hospital, "a man’s dark blue tennis shoe, well-worn, scuffed on the left side where the little toe would go. The shoelace was caught under the heel." Health care workers investigated and found the tennis shoe precisely where Maria had described it. The shoe was dark blue, had a well-worn scuff on the left side where the little toe would go, and the shoelace was caught under the heel.54

>In another, similar incident, after an unconscious patient was revived, she described floating above the hospital where she saw a red tennis shoe on the roof of the hospital. A janitor investigated and found a red tennis shoe, just as the patient described.55

>A famous NDE suggesting people are having sensory experiences when the body's senses were blocked or not functioning was the subject of a television documentary, "The Day I Died," and reported in Light and Death, a book by cardiologist Dr. Michael Sabom.59 To remove a deadly large aneurysm from beneath her brain, Pam Reynolds was put into a state of hypothermic cardiac arrest. Her body temperature was lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing were stopped, and the blood was drained from her head; her brain waves flattened, showing no brain activity.

>After her successful operation, she was warmed and her own blood was returned to her body. When she could communicate, she reported a startling near-death experience. She gave remarkably accurate, detailed descriptions of the surgical procedure. She reported that someone in the operating room said something about her arteries being small, and she described the Midas Rex bone saw as looking like an electric toothbrush, having interchangeable blades, and a high-pitched whirring sound.

>These things she saw and heard occurred during the time when she was deeply unconscious, but before the blood was actually drained from her. During the time she described hearing and seeing details, her eyes were taped shut and her ears were plugged with devices that monitored her brain stem activity. These devices produced loud clicks measuring 95 decibels at a rate of 11.3 clicks per second, drowning out all outside noise.60

>when your high level schizo posting only get's one (you)

I fucking hate the schizo-copycats. they destroyed the art of provocation.

>>15365654
that's cool as hell, but it's a long way from putting it out in life.

>>15365151
If its not physical its immaterial

>>15365133
obviously. but you have to be willing to explain it. you can't just go atoms aren't consciousness can't hear you NA-NA-NA-NNA-NAN. a lot of what people are doing is either operating with a deluded, overpowered conception of experience and consciousness that inherently doesn't let you reduce it, or refusing the explanation.
>how can atoms give rise to chairs?? a chair is not an atom so how can chairs be?
a lot of it isn't too different from this sort of confusion.

>>15365139
>Material can get really small and complex
>Therefore; eternal soul!!

>>15365139
Based

>>15365978
ok explain it then

>>15366034
read consciousness explained. I'm going to bed.

>>15366060
can’t do it huh, I figured

>>15365978

>>15365636
If qualia were epiphenomenal, meaning without causal efficiency, we could not possibly be aware of their existence and so wouldn't be here having conversations, writing books, and giving lectures about them.

>>15366121
Would p-zombies debate, give lectures, etc. on the hard problem of consciousness? If yes, then the more epiphenomenal consciousness becomes (if even unconscious robots act "as if" they are subjects), the more inexplicable it becomes also.

>>15366121
This is the silver bullet against epiphenomenalism. The only way out is to say that our brains just accidentally have an intuitive idea of consciousness that happens to be true, which is absurd.

>>15366150
>Would p-zombies debate, give lectures, etc. on the hard problem of consciousness?
P-zombies were originally defined as having physical behaviors exactly like that of non-zombies, but I don't think that's coherent with our capacity to talk about mental phenomena.
If "p-zombies" just means people without phenomenal experiences, then no, they wouldn't be able to do that unless there were some non-zombies around. If some people were p-zombies and others were not, the zombies would completely fail to understand what it is non-zombies mean by "consciousness". They would talk about shit like the physical events in the brain that correlate to phenomenal consciousness instead of consciousness itself because for them the latter does not exist.

>>15366121
>If qualia were epiphenomenal, meaning without causal efficiency, we could not possibly be aware of their existence
I can't believe Ive never thought of this. Holy fuck i'm a brainlet.

>>15366247
>If some people were p-zombies and others were not, the zombies would completely fail to understand what it is non-zombies mean by "consciousness"

That's exactly how most people do react. Does this mean it's ethical to enslave all physicalists?

>>15365133
how about I physically knock you unconscious, then try making this post again?

>>15365696
chalmers says that the mind has a functional relation to the brain and that the existence of p-zombies is unreasonable and implausible mainly for the reason that a p-zombie would still say that he is consciousness even if he wasnt. The mind must be functionally related but at the same time, it is clear the causal power lies in the brain. Once taking into account the fact qualia is ineffable, irreducible, private and intrinsic it is not only stripped of its causal power but is un-usable in any discourse. Qualia is caught in Nagelian sollipsism and it seems to be that there is a brute tautology in that qualia feels the way it is because it reflects a functional relationship. It cannot feel any other way without changing the functional relationship and you cannot explain why it feels like that because by definition it cannot be reduced to something else beyond this functional relationship. The reason it has to feel like that is because of the function. Its tautology, and given that the causal power seems to be with the brain it doesnt seem thaat qualia can reflect some separate or emergent ontology apart from the brain.

>>15366403
The qualia have to affect the brain for the brain to be aware of and say things about the qualia, no? Isn't that the anon above's point

>>15365133
yeah, I don't see why not. At most a few orders of magnitude more complex, but how is a human's state of mind fundamentally unlike a computer total-state snapshot.

>>15366403
Why should the brain's functioning include a phenomenal aspect?

>>>15365636
>If qualia were epiphenomenal, meaning without causal efficacy, we could not possibly be aware of their existence

At the same time, its very clear that brains are a wholly necessary and sufficient explanation as to why we believe we have qualia.

Its this kind of contradiction that leads Chalmers toward panpsychism.

>>15365133
1) in order for two things to interact, each must be able to affect the other in some discernible way
2) if something exhibits a discernible change in respect to physical stimuli, and effects discernible changes on material objects, that thing is effectively physical.

Therefore,
3) consciousness either IS a physical phenomenon, OR has no relation at all with the physical world.

>>15365133
yes why not??
if you would understand a lesser brain you would experience it.

>>15366496
You could just as easily turn this around to show that matter is a mental phenomenon.
>1) in order for two things to interact, each must be able to affect the other in some discernible way
>2) if something exhibits a discernible change in respect to mental stimuli, and effects discernible changes on mental objects, that thing is effectively mental.

>Therefore,
>3) matter either IS a mental phenomenon, OR has no relation at all with the mental world.

The argument is also consistent with neutral monism, which claims that everything is of one substance that has both physical and mental properties.

>>15366496
That's not the definition of physical used in metaphysics, because it's entirely vacuous. Non-physicality here simply refers to a categorically different type of substance or property, distinct from a physical substance or property. It's not something that exists in some other realm and can't ever be interacted with.

>>15366520
Yeah, I agree that's a fair reading. I'm just saying that if you accept that there IS a physical world, the mind is part of it. If you don't it's a creation of the mind.

I've never been able to decide whether I'm a monist or an atomist. It kind of doesn't matter.

>>15366531
Then I'm denying it's a meaningful distinction. If it's a member of the physical world, describing it quantitatively through physical methods is a valid approach and will eventually be more correct than a subjective one.

>>15365133
here, anon. Here it is explained:
>>15365005

Just take the EEM (extremely eliminative materialism) pill, bro

>>15365133
Yes.
Next?

>>15365133
>Consciousness & the Social Brain | Michael Graziano | TEDxCornellUniversity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjak6YgCVdc

>>15365133
yeah bro it's stored in the consciousness gland

>>15365133
here's a question for you analytic faggots.
why do you think you can get away with labeling something the "hard problem" when it has been discussed for centuries before you pseuds arrived on the scene?

>>15365551
If I made a Turing-complete plumbing system, would you begin to wonder if water and pipes are conscious?

>>15366624
All you can do is dodge the problem of subjectivity because that is the entire foundation of Western science.
"Such and such was observed. 30 milligrams of water were put into the pipette." etc. etc.
NO
YOU observed such and such
and YOU put 30 milligrams into the pipette.

Cut the bullshit.

>>15366599
the "hard problem" is a meme

>>15366547
>If it's a member of the physical world, describing it quantitatively through physical methods is a valid approach and will eventually be more correct than a subjective one.

Oh, but IF we are using your definition of physical, which just seems to be "anything that exists in this world", then you can't say that all physical things can be explained quantitatively. There might be properties about the world that are just something more than the sort of structure and behavior you can come to understand with the scientific process for things like electrons. Yet, those properties might still exist and have an effect, just not the sort of effect you can ever fully represent from a third person view. An example of one such type of property would be phenomenal properties: what it's like to experience mental states from a first person view; pain, pleasure, the redness of red, etc. There's just something about that which is so unlike structural or behavioral properties of matter, which is why I do think it's a meaningful distinction to call such properties non-physical.

>>15366599
Because the mind body problem was more broadly about mental states as a whole, including the more cognitive aspects. The hard problem is sort of hyper focused on phenomenal consciousness.

>>15366647
Put the bone down!

>>15365424
>you need to alter your experience with physical chemicals
>to prove that your experience is non-physical
Yeah ok

>>15366689
>if I beg the question hard enough I won't have to actually engage with any argument.

>>15366664
so the analytics have autistically delimited the scope of classical debates and framed it as an innovation. fucking pseuds

>>15365449
>from nothing
>thinks 'nothing' exists

>>15366458
Because the brain is sufficient for causing people to behave like they have phenomena.

>>15366653
I don't agree. It may very well be practical to talk about qualia, I certainly do it myself, but if it has a physical description associated with it, then it IS the physical description, for the purpose of a non-redundant ontology.

Sure, redness, suffering, stuff like that's great for casual discourse. But it isn't something separable from the physical phenomena that produces it. It's just a helpful way to break a problem down for discussion's sake.

>>15366756
>But it isn't something separable from the physical phenomena that produces it

Yes, on some level there is, precisely because you have to assert this inseparability.

>>15366741
What is the distinction between having phenomena and experiencing functional states "as if" they are phenomenal? What does this even mean?

>>15365612
Honestly, if anyone here was curious abut DMT/psychedelics, your rambling will have scared them out of it. You need to take it easy.

>>15366599
>hard problem
it makes their peepee go boioioioing haha

>>15366789
Imagine person A and B.

Person A is in pain, and acts like he's in pain.

Person B has no pain at all, but stil acts like he's in pain.

You can't really experience something if the experience is not phenomenal. It would just be like a machine acting like it's having experiences.

>>15366812
Then the problem of a machine producing the phenomenal becomes even more pressing.

>>15366789
Well its clear that we are having this conversation as a product of the causal interactions of our brainstates. They are sufficient for you to talk about, write about and assert your belief in phenomena.

>>15366789
>Yes, on some level there is, precisely because you have to assert this inseparability.
???
is an electron distinct from the electrical field it produces? The charge is an inseparable property of the thing itself. Thanks actually, it hadn't occurred to me that this isn't an intuitive understanding of what physical objects are like.

>>15365133
physical is a meaningless term. nobody can explain consciousness anymore than anything else like gravity. it’s there is all that can be said

>>15366831
>is an electron distinct from the electrical field it produces?
yes

>>15366831
>Consciousness happens in the head

That's all you are saying then.

>>15366799
checked
DO-DOING DOING DOING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ2cA2k4lYs

>>15366847
The thread is:
>Can consciousness be explain in purely physical terms?
Yes. Consciousness is a physical thing. It literally is the physical reality of the thing that produces it and nothing more.

>>15366841
I don't agree with you. Failing to exhibit the electrical field, it fails to be an electron. The field, likewise does not exist except as an inseparable part of the electron existing in the universe. There is no meaningful sense in which a thing and its properties ACTUALLY ARE separable. Again, it's a useful place to make a distinction for everyday discussion, but has no place in a serious ontology.

>>15366634
kek what dipshit Phil 101 class did you steal this critique from? it’s very common for papers to say “we did X”

>>15366895
>It literally is the physical reality of the thing that produces it and nothing more.
Anon, you're immediately contradicting yourself by drawing a distinction between "it" and "the thing that produces it". A thing can't produce itself.

>>15366895
>I don't agree with you
ok you’re wrong then. there’s an electron and there’s a field it produces, they’re different things even if one comes along with the other.

>>15366895
Describe the colour blue in physical terms.

>>15366913
See trope theory. 'Qualia' is just an antiquated, oversimplified way of thinking about experience.

>>15366904
I'm reacting to the distinction which is commonly drawn. I'm fully committed to the proposition that the distinction is an error. "Produces" is metaphorical language in this context, I apologize for making that unclear.

>>15366905
If two things are literally inseparable, they are not actually two things. The duality is purely a helper concept, not an accurate reflection of the universe. For what its worth, I have a BS in physics with a concentration in materials. Sensible people can disagree, I just want to assure you it's not an uninformed opinion.

>>15366913
light of a wavelength around 500nm

>>15366964
Explain how we distinguish the trope "blue" from the trope "red".

Or: an alien visits our planet that has never seen red before. Without showing them red, how do we communicate redness to them?

>>15366977
>light of a wavelength around 500nm

this isn't the color blue, it's a description of the states responsible for phenomenal blue. How do we express qualities quantitatively?

>>15365133
>>15365207
Imagine taking any of these fucks seriously. Like who tf actually debates about consciousness post 1980?

>>15366987
>we've exhausted all there is to understand about consciousness

You're either ignorant or a fool

>>15365133
Only the physical aspects of consciousness.

>>15366983
The quality that makes it blue is the light's wavelength.
If you're asking what the physical description of the perception of blue is, then I can't get more specific than "A functioning human brain is connected to functioning eyes, which are encountering light of around 500nm"

>>15366996
En garde!

>>15366977
>If two things are literally inseparable, they are not actually two things.
they are literally not inseparable, as griffiths will tell you. leave an electron to rest in space for awhile and then take it away, the field it produced drops off but not instantaneously. at a sufficiently far distance you'll still feel the field even though the electron that was producing it is gone. this is all assuming you insist on a classical EM picture which is fundamentally wrong anyway; in QFT particles are defined as excitations of a field so it's even clearer that there's a difference since you can have a field in its vacuum state with no particles anywhere

>>15366996
>i care about conciousness
I'm not a faggot, anon. Cool it.

>>15367005
No, a physical property of light is not, in itself, the phenomenal property of blue-ness. And if you told your alien that blue is what you get when a human brain ... he would be absolutely none the wider as to what blue is.

>>15367025
Then go get uploaded into the Borg faggot what do I care

>>15367032
Idk you're the one offering advice queer.

>>15367028
completely unjustifiable assertions.

>>15367047
Don't be obtuse, map is not the territory.

>>15367005
But then there is nothing to explain why 500nm relates to blue or not red. Blue is an experience, 500bm is a physical description with neither being completely following from the other. Would you say any machine that is detecting 500nm light is detecting blue?

>>15367020
Oh dear, I'm making a mess out of expressing this. Thanks for being patient with me.

I'm trying to express that things just are their effects on their environment and vice-versa. In the electron-being-removed example the residual field is still a component at electron-e at <x,y,z,t> as observed from <x',y',z',t'>. It's becoming clearer to me that this is a rather convoluted stance to hold, but I'm kind of stubborn about admitting the absolute minimum number of necessary categories into my metaphysical ontology.

>>15367055
Of course not, and light is not "brain interacting with eye interacting with light"

>>15367061
>But then there is nothing to explain why 500nm relates to blue or not red.
I guess I should add "typical" to "functioning human brain/eye" because it is a matter of chance. But that is the factor that accounts for your understanding of blue vs red.
>Blue is an experience
If you say so, but then an "experience" is the physical state of "brain and sensory organs interacting with stimuli"

Sorry, this line of argument is never going to be fruitful for any of us.

>>15365777
>there is no single "me", just different versions of me through time.
How could you assert that to be true, unless you wrongly identified as self that which is changing, composite and non-self and then labeled the successive iterations of that changing and composite thing as proof that there is no enduring 'you'? The self being unable to fully grasp itself as the object of its awareness just as the eye cannot see itself, anything which you had identified and labeled as 'these are the various series of me changing over time' could not have been your actual self because of the fact that you had observed them as objects of awareness.

>>15366756
>but if it has a physical description associated with it, then it IS the physical description
But the very question that's up for debate is whether we can even have the same sort of description (or if one can even exist) about qualia as we have about weakly emergent phenomena like weather. It's also a bit weird to say that something is identical to its physical description, since our conception of physics changes over time. Adding to that, physical descriptions can just tell you what things do, not really what they are.

>But it isn't something separable from the physical phenomena that produces it.
In your definition of physical, that is of course true, but that alone doesn't mean that it can be reduced to the structure and behavior of particles, like most other physical phenomena. You can disagree of course, but it's not something that just logically follows from the definition.

It's a bit hard to tell how much of this is you arguing for what consciousness is vs you arguing what "physical" ought to mean.

>>15365133
NO

What does /lit/ think about the idea that consciousness is an illusion and doesn't exist at all, as opposed to it being physical?

>>15367159
It's just an idealization borne of limited perception. The change is slow enough that there is a sense of continuity, but there is never a static 'meta-self'... It's an illusion (supported by memory). Your experience is a coordination of many different brain processes by the tectum (damage to this particular part of the midbrain results in vegetative state). If you pay very close attention to your experience, you'll find it's not as coherent as it seems.

>>15367564
Illusions exist, anon. You have to be more specific.

>>15366794
If anyone seriously looking into psychedelics was put off by some mong on /lit/ then they could have never handled them to begin with.

>>15365661
btw this was all an accident

>>15367564
what's the difference, experiencially speaking

>>15365133
>Can consciousness be explained
No.

>>15365165
Oh

>>15365133
Anything can be explained in any terms whatsoever and it may be art but probably isn't in the majority cases. To answer the question -Yes, and though it may excite some it won't excite others.

>>15365133
idk what this physical terms and nonphysical terms means bro why limit yourself or bother focusing on that part

>>15365133
It's clearly all chemicals and enzymes n' shit.

How do you people STILL not get this shit?

Consciousness is no longer a philosophical problem, but rather a neurological chemistry puzzle. If anyone is genuinely curious about consciousness, rather than reading some wikipedia pages that grossly simplify the subject and listening to anons pontificating about things far outside of their depth, I suggest Dehaene's work Consciousness And The Brain as a starting point. After that, I suggest you go to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ and enter in your key words. Protip: Consciousness will not be one of them.

>>15367722
because he’s still thinking in ideologies brother, he will learn

>>15367603
>It's an illusion
witnessed by whom?

>>15365133
Try and measure consciousness, I dare you, I double dare you.

>>15365133
>consciousness
That just means things like individual agency, information processing, problem solving ability etc. These could probably be explained by just stimulus-response, purely biochemical terms.

The real question is about subjectivity, as in, why are we able to experience things subjectively? (or at least me, I can't really be sure about the rest of you)

Theoretically you can create a computer that is as complex as a human brain and could process information the same way (even a Charles Babbage style mechanical one if we had enough space and material). But will that computer actually have inner experiences? Like if it gets hurt, would it actually feel something or just create a mechanical/electrical response going through nothing and produce a result? Nobody knows but if that's the case, who can tell if computers don't already have subjective experiences? Why doesn't my toothbrush have some or anything material? If not, what makes the biological brains so special?

I don't think the problem of subjectivity will ever be solved.

>>15365133
No, and neither by reductionist terms, either. Mind is only explainable by way of dualism. That's it.

>>15365133
neurons go bzzz

>>15366895
They're distinct even if they're inseparable.

>>15368138
You can't.

>>15367133
>accounts for understanding of blue vs red

but you have to explain why blue relates to 500nm. you cannot explain that. youre saying this isnt fruitful but then will you admit you are then deliberately ignoring the fact that blue isnt reducible to 500nm of light and ignoring a problem of explanation that has been troubling people for decades. you are ignoring that physical descriptions are inexplicably sufficient for describing all physical phenomena in the entire world without including the concept blue. If you rebuilt a model of this world based entirely on what we know from physics, you could recreate feasibly alot of phenomena in it but you would never reproduce blue.

do you accept this accusation of ignoring that whole issue?

>>15365196
Husserl is mega based.

>>15365324
Yeah but you cannot even come up with a theoretical way to explain it. It’s more than just we’re not capable of it at this time, it’s in the territory of we cannot even come with a way, given we had practically anything at our disposal, to settle the question.

>>15368542
>but you have to explain why blue relates to 500nm. you cannot explain that.
I don't know what's confusing. Blue IS the phenomenon of a brain interpreting 500nm light as recieved through a human eye. The structures of the eye and brain are what relate 500nm to blue.

>If you rebuilt a model of this world based entirely on what we know from physics, you could recreate feasibly alot of phenomena in it but you would never reproduce blue.
The key there is "what we know"
If you rebuilt a model of this wold based entirely on a complete version of physics, it would be indistinguishable from the universe.

You can keep asserting that there's something essentially non-physically describable, but there's really no reason to believe that's true.

>>15368712
but you are not explaining why 500nm is related to the colour blue and not red when there is no necessary relation where blue follows from 500nm and red from whatever over wavelength.

im not saying rebuild the world, im saying rebuild a model of the world. where would blue be in that model if you cobstructed it from what we know about physics? it wouldnt be there. blue isnt in physics! you can construct a brain based on physical principles and never in a million years would blue just suddenly emerge from my model regardless of whether that is the actual case in reality. If it is the case in reality then you have to explain why my physical model cannnot generate blue when it can feasibly generate all the other complexities of the human brain and behaviour.

>>15365133

No, nothing can.

>>15365721

What is experiencing this illusion?

>>15366697
I mean that's materialism for you really

>>15365330
What's the one part of the body we cannot live without? The heart! I think that consciousness must be located in the heart, not the head!

>>15366895
>I don't agree with you. Failing to exhibit the electrical field, it fails to be an electron. The field, likewise does not exist except as an inseparable part of the electron existing in the universe.
That's an interesting thought that I need time to percolate. I will say that many physicists prefer the idea of particles being like the phantoms of the interaction of different fields though. I assume it makes the maths easier.

I think, deep down, every materialist and every physicalist really does feel that there is something more to it.

>>15368853
That's probably indigestion.

>>15367005
How do you explain colour blindness - where colour perception is skewed despite two people looking at the same 500nm lightwave?

>>15368855
Made me laugh, anon.

>>15368837
I concur! Lets remove the head of an able-bodied man and see if the rest of him continues show signs of consciousness!

Matter doesn't move itself. Wood doesn't turn itself into a chair and bronze doesn't turn itself into a statue. It takes a craftsman to make a chair and statue, so the existence of chairs and statues is explained by the craftsman. The problem is the craftsman doesn't explain his own existence, he goes in and out of existence so his existence isn't necessary. In order to ultimately explain any sort of change we need recourse to something which is outside of matter and explains its own existence.

>>15365574
/sci/ is such a shity board. Full off high schoolers who think they know everything because they watched some youtube videos.

>>15369006
I mean, it does.

>>15367741
Reminder that your retarded reductionist view is incorrect

>there is no self

>>15367603
>Your experience is a coordination of many different brain processes by the tectum (damage to this particular part of the midbrain results in vegetative state)
Good job on outing yourself as a pseud. Tectum is one of the many areas that play a role in our being conscious, but it doesn't integrate experiences, thoughts etc. - the region which does that is the prefrontal cortex and a few others.
What your blunder shows is that you don't even have the most basic knowledge of neurology and therefore should go back. You know where to.

>>15369310
>calls someone a pseud
>doesnt know the difference between neuroscience and neurology

>>15369336
>implying it mattered which term I used in this case
Nice refutation, brainlet.
Go back.

>>15365574
>>15369123
I went to the thread on this topic on /sci/, and there's people writing entire responses then signing it with
>t. 195 IQ
and related shit. It really is shit.

>>15367612
Yeah, I never understood the whole "consciousness is an illusion" thing, since illusions have to exist themselves and if it exists somewhere and we're not able to pinpoint it in the material realm then it must be non-material. At which point, if there can be something non-material as an illusion, why can't there be something non-material like consciousness?

>>15369339
it does matter because neuroscience is different from neurology you fucking retard

>>15369385
The absolute state of you STEMtards.
Yes, neurology deals with neural disorders, but both in neurology and in neuroscience you need to know what functions each part of the brain has if you want to get anywhere. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about neurology or neuroscience, the point is that claiming that tectum integrates our experiences and is tied to them is wrong in both of those branches. If anything, you should have criticized me for not saying "lack of knowledge of neural structures" since that would be the most precise choice of words.
Do you understand now, you absolute brainlet?

>>15369397
Im not even him brainlet, Im just another poster calling you out on your retarded use of words. Its like going to the zoo and saying "Im going to the vet today". Its dumb. You cante expect people to take you seriously if you cant use words properly.

>>15365983
Dont speak about stuff you don't know mr.

>>15369420
Still here? You already know that you have to go back, brainlet, and take the guy who waltzes into a thread and spews incorrect shit about which part of the brain is connected to what.

>>15369588
back to what? what are you even talking about. btw fyi whatever that guy said about the tectum was correct.

>>15367766
BTFO

>>15369625
>tectum
>coordinating experience
You absolute fucking retard, the tectum plays a role in sleep and wakefulness, as well as vision, hearing etc. but it does not coordinate our thoughts or integrate experiences. That's what the prefrontal cortex does.
This is the last reply you get.

>>15367766
The absolute unit
>>15367603 and similar retards getting blown the fuck out

>>15369625
>whatever that guy said was correct.
WEAK

>>15365152
It's just a trivial causal relationship, fire produces smoke and brains produce consciousness.

>>15367564
The existence of consciousness is at least as self-evidently true. Denying the existence of consciousness is incoherent.

However, there's also another sense in which people sometimes use the phrase "consciousness is an illusion". In this second sense, it only says that conscious experiences aren't accurate representations of the physical phenomena occurring in the brain which correspond to those conscious experiences.
This is true but also completely trivial in that it doesn't really say anything about the body-mind problem, yet people still throw it around as if it was some really deep realization that singlehandedly ends the whole debate.

>>15369792
>The existence of consciousness is at least as self-evidently true.
as the existence of the physical world

>>15369778
>using the "fire produces smoke" analogy
Smoke is as material as the fire, but conciousness isn't material, brainlet. What are you, twelve?

>>15365324
>science of the gaps
Is this how low-quality /lit/ has become? That we have a faggot who uses "we can't explain it yet but we eventually will! fuck yeah science!" as a serious argument?
The fact that people like you actually post on here is the ultimate proof that the quality of the board is shit. I shudder to imagine you voicing on /lit/ your interpretations of literature through the angle of scientism.

>>15369826
>noooooooooo science can’t just progress and learn new things over time you’re doin a heckin scientism!!!

>>15369300
how do you know

>>15365152
>There is no way to explain why subjective experience exists when looking at it from the outside.
>there is just no way to ever cross that bridge.
Why not?

>>15365330
>a literal brainlet

>>15365133
>any sciencefag ever saying anything conclusive about anything ever, after science has done nothing but been proven wrong ever since it existed, has been proven wrong so much that many think that it is defining characteristic that it is proven wrong

Lel.

>>15365677
I would like the source for this

>>15365133
>purely physical terms?
Once we have those, our concept of physics has changed.

>>15369997
i see you are a man of fine taste, my panpsychist physicalist brother

>>15369873
>using that cringe basedboy meme
Out.

I'd consider myself a realist, alright? But in philosophical terms I'm what's called a pessimist... I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself - we are creatures that should not exist by natural law... We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, that accretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody's nobody... I think the honorable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction - one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.

>>15369807
It's not relevant. A causal connection is a regular succession of events x followed by events y. In the case of fire a physical event is always followed by another physical event, in the case of the brain a physical event is followed by a mental event. It's a regular succession, no more mysterious than the first case. But your tiny brain hears about mental and physical and gets all confused.

>>15366599
>analytic faggots
fuck off dennet part of conceptual analysis gang
the analytic / cognitive science split is more fierce than the analytic / continental (r.i.p) split

>>15370063
>B succeeds A
>D succeeds C
>therefore, B and D are the same type of thing
Don't post anything on /lit/ ever again, brainlet.

>>15370021
Seethe.

>>15370079
I can't fathom how tiny your brain is, when did I say that both events are the same? I am saying that there is nothing mysterious in how the brain causes conscious experience because a causal connection is a regular succession and there is nothing in the concept of a regular succession that entails that a physical thing can't be succeeded by a mental thing.

>>15370111
>being THIS much of a brainlet that you still can't stop focusing on the succession and look at the quality of the thing that emerges
Jesus, I really hope you're baiting.
>there is nothing in the concept of a regular succession that entails that a physical thing can't be succeeded by a mental thing
Absolutely embarrassing. There is no way that something mental can arise just through the fluctuation of ions, brainlet. How does the conversion happen? Why can't we reproduce consciousness? Why does only specific matter induce it? There's many more questions, but your sub 90 IQ brain can't seem to grasp them so it goes for the extremely simple to understand reductionistic view.
My guess is that you not only don't know shit about philosophy, but about neuroscience as well. Brainlets like you love to watch pop sci videos on youtube and memes on facebook.

>>15370179
>Why can't we reproduce consciousness?
i will have reproduced some butthurt consciousness by posting this very reply ;^)

>>15367766
Reading comprehension. I'm saying that it's the feeling of a static meta-self which is an illusion, not that the experience/changing self doesn't exist.

>>15368856
Biology. Differences in biology result in differences of perception. There is also a small segment of the population which has an extra cone-type in their retinas (aside from the usual R/G/B photo-pigment cones)... These people experience wavelengths of light that the rest of us don't. Again, we're talking about tropes, not qualia... No two instances of light reflecting off an object or our perception of it are actually identical, it just seems that way due to our limited perception.

>>15369310
The prefrontal cortex may help to process experiences after the fact (it is considered the 'executive' part of the brain because of its importance in reasoning, language and personality — the fancy stuff), but it is the dorsal midbrain (tectum) which allows us to have an experience at all. You are misinformed.

>>15369378
I didn't say illusions were non-material. You're not thinking critically, you're just going where you want to go.

>>15369646
Please stop spreading your ignorance. Without the tectum you do not have experience. The prefrontal cortex does fancy things with experience ex post facto.

>>15370063
But then you have the interaction problem where you have to explain by what mechanism physical events can cause mental ones.

>>15365152
Why do you think subjective experience is explainable in physical terms? Anything with sensors and actuators basically has it's own reference frame created from physical matter. Thoughts through images and internal monologue simply add complexity and self reference abilities.

>>15366121
People are talking and writing about tons of things without causal efficiency, like dragons and magic. An idea can exist without what it signifies.

>>15370365
Yes, it's theoretically possible that we would be able to talk about consciousness even if epiphenomenalism were true, but as this anon said >>15366218 that would require us to be born with the intuitive idea that consciousness exists. However, this is still problematic for epiphenomenalism because it would make all our claims about consciousness completely unjustified if not utterly meaningless, including epiphenomenalism itself. So even if epiphenomenalism is true, it's impossible to justify the belief that it's true.

>>15367061
Yes, it is important. You would never get blue from 100 nm.

>>15368753
How would you know there is no necessary connection?

>>15370449
That's not true. There are experiments where under certain conditions they can flash "red" light at people (light with frequencies of ~750nm) and the people experience "orange" despite not having any mental or visual problems. I'm gonna go try to find it again

>>15369646
It does coordinate your experiences including your prefrontal cortex. As the guy said, knocking out your brainstem and tectum knocks out consciousness.

Why? Your midbrian and brianstem houses ganglia that produce all of your major neurotransmitters; serotonin, dopamine, acetylcholine, noradrenaline. It also mediates the transmission of sensory signals up to the brain and motor signals out. Its very easy to see why it knocks out conscious and coordinates experiences since the influence of those neurotransmitters are all important for coordinating overall brain function by recurrent connections to the forebrain including the prefrontal cortex. Your prefrontal cortex wont work without those midbrain and brainstem systems.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reticular_formation

Dont get too butthurt cunt.

>>15370179
>Absolutely embarrassing. There is no way that something mental can arise just through the fluctuation of ions, brainlet.
The only embarrassing thing is your mental inability to produce anything remotely resembling an argument. You are just begging the question. I am saying that there is nothing in principle that prevents a physical thing causally producing a mental thing, it is just a type of regulation like any other and it is a synthetic, a posteriori matter whether such a thing can occur. What is your argument for why it is a priori metaphysically impossible.
>My guess is that you not only don't know shit about philosophy, but about neuroscience as well. Brainlets like you love to watch pop sci videos on youtube and memes on facebook.
That's funny because I got the exact impression from you, lots of picturing but you don't seem to understand much of anything.

>>15370449
You don't know that or why ithat is though. The physical models we build cannot predict that.

>>15370457
Well, I don't see how the models of physics we explain using math and chemistry predict the emergence of a colour which seems to me something that is inherently not in the language of physics. If we build a brain we are just building neurons.The experience of seeing blue would be described in the dynamics of those neurons in the model but I dont see how that tells me what blue looks like. If we extended vision so that we also jad neurons sensitive to ultraviolet and infrared light then I dont see how that model can tell us what those experiences would feel like. There doesn't seem to be a necessity for physics to tell us something like that which is why in someways it seems plusible that you could invert the mapping of colours to the light spectrum without any real consequence to reality, almost as if the mapping is utterly arbitrary.

>>15370543
he obviously doesn't accept your(?)>>15370063 account of causality and probably sees it in similar terms as aquinas's argument from motion, where causal connections between A and B consist of a smooth movement from A to B (and from B to C, etc, like billiard balls)

the lack of smooth movement from physical events to mental events is because they !!!seem!!! far apart, the physical space and mental space seem like two different systems of coordinates. this is necessary to even make sense of a statement such as "A !!!!CORRESPONDS!!!! to B".
time however seems to be connected because:
we can tell a story about how stimulating a nerve A+B+C (fiber type A for duration B location C) causes a corresponding pain A1+B+C1(sensation type A1(say, sharp pain), duration B, location C1)

What if people who claim there is no self are NPCs, and people who claim there is no consciousness or qualia are p-zombies?

>>15370647
>he obviously doesn't accept your(?)>>15370063 (You) account of causality and probably sees it in similar terms as aquinas's argument from motion, where causal connections between A and B consist of a smooth movement from A to B (and from B to C, etc, like billiard balls)

Nah you are giving him too much credit, if he had a problem with my account of causality he would have brought it up already. "A physical thing can't produce a mental thing!" just makes intuitive sense to him and he doesn't realize he is begging the question.
That said, a Thomistic account of causation doesn't contradict my argument at all, so I don't know why you would bring that up.

>>15365133
yes. next question

>>15370756
it's obviously begging the question lol but it goes both ways because you're using different accounts of causality.

i described in the /sci/ thread/11665494 my view of this typical misunderstanding but i forgot how to cross-link
>>11675681
>>11675737
>>11675775
but to answer briefly: if causality requires a transfer of motion be satisfied between two objects, and if you view mental objects and physical objects as disjoint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjoint_sets)) then no transfer of motion could take place.

>>15370321
>but it is the dorsal midbrain (tectum) which allows us to have an experience at all
>Please stop spreading your ignorance.
Read a book on the brain and its functions, you imbecile. You are a complete moron who has no idea what he's talking about and can't graps his lack of knowledge. If your tectum gets fucked up, you go in a coma, yes, but if your tectum isn't damaged yet your prefrontal cortex is then you will still have experiences (sight, hearing etc.) yet you won't be able to e.g. have motivation to make certain decisons. There's also situations like e.g. Wernicke's aphasia where you hear speech but can't understand it. Hell, you yourself said it with "The prefrontal cortex does fancy things with experience ex post facto". What is this other than "coordination of many different processes" which you spoke of in >>15367603? Also, don't forget that the tectum is but one of the stops through which the pathways of hearing, sound etc. go through - the endgame of such pathways are the zones in the higher parts of the brain in which the action potential definitely turns into something non-physical (a sound or an image). But look at me saying "don't forget", as if you have basic knowledge of what you're talking about.
You're one of the dumbest people I've seen on 4chan in months, and that's saying something. Shutting up and never voicing your thoughts on these topics until you've acquired the most basic knowledge on the brain and the capability to differentiate between stuff like having experience and coordinating experience would be the best thing you could do right now since you would 1. stop embarrassing yourself 2. stop making certain people actually believe the shit you spew.
Sadly, if you aren't baiting you might be too far gone as not being able to understand simple shit like "lower order brain structures are tied to awakeness and higher order brain structures to receiving experience stimuli and integrating the same" (this statement being a oversimplification, of course, but containing truth) means your IQ is in the dangerously low levels. Thus, the biggest thing I can hope for is that people in this thread who don't see through your bullshit will actually inform themselves and see the invalidity of your claims.
Do yourself a massive favor by actually studying about the brain, after which you will notice how retarded your claims are. Please, open an anatomy book on the brain and start reading. You'll do not only yourself a favor, but also people on 4chan who will be spared your babble.

>>15370756
Not him, but what exactly differentiates a physical entity from a mental entity? Both exist, both can be observed, both are true for us. Yet we say that they are distinct. Is it the subjectivity of the mental?

>>15370699
/pol/ ideology is not to be taken seriously

>>15370842
Just to be clear, is your argument supposed to show why a physical thing cannot produce a mental thing or are you disagreeing with my account of causality? What position are you defending?

>>15370868
Qualia and intentionality are the two big ones why are you asking

I want a physicalist to give me 1 (one) good reason that consciousness is able to think about its own process of thinking.

There is absolutely no materialist explanation of why I should be conscious of being conscious.

hacks BTFO

/thread

>>15370956
i don't have a strong position and my whole ontology is half baked but i think that this view of causality as having to do with motion is what's motivating the intuition behind the mind-body problem(for reasons i outlined in those posts). your own view of causality is obviously fine in these kinds of abstract discussions when we get creative with causality but the context of this discussion calls for a different sense of the word.

>>15371011
big if true

>>15370977
I never understood qualia, can someone explain them to me? I read this experiment on wikipedia and it makes no sense to me:
>Mary the color scientist knows all the physical facts about color, including every physical fact about the experience of color in other people, from the behavior a particular color is likely to elicit to the specific sequence of neurological firings that register that a color has been seen. However, she has been confined from birth to a room that is black and white, and is only allowed to observe the outside world through a black and white monitor. When she is allowed to leave the room, it must be admitted that she learns something about the color red the first time she sees it — specifically, she learns what it is like to see that color.
After this the text explaining the experiment says
>If one agrees with the thought experiment, we believe that Mary gains something after she leaves the room—that she acquires knowledge of a particular thing that she did not possess before. That knowledge, Jackson argues, is knowledge of the quale that corresponds to the experience of seeing red, and it must thus be conceded that qualia are real properties, since there is a difference between a person who has access to a particular quale and one who does not.
How is this proof that qualia exists? Just because one person has knowledge of a thing and another doesn't does not mean that qualia exists. The experiment fails since if she really did learn every fact about colors she would know about the red itself. They just didn't give her complete knowledge.

>>15370846
>but if your tectum isn't damaged yet your prefrontal cortex is then you will still have experiences
Right... This isn't contradicting me so far.

>don't forget that the tectum is but one of the stops through which the pathways of hearing, sound etc. go through
It is the crucial reciprocal aggregating center. Damage to this very specific part of the midbrain annihilates experience, whereas damage to the pons (ventral midbrain) leaves one without motor function but still experiencing. As you've already back-handedly admitted, damage to pfc will still leave one with experience. Now you're trying to play rhetorical games to distract from the salient point (that the tectum is the seat of experience).

>higher parts of the brain in which the action potential definitely turns into something non-physical
There is no 'definite' about it. There is no evidence of anything being non-physical... 'Non-physical' doesn't even describe something specific, it's just a conceptual contrast like 'nothing' and 'non-existence'.

Your projection is obvious. I too hope that anons research the topic for themselves... It's fascinating stuff.

>>15371115
The term Qualia basically refers to the fact that some mental states have the quality of "it feels like...". Pleasure feels different than pain, cold feels different than hot etc. It just means the way a sensation or an emotion feels like.

>>15371115
Qualia is just what the experience of things actually feels like.
The more famous proof is Nagel's bat argument. If you had total understanding of a bats brain, would that allow you to know what it feels like to fly though the air by use of echolocation. This surplus experiential difference (which in this case lies totally outside of the human realm of experience) which today's reductive science can't explain. Nagel says it's possible for science to figure this out in the future, but without some sort of Copernican revolution in science, it isn't happening.

>>15371010
Heightened awareness is evolutionarily advantageous. It allows for selective information scooping

>>15371115
there is something in the experience of red that she can only learn from the experience of red. she could not extrapolate from her knowledge of the physical properties of red the color itself.

>>15371115
Take an image A and put it in paint. Use the invert colors function to produce image B, which is just A but with the color values inverted.
Now imagine that there's a person who upon looking at image A experiences its colors in the same way that you experience the colors of image B, and vice versa. Even though you're both looking at the same image, you each have different qualia of it.

>>15371010
If you've evolved a system for perceiving your environment and your own condition in relation to it, why would an increasing capacity for reflective thought corresponding with increased brain sophistication surprise you?

>>15371176
>Nagel says it's possible for science to figure this out in the future,

the only way I can truly understand anything is by being it from the inside, I think even a child would agree, bro we'll produce physical descriptions that are somehow identical with the phenomenal "taste" of being a bat, it's science bro, give me a break... why are scientists such incurable autists...

>>15371222
yes because there is no reason the system can't operate in the dark if it is "just" a physical system

PHYSICALIST WRECKAGE OF EVERY METAPHYSICAL-FAG IN THE PIC RELATED

>>15371222
Because why should a meta cognitive layer emerge out of physical processes? It doesn't seem like a reasonable proposition that an amalgamation of perception has a top layer that comprehends the whole as separate from itself and is able to conceive and think of itself.

There seems to be no actual reason this should exist.

>>15371115
>The experiment fails since if she really did learn every fact about colors she would know about the red itself
Common misreading actually. You are assuming the thought experiment claims she knows everything about color, this is false. Read it closer:
>the color scientist knows all the physical facts about color, including every physical fact about the experience of color in other people, from the behavior a particular color is likely to elicit to the specific sequence of neurological firings that register that a color has been seen
The question is, would this understanding of every physical fact about color be able to give her knowledge of what red actually looks like? Remember, she has never actually had the experience of seeing red, only a totally exhaustive physical description of it, from wave lengths, to reception in the eye, neuroscience, ect.

>>15371225
All Nagel is saying is you can't actually rule out future methods of description, but that ours our not capable. Scientists don't like this answer because it's saying their fundamental assumptions about materialism are false.

>>15371241
baby bitch insights already digested and internalized by even the crudest gnostics, just stop.

>>15371243
Increased vocal sign complexity. Aka, language. Increased sigh complexity allows for complex analysis which leads to the capacity for meta analysis.
And FYI, humans aren’t the only creatures to have this level of cognitive ability, we are just the most advanced with it.
Certain groups of chimpanzees have proto religious behavior, which indicates a metaphysical understanding of cause and effect. Most noticeably the gendered rain dances in Gombe national Park.

>>15371159
This is embarrassing on so many levels.
>Right... This isn't contradicting me so far.
It is, since this whole discussion stems from your claim that tectum coordinates processes (>>15367603). Playing role in creating experience=/=coordinating experience.
>Damage to this very specific part of the midbrain annihilates experience
If we're talking about sight and hearing, I agree. If by "experience" you mean even thoughts etc. then you're completely wrong.
>pons (ventral midbrain)
Pons is below the midbrain, idiot. How can you even talk about this shit when you don't know these basics?
>leaves one without motor function but still experiencing
Good job, you know about locked-in syndrome (or maybe you didn't know it's called like that, but you know now). The existence of the same doesn't change anything, since what makes someone able to integrate experience (in this case a guy who can't move at all but has thoughts etc.) are the upper centers. The pons contains some cranial nuclei, regulates sleep, breathing etc. but higher abilities like integrating experience, thoughts etc. doesn't have pons playing a role.
>comparing a concept of non-physical to the concept of 'nothing'
This has to be bait.

>>15370507
Now, you know at least something you're talking about, but you still lack knowledge, and also the ability to integrate the same (which, ironically, comes from the higher areas of the brain which you're arguing against).
First of all.
>knocking out your brainstem and tectum
Tectum is encapsulated by the term "brainstem", this sentence is equivalent to "your forearm and arm". You outed yourself as not knowing basic anatomy.
>Your midbrian and brianstem houses ganglia that produce all of your major neurotransmitters; serotonin, dopamine, acetylcholine, noradrenaline. It also mediates the transmission of sensory signals up to the brain and motor signals out
Again with the "brainstem and midbrain"... embarrassing. In any case, you're correct about the lower centers containing neurons which produce neurotransmitters, yet those same neurotransmitters aren't used up in that region for integrating experience, they are used in the higher centers e.g. the prefrontal cortex (which is also evolutionary the youngest part of our brain and has the most complex functions like abstract thinking). To simplify it - the lower centers produce material which they themselves use and the higher centers use as well, yet the integrative function is still playing out in the higher segments of the brain.
This proves that you don't know how to integrate and understand the knowledge you get, which means that your upper centers aren't well developed. Or maybe you just didn't study enough and have taken things out of context (I hope it's the later).
>Your prefrontal cortex wont work
It won't, but again, the lower parts of the brain produce material for the higher parts. You're confusing the root for the leaves (it's a shitty analogy but I don't know how to simplify it).

>>15371336
cont.
>>15370507
You are partially right in a sense that some of the basal ganglia are localized in the midbrain and they play a role in cognition, but this doesn't mean that you should look at the midbrain as the center that integrates our experiences - that's just absurd.
Just look at pic related - it's from one of the most basic presentations related to our brain. This is the absolute barebones when it comes to knowledge of this topic. You don't know even this much yet you talk like you know about the subject. Or even worse, you actually studied all this yet can't wrap your head around the simple difference between two things
1. A part of the brain allowing for experience (since we get in a coma or die if our brain stem gets severely damaged) and the material for the neurons in general (the specific areas in the lower areas of the brain that produce neurotransmitters)
2. A part of the brain which integrates the experience

>>15365133
Even if you arrived at such explanation, it would have no practical utility for a day-to-day life of a mentally healthy individual.

>>15371274
>baby bitch insights
Retroactively refuted. Eliminativism in the form presented in that picture has been a thing in philosophy only since the 1970s. Its top tier state of the art philosophical thought.

Next!

>>15371401
Here's two pop sci images which you can easily find on google.
My point is that before you start talking about this stuff you should actually study it for some time.

>>15371429
>>15371274
>>15371241
GIVE ME SOME REAL ENEEMYYYYYY REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!!
this faggot:
>>15371274
WAS NOTHING
I CHEWED HIM AND DIGESTED HIM AND SHITTED HIM OUT LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER

>>15369826
A thousand years ago no one understood how rain comes to be. No one understood what triggers the seasons. No one understood what causes diseases.
Those were the realms of the gods.
Nowadays by 5th grade every school child in a developed nation will know the answers to each of these.

What makes you think that we hit the limit on what science is able to describe and lay out?
Or are you just lacking in perspective of how advancement has worked throughout history?

>>15371459
You can find many examples as you like, they are still about material entities - rain and anything else is nothing like consciousness. No other problem we know of is like it.

>>15371470
Just because neuroscience is young doesn't mean that it won't properly breakdown how the brain works as it continues to exponentially develop.
We've already gotten to the point where we understand how synapses work, how the brain is constructed, how it develops, how it degrades. We have nearly every constituent piece of the brain broken down and cataloged. Our goal now is assembling the puzzle and figuring out how consciousness develops.
Assuming that consciousness is the single part of humanity that can't be understood through scientific inquiry doesn't hold for me. Humans aren't really unique. We are animals that are built out of the material as everything else is.

>>15366075
panpsychism is reallyeven more retarded than idealism or dualism

>>15371459
>cause of diseases, seasons and rain

The child doesn't know what causes these things and neither do you. No-one can "know" anything unless they witness it themselves, and contemplate the mechanisms they observe.

The child and most everyone on earth "knows" nothing outside of their everyday experience. Everything else they think they know is a BELIEF until they study microbiology, create a cloud in a lab, or launch themselves into space to find out for themselves.
Public "experts" and scientists are the hierophants of the global religion that is the consensus Scientific™ world-view, and to believe otherwise is to blaspheme against them.

>>15371587
You can look under a microscope and see Germs start colonies and kill the cells they are colonizing.
You can follow the moisture evaporation patterns and see how it becomes collected and then dispersed.
You can measure the earth's tilt and shift and follow the wind and heat movements to understand seasons.
These are all things that if one wanted to test they could.

Just because on obtains empirically tested information from another doesn't mean that they don't understand it. Just because information is obtained by another doesn't mean that it isn't true.
If you disagree with the mainstream beliefs then you are required to supply proper counters to them that can be tested just as rigorously and found to be true or inaccurate. If you cannot do this you are not arguing rationally and are instead just angry at the system.

>>15369963
Same, that anon is a fag until he posts it.

>>15371555
>Assuming that consciousness is the single part of humanity that can't be understood through scientific inquiry doesn't hold for me. Humans aren't really unique. We are animals that are built out of the material as everything else is
You're thinking this because you already presuppose your viewpoint (a materialistic one).

>>15371401
It is the part of the brain that aggregates activity in the rest of the brain into an experience. If you have some different notion of what 'integrating experience' means, fair enough... But just be specific about what you mean and I think you'll find we're arguing past eachother. I don't know why you're seizing so heavily on this other than to distract from the fact that we have identified a very specific brain region crucial to experience and sense of self.

>>15371434
Here is a less pop-sci article authored by neuroscientists which is more specific and relevant to the issue:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.836.7440&rep=rep1&type=pdf

>In the second part of the article we discuss the functional neuroanatomy of nuclei in the brainstem reticular formation because they constitute the basic set of somato-sensing structures necessary for core consciousness and its core self to emerge.

>>15371665
Nothing has showed me anything different.
Its always been that what isn't comprehended by science at a given moment is treated as something that it can't ever answer.
Only for people to figure out how those things work anyhow. Atoms, electrical impulses, gravity, we get more and more info about the universe every day.

All empirical testing has indicated that the universe is a material one that can be broken down and understood.
Now if you have anything contrary to that to share I am interested. But just throwing quotes out there from people that reject empiricism while talking about how the universe cannot ever be understood doesn't do it for me.
Thats not a counter, thats trying to flip the chess board.

>>15371736
Empiricism isn't the alpha and omega, neither is science. You are blinded

>>15371736
>All empirical testing has indicated that the universe is a material one that can be broken down and understood.
Different anon.
This is bs. Empirical method will claim that all and everything can be broken down and understood because else the understanding cannot be empirically proven.. So, you're going in circles here.
I have no bone to pick in this debate since I made my mind already. Appeal to empiricism is just that though.. appeal to empiricism.

>>15371736
>empirical testing is empirical

whoa...

>>15365677
So, was there ever any 'remote viewer' who could read messages ?
It would be so easy to test this in a double blind test, why has nobody ever done it ?

>>15371752
spot on. the method isn’t transcendent so it’s stuck in its bubble of measuring what can be measured

>>15365501
I would like to redirect everyone to this point because I feel it's very important.

Either your consciousness/subjectivity/perspective is a unique phenomenon and therefore cannot be expected to obey the laws of other phenomena
OR
Your consciousness is the same as all other consciousness the way all fire and water are the same as all other fire and water.

In case 1, you can expect that all kinds of mysterious things are true, because your unique consciousness is a special kind of phenomenon exempt from the laws that apply to all other phenomena.
In case 2, you have nothing to worry about, because since there's nothing special about consciousness, wherever consciousness exists, you will also exist, because all consciousness is really the same.

Materialists/atheists are logically inconsistent. They pretend that your subjectivity is both special (unique, irreplicable) and completely ordinary (immortal and endless remanifesting, like fire and water, wind and rain, etc.). It's one or the other, not both.

>>15371767
So what do you propose then?

>>15371749
>>15371752
>>15371760
>>>/x/

>>15371749
So you disagree. Now supply a counter.
What has been ore could more effective at explaining and determining the function of the universe then?
Don't tell me that it can't be understood either, because that tagline has been used for millennia only to fall to observation and testing.

>>15371752
But the point is that empiricism has been continuously successful at developing an understanding of the universe.
I haven't seen anything that stands up to scrutiny proposed against it.
All I see most of the time is vague platitudes about how perspectives are different and that there is more to the universe than the material without any kind of deduction or evidence to back it up.

>>15371790
nothing

>>15365133
is consciousness anything but an emergent property of physical phenomena?

>>15371815
>But the point is that empiricism has been continuously successful at developing an understanding of the universe.
Who told you that?
>I haven't seen anything that stands up to scrutiny proposed against it.
Good, that's because other viewpoints are not bothered to play the same game.

>>15371815
you’re a brainlet. materialism is an ideology that is useful to achieve a certain purpose. the fact you interpret that as the same as understanding shows you don’t see the disconnect between an ideological understanding and “understanding itself” if such a thing is even possible from the human perspective.

>>15371778
>unique things can't be similar
>fire and water are 'universal' and immortal (???)
>uses 'special' and 'ordinary' as if they aren't relative terms

Ctrl+f 'parfit' 0 results.

This board is dumber than it ever was.

The only purely physical "explanation" of consciousness is eliminativism. Anything less than that cedes ground to either substance or property dualism.
Aside from eliminativism, attempts to reconcile physicalism with matter can be placed into two broad categories: emergentism and non-emergentism.
Non-emergentism is basically panppsychism, a form of property dualism. It means that some sort of rudimentary consciousness exists in physical stuff, and when this stuff combines in certain ways their rudimentary consciousnesses also interact in such a way as to produce human consciousness.
Emergentism, on the other hand, says that consciousness is not present in physical stiff, but is a genuinely novel phenomenon that for some reason emerges as a result of certain physical processes. If this is true it means that consciousness is something ontologically distinct from the physical processes that give rise to is, and so it's a form of substance dualism.

>>15371815
>methodology is an ideology

brainlet

>>15365133
What an eyesore this boomer bearded faggots are.

>>15371873
>parfitards
You're the dumb one here, faggot.
Get out.

>>15371910
>a specific kind of methodological approach can be based and maintained on ideology
There, I fixed it for you. You reduce even in your writing, kek.

>>15371940
>tools can be wielded by different users

whoa. even buddhism is empirical.

>>15371975
ideology is not characterised by the "users"
you can't really argue if your argumentation skills and reading comprehension are so poor

>>15371985
>a methodology is inherently ideological

retard.

>>15371999
read >>15371940

>>15371844
>Good, that's because other viewpoints are not bothered to play the same game.
cope

This anon came to some interesting conclusions:
>>15371017

And a super interesting train of thought emerged:
>>15371227
>>15371784
>>15371793
>>15371801
Culminating in this insightful reply:
>>15371928


So. Regarding >>15371928 ......
Does anyone have any thoughts on that? Any answers? Any arguments for or against?

>>15371815
Get a load of this brainlet.
Science explains what something is (at least supposedly, since the problem of induction will always be relevant), which doesn't tell you completely about the universe itself. For example, you can take a brain of a killer and a brain of someone who doesn't kill people and find a difference in e.g. their limbic system. What does this tell us? Nothing other than that there is a difference between the limbic system of the one and the other. You certainly won't find any moral based on those findings. If you do, you're already presupposing it, since if you hold a viewpoint that murder is bad, you'll interpret the e.g. lack of synapses in the limbic system as a negative thing which turns people into something bad (killers). Yet if you look at it objectively, you'll see that no information is contained there other than the structure of their brain, i.e. the empirical findings.

>>15372013
That image in which OP took screencaps and compiled them is one of the cringiest things I've seen on here. Does he really think his ideas are novel or profound? Also why is he so obsessed and spamming his image on here? Are you actually him? Is he trolling or a schizo maybe?

>>15371907
You've misrepresented emergentism. Emergentism does not necessitate the existence of the non-physical. We see entirely physical emergence all around us, as matter/energy/fields interact to produce more complex arrangements of what are still matter/energy/fields.

>>15365139
based

>>15372052
>OP took screencaps and compiled them is one of the cringiest things
hey, im that op
why?
thanks to that i dont have to repeat basics to newcomers and can just move on deeper into the subject.

>>15365322
Physical doesn't include that.

>>15365133

>>15372095
define "order" and "chaos"

>>15372095
what did he mean by this
and why is /sci/ mad about the definition?

>>15372073
That's "weak" emergence, which still implies panpsychism. "Strong" emergence is the one that implies substance dualism.

>>15371436
>I don't care about truth i just want to be right!

>>15371844
Who? No one frankly.
I didn't grow up with access to philosophy or a lot of science material. So I can to my beliefs pretty much isolated.
I needed to test and prove things to believe them from the beginning.
As for them not playing the 'same game' thats just trying to dodge the question. If you can't give evidence for your opinions than don't act like they have any value to them.

>>15371846
Its a brainlet move to try and wash your hands from understanding out of a feeling that 'the world is bigger than us'.
We've spent the last several thousands of years learning to understand the universe.
Do you believe that we haven't?

>>15365456
cringe

>>15371586
how

>>15372140
No, it does not imply panpsychism. Rather it suggests that experience is contingent upon a degree of emergent complexity which is not common to all things (brains being the most complex structures we know of).

>>15372252
>Who? No one frankly.
I smell something and it's not flowers.

>As for them not playing the 'same game' thats just trying to dodge the question.
It isn't. You are asking me to empirically prove that empiricism is flawed in some way. I cannot grant you this wish. Just as I can't use religious explanation for why religion is flawed. You are going in circles again.

>>15372025
Not at all. What you will be able to do instead is that after comparing hundreds or thousands of brains of killers to non-killers and then studying the function of the limbic system in a living adult you will be able to make a determination that a certain change from the standard in the limbic system leads to a person becoming violent and murderous.
Morality judgements need not be made on their own.

Now to address morality from an empirical standpoint would work something along the lines of setting up several cloned populations, giving them a certain moral code, and then comparing the results after several generations of development.
After this the moral code that resulted in the society with the most advancement and highest measurable quality of life would be considered best.
Of course this is unrealistic in reality. Instead you would breakdown the different moral codes that people groups follow and then, controlling for environmental and historical factors the best one can, compare the results to one another.
Or one could after breaking down how humans react to stimuli simulate what a certain moral code impressed on them would result in.

>>15372284
Careful you aren't smelling toast.
I think you might be stroking out on me, son.

For the rest of this, I ask of you to them provide a good, non-empirical explanation for the understanding the universe.

>>15372296
Everything I touch
with tenderness, alas,
pricks like a bramble.
- Kobayashi Issa

>>15372306
Huh?
I don't remember caring what they think, so why should I.. explain myself?

>>15372329
cope

>>15372296
>that a certain change from the standard in the limbic system
How is this morality, brainlet? So what if there's a deviation from the brain of an average person? You're correlating morality with the amount of people, since the average person doesn't want to kill someone. This isn't a proof of objective morality.
>giving them a certain moral code, and then comparing the results after several generations of development.
Only if you accept the utilitarian premise where the good=the good for most people, and no wonder you cling to this since that's the only empirical outlook.
>After this the moral code that resulted in the society with the most advancement and highest measurable quality of life would be considered best.
Your claim reminds me of pic related which makes fun of brainlets like you who think that advancement can be quantified.
>Or one could after breaking down how humans react to stimuli simulate what a certain moral code impressed on them would result in.
And this is related to finding out about objective morality how? I'm guessing through measuring again?

>>15371336
>Tectum is encapsulated by the term "brainstem", this sentence is equivalent to "your forearm and arm". You outed yourself as not knowing basic anatomy.

Well done, you got me. Im used to grouping the pons and medulla oblangata separately to the midbrain which is what i meant to type instead of tectum.

>neurotransmitters aren't used up in that region for integrating experience, they are used in the higher centers

Yeah this is exactly what I said so dont have any illusions I somehow misunderstood something here. Remember I explicitly talked about how these areas would coordinate (using the word the other guy used) the forebrain with recurrent connections.

>This proves that you don't know how to integrate and understand the knowledge you get, which means that your upper centers aren't well developed. Or maybe you just didn't study enough and have taken things out of context (I hope it's the later).

No this right here proves that youre an asshole and an uppity turbo brainlet desperate to prove himself.

>It won't, but again, the lower parts of the brain produce material for the higher parts.
>material

Retarded.

Also its well thought that the prefrontal cortex isnt necessarily the heart of consciousness in such a simplistic way.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/role-prefrontal-cortex-conscious-perception


>>15371401
All we fucking said is that the brainstem is important for consciousness. You are the one talking as if we made these wild assertions about brainstem being the core and heart of consciousness. Obviously its more complicated and your insistence on the prefrontal is just as simplistic as what you mistakenly thought I said. My contribution to this literally starts with the other guy saying that the brainstem is important for coordinating experiences and hes right because thats what it does. it coordinates brainstates (therefore experiences).

If you are telling me this simplistic presentation sums up completely or sufficiently the role of the brainstem in the brain then you are naive my friend. I think it is you who has more to learn. Subcortical function is super undervalued in cognitive neuroscience.


>>15371434
Thats cute anon. Its sweet you think I need that. The seethe is strong with you. Its interesting you have deluded yourself into thinking I dont know anything because I labeled some part of the brain unconventionally (Note I didnt actually error in misname anything) and you misconstrued what I said about the brainstem and consciousness. Then you went on a rant. Well done.

>>15372461
>How is this morality, brainlet? So what if there's a deviation from the brain of an average person? You're correlating morality with the amount of people, since the average person doesn't want to kill someone. This isn't a proof of objective morality.
Like I said in the in that post, I wasn't making a moral judgement. I was explaining the method for determining that atypical function of the limbic system would lead to murderous behavior.
If you want to parlay that into a judgement of morality then you could do so. But I purposefully avoided doing so.
If you disagree with the description of atypical or 'different from standard' that is on you. Standards are built on whatever is most common in a population. Differing from standard isn't a negative thing necessarily either.

As for the rest I'll work my way down the arguments supplied.
I am not a utilitarian so that argument doesn't really work on me. The problem with utilitarianism is that a society of dirt hut-living slaves to a opulent god-king could be ecstatic to be serving them 100% of the time. You could have incredible happiness in said society but most would view it as not a society that a human should live in.
That leads into the second portion wherein I agree that attempts to numerically quantify inventions or technological advancement doesn't really work. However there are objective measurements that do work.
Diffusion of services like clean water, sanitation, food access, security from those that are harmful, access to health services, can all be roughly quantified in one way or another. These can be viewed by most everyone as good things that help more than they hinder. There will be some that believe in ideas of primitivism that would disagree, but they would be a small minority in a large room.
The societies that combined the above services with a high amount of happiness and autonomy of those within the society would be considered the best if I was to attempt to narrow the search down to its bare minimum.

As for the objective morality that you are talking about in your last point, yes. You would determine the best morality by the one that results in the greatest material gain and greatest amount of reported happiness combined with the greatest amount of autonomy for those under it.

If you are trying to lead me to discounting concepts like spirituality or sense of purpose in life inside a person. I will say that those are things that cannot be quantified in an individual, and rarely can they be controlled from the outside. An individual's ethos is something they determine on their own. Attempts to find a morality system that give them one will fail.

>>15372095

>>15372655
>I am not a utilitarian
>You would determine the best morality by the one that results in the greatest material gain and greatest amount of reported happiness combined with the greatest amount of autonomy for those under it
Based retard

>>15372692
A utilitarian would prioritize the happiness over all else.
I disagree with happiness on its own having all the value. There are other factors that matter as much as pure happiness.

>>15372553
>Im used to grouping the pons and medulla oblangata separately to the midbrain
Why are you used to this? No definition of brain stem leaves out the midbrain.
>Retarded.
I did simplify it, but you can metaphorically look at neurotransmitters as a kind of material that the neurons use (since they wouldn't be able to do their function without them), so there's nothing really wrong with my claim.
>Also its well thought that the prefrontal cortex isnt necessarily the heart of consciousness in such a simplistic way
I never said it was simplistic, the brain has many connections and there are many connections between the region, but for the sake of being practical we take a region which plays a pretty big role in some specific function (or functions) and claim it's the center of that function (or functions). For example, the tectum does play a role in performing voluntary eye movement and voluntary eye movement can be said to be a result of integrating experiences, yet it would be weird to say that the tectum has a function of integrating experience. It's a fact that the prefrontal cortex has the biggest share in the function of integrating experience, receiving inputs from many places and calculating them.
>Subcortical function is super undervalued in cognitive neuroscience
Why do you think this?
>All we fucking said is that the brainstem is important for consciousness
No, the two of you said that it coordinates experience, and that definition gives it a much bigger role than it actually plays.

>>15371734
I never denied that the brainstem plays a role in consciousness and the self. However, the existence of the self is not equal to integrating experience. To use my simple example from above - in Wernicke's aphasia, someone has a working brainstem yet he can't integrate the sounds that he hears and therefore doesn't understand what someone is speaking. He still has an idea of himself, but can't understand anything that people are saying to him.
Of course, the self has to emerge if the integration of experience is to take place, but again, as I already said before, the root and the leaves are not the same. You can't have the latter without the former, but they aren't the same thing.
>It is the part of the brain that aggregates activity in the rest of the brain into an experience.
It's a relay center, and also plays a certain role although not a major one (read my example of the eye movement that I made in this post). We can stretch the definition like you do, but it's pointless since then we can say that basically our entire nerve system has a role of integrating experience. We have to create certain borders, and out of all the structures in the brain which work with our impressions, thoughts etc. and through that integrates our experiences, it's the youngest and most advanced part of our brain - the prefrontal cortex. Yes, it can't work without its connections, the neurotransmitters etc. but it still has the highest function.

>>15372706
>A utilitarian would prioritize the happiness over all else.
>the greatest material gain and greatest amount of reported happiness combined with the greatest amount of autonomy
You seriously can't be this retarded. So your views differ since you don't think it's not happiness is what matters, but greatest material gain + greatest amount of reported happiness + greatest amount of autonomy? Also how can you separate material gain from happiness? Obviously most people will be happy if they have money.

>>15372813
cont.
>>15371734
One more thing - it's curious to me how you mention the brainstem now, yet you talked about the tectum at first, which is only a part of the mesencephalon which is itself part of the brainstem. Also, the tectum plays roles mostly related to sight and hearing. Why did you just mention the tectum at the beginning? Unless you're not >>15367603 and are someone else?

>>15372850
I addressed how you can separate them earlier. Have you read my posts?
You can be a starving slave that is ecstatic to serve your master and happy because of it. And you can be a depressed billionaire that wants to kill themselves out of sorrow.
It is true that better material conditions are correlated with more happiness, but I am being sure to avoid falling into the pitfalls of the utilitarian ideology.
Just the same having a lot and being happy without autonomy is also not enough. In addition to the slave comparison earlier the idea of hooking everyone up to a stream of dopamine and hallucinogens for their entire lives and related examples play into this. Most would say that that is not a desirable way to live and I agree with them.

>>15370321
>Reading comprehension. I'm saying that it's the feeling of a static meta-self which is an illusion, not that the experience/changing self doesn't exist.

An illusion requires a witness.

>>15372888
The only reason you're using autonomy as a positive characteristic and integrating it into your system is because it would bring more happiness (not in the same way with every individual, though - e.g. one individual will be happy if he has autonomy and a moderate amount of money, yet someone else will require both, but the endgame is happiness).

>>15373077
It requires the experience that is 'you'. This is very different from the idea of a meta-self (i.e. a self that somehow precedes goings-on in the brain, that authors thoughts, that is your supposed 'essence'). The notion of a meta-self doesn't correspond with what we know of the brain, and it introduces an infinite regression problem. Also, if we're honest then we have to admit that we don't perceive how our thoughts arise — it seems spontaneous to us.

>>15373625
Perhaps, but if you assume that any happiness experienced by the human brain from produced dopamine is experienced just the same as any other happiness produced by the brain from the same amount of dopamine then you can make anyone as happy as you want with the correct drugs. Excepting for those that have biological/neurological differences in so that they can't experience dopamine.
In this way regardless of one's preferences they will be objectively happier hooked to a machine that gives them the ideal amount of dopamine for their current mental condition than if they were allowed to live a autonomous life and experience pain and sorrow.
But I, and many others, prefer having autonomy, even if it objectively will make us less happy and give us less enjoyable lives.

A utilitarian view would be that my preferences come from an immature view of the world and a selfishness and arrogance of my place in it. And that regardless of my views I am better off living hooked up to that dopamine machine.

>>15373827
>But I, and many others, prefer having autonomy, even if it objectively will make us less happy and give us less enjoyable lives
Then it's time to modify your views, because if you don't solve the problems I posted you'll be inconsistent.

>>15373836
I would counter your examples of individuals having different preferences for autonomy amounts and material wants in 2 ways off the top of my head..
First is that I am taking an aggregate of society. Individual preferences and wants aren't as important as the aggregate of them all. If some individuals have different preferences from the herd then they must be treated as the minority that they are. Respected but not placed above the whole. Given that a large number, most likely a vast majority, of people have a desire for autonomy then it needs to emphasized.

Secondly is that like I stated before. It was a three point system for what makes the most moral organization/ethos/what-have-you. I don't value pure happiness over everything else. I don't value pure material gain over all else. I don't value pure autonomy over all else. Things need to be balanced in this trinity as I said far up the post chain.
If you want to know how this meshes with empiricism then I can explain. My goal is to give people the world that they want. People want to have autonomy (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/03/people-want-power-because-they-want-autonomy/474669/).). They want to have material goods. And they want to be happy. In this way one will have to seek to measure and balance these desires against each other and develop the preferred society. Surveys about happiness. Analysis of material distribution. Systemic breakdowns of individuals' autonomy in society. All are objective measures. By balancing these all against each other you will end up with the most preferable society. Factors like protections for minorities within this society also have to considered.
Now a society that people prefer and desire is to me the most moral of any.

>>15365133
No. The sum of all physical knowledge constitutes an incomplete internal description of consciousness. I'm not sure how that could possibly explain the origin or fundamental nature of consciousness itself. If someone claims to have fully understood consciousness in purely physical terms it is analogous to one of Plato's prisoners asserting he has come to fully understood his own situation purely in terms of the shadows he sees on cave wall. Each person is clearly deluded.

>>15373962
physics in physics out, what is there left to explain?