/lit/ - Literature

Soul is the organ which eats qualia and shits free will.

Dunno. Does it matter? Why do you want an answer?

Why would consciousness need a receiver? If consciousness exists before the brain, woudn't the center of that consciousness be wherever that consciousness is created? Why would such a weird thing like a brain evolve and trick me into believing that my consciousness, which was created somewhere else, actually exists in this physical world?

>>15998681
Would the answer to this question change anything anyone does, ever?

No. Animals with brains aren’t conscious.

>>15998746
it would change how they conceptualize about, and understand their place in the world

>>15998747
>Animals with brains aren’t conscious.
Imagine believing this

>>15998747
>organisms equipped with organs to be conscious aren't conscious

take your autism meds

>>15998681
The body, which includes the brain, creates consciousness.

The world is subjectively ideal - I've never seen or perceived my brain, and therefore it has no existence (beyond my concepts of "there is a pink organ in my head that people theorize has some sort of casual role in the perception of this world and body around me").

>>15998755
>>15998753
Sorry, what I meant to say was just because you have a brain, doesn’t necessarily make you a conscious being.

the human body perceives the world around it. talking about consciousness as a thing creates confusion. it's something the body *does*

>>15998750
>how they conceptualize about
About what?
>understand their place in the world
Philosophy and religion

>>15998772
Congratulations, dumbass, you've just boxed yourself into having to define consciousness while separating it entirely from anything any animal is seen to do.

>>15998836
Consciousness is being able to distinguish yourself as an individual, rather than as an incoherent part of the whole. We as humans are able to do this, while other animals with brains like cows and pigs are not. That’s why they freak out when they see themselves in the mirror.

>>15998801
>Philosophy

is OPs question

>>15998836
Daniel dennet has a brain but isn't conscious

>>15998855
Kek

>>15998847
Many animals pass the mirror test. Every human fails it until a certain age.

Try an Ayahuasca trip and you’ll see it’s “just” a receiver

>>15998848
But it's a pointless question. You can find your place in the world without knowing how conciousness happens. It really wouldn't change anything to know wether the soul resides the body or if the brain receives it.

>>15998865
huh?

>>15998867
He didn't say sould but consciousness. If the brain creates consciousness then it dies with the brain, in other words there is no immortal soul.

>>15998882
Is inot the same thing?

>>15998861
Oh yes, I know about animals like orangutans. Their brains are developed enough to be able to create consciousness. Children are not able to however, because their brains aren’t developed enough.

>>15998847
No, that's self-consciousness, retard. Birds are capable of metacognition. Fuck you niggers and your war on animal subjectivity, even subjectivity in general. Tell your dark masters to shove it up their ass.

>>15998867
it would disprove all major religions

>>15998898
Seeth

>>15998905
>a thing equipped with nerves to sense shit doesn't actually sense shit, b-because Beethoven's symphonies or something

neck yourself

>>15998907
Here we have an excellent example of a being that has a brain but no consciousness. They exist only to react based on the simplest of inputs, and are thus no different from dogs. Cope.

>>15998899
Even the one that teaches you to live a virtuous life by showing the mentality needed to avoid sin?

>>15998899
No, it wouldn't. You're a retard. Read a book.

>>15998893
Consciousness is just the ability to perceive things, to have a subjective experience.
A soul is more than that, it is something that is separate from the body and many believe it is something that can survive even when the body dies. The soul might be the reason why we are conscious, or it might be our physical body, mostly the brain.

>>15998920
>>15998926
Noone would care about the major religions we have today if not for eternal life. You can live a virtous life without religion, it's called philosophy.

>>15998935
I'd wager it fall short. After all, the apostle says the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom.
When you die you die. There is nothing you can do about it. And death comes to all that have been born. If you live a life following God, you'll eventually see Heaven. Even if conciousness fades with the body, you'll have a blissful life anyway.

>>15998681
This question doesn't make sense. Consciousness is universal but it's not activated until it becomes emergent from something like biology.

>>15998681

It creates it. People who want to believe the second tent to have a disdain for the materialist world because they hate their lives, so they seek out fantasy, and myths that give them hope.

Truth is you'll only get that fantasy in the real world of materialism, and nowhere else

>>15998742
No? Nothing that you said logically follows at all.

>>15998899
There is nothing to disprove. That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, after all.

>>15998898
did you just subtly quote Morrison's batman

>>15999065
I doesn't follow, those are just questions.
Of course if there is a God who planned this all, then the brain could definitely be a receiver but if it's a natural occurence than by Occam's razor it seems more likely that the brain creates consciousness rather than it is created somewhere independently and by sheer coincidence a brain evolved that can receive it.
If consciousness is created outside of the material world it seems more likely that we would all be immaterial beings.

>>15999097
brains generate consciousness, not loci. the difference is: when you're sleeping, your consciousness is suspended, but your locus is still intact. death kills consciousness, but not the locus.

>>15998681
Depends who you ask

the virgin atheist:
>it evolved into creating consciousness
Abrahamic religiousfags:
>God made the body as a receiver for our souls
the chad Pythagorist:
>body-swap technique

Epiphenomenalism is a substitute religion for materialist retards.

>>15999131
>-ism
Really showed how smart you are, guy. Wouldn't want to fall for inferior branding!

>>15999256
The only "ism" here is "autism".

>>15998801
>how they conceptualize about [...] their place in the world
Are you illiterate?

You can't answer without falling into a Chinese finger-trap. Indefinite, indefinable.

>>15998747
end yourself, waste of oxygen

Brain creates consciousness. Behaviour is used to measure the complexity of consciousness. You are your brain.

>>15998753
>>15998755
>>16000158
To be fully "conscious" means to self aware that they're food for worms. Animals lack a giant fore brain like human so they have no perception of time, mortality, sense of a being separate or above from nature, ability to think abstractly and symbolically etc.

>>16000158
Most humans weren't conscious 100000 years ago. Big chunk aren't today. Animals aren't conscious.

Consciousness creates brain

>>15998681
In reality, Knowledge, the knowable and the Knowing do not exist in you. You are that perfect Self, Âtmâ; by lack of Knowledge only, the three seem to exist.

>>16000265
Lmao kys faggot

brain receives consciousness => consciousness creates transmitters => transmitters transmit consciousness => brain receives consciousness

Nothing outside your brain is real.
Simple as.

>>16000813
But what about skull? Can it be semi-real?

>>16000265
You don't have a perception of time, either. Time isn't real, it's a human abstraction to understand change. So, yes, animals actually do have this misperception that we call "time", and there are many species capable of even considering the past and future.

>>16000207
>You are your brain
I have to disagree. If mental activity was just lights and chemicals in the brain, then you could never get angry enough to punch a wall, nor would you ever feel angry. Or, feel anything, for that matter. The fact that you feel qualia at all is testament to this. So, right off the bat, even though it's patently obvious to anyone with a brain that the brain is necessary for consciousness and in some measure consciousness can be described as "coming" from the brain, it's pretty clear that consciousness in a meaningful sense is not limited solely "within" the brain, and is more complicated than just being "produced by" the brain.

This is not to imply that consciousness is "somewhere else", but rather, is everywhere, in differing densities, with most of that density being in the brain and whatever you're interacting with.

>>16000826
Your brain is faking everything through your senses.
Simple as.

>>16000848
Now you are sensing your skull (and breathing manually).

>>16000863
How can I be sure that skulls and lungs exist when everything I experience goes through my senses and truly only exists inside my mind.
Not a schizo, just didn't take my pills.
Simple as.

>>15999799
>Conceptualize their place in the world and understabd it.

It does both. The dichotomy is a consequence of the rejection of Aristetelion hylomorphism.

>>15998681
Have you ever been drunk? Then you'd know that the state of your physical body decides the state of your consciousness.

>>16002077
Damaging a radio will either stop the signal or inhibit it from coming through clearly but this doesn't mean the signal is originating from the radio.

>>16002145
And when you are drunk, or sleeping, do you actively view yourself as being separate from your body, but incapable of controlling it well, despite being fully rational, coherent, and aware?

Or is your rationality and awareness impaired?

>>16002168
What does it matter?

>>16002181
Because if drunkenness or sleep impair reason and awareness, then the brain isn't a receiver, it's the source (or at least, partially a source) of consciousness and mental activity. If, however, you are aware and unimpaired while drunk and sleeping, the "controls" are just a bit "sticky" or "jerky" or whatever, then the brain is a receiver.

So, are you impaired while sleeping or drinking, or not?

>>16002218
No that doesn't follow. If you damage a radio and the music stops playing, that doesn't mean the music originated from the radio. If you damage the brain and consciousness stop, it doesn't mean the consciousness originated from the brain. It could originate in the brain, but it doesn't follow that it definitely comes from the brain. This applies with any sort of scenario involving drugs, sleep, or anything else you can imagine. You can get drunk and consciousness can become impaired, but it doesn't follow that your consciousness originated in the brain. Most radios have two speakers so I can cut the wires to one speaker and the music becomes impaired, but again, this doesn't mean the music originated from the radio.

Whether sleeping or drinking impairs you is irrelevant. You can answer this question any way you wish and it still wouldn't follow that consciousness originates in the brain.

>>16002145
We know that the brain does not work like a radio, because without our senses, we'd hardly have a consciousness to speak off. It is formed from the impressions of our senses and the feedback we get from our bodies.
You're postulating the existence of a pure (You) somewhere, that exists fully apart from your body. However, what is you, changes with what your body is experiencing. Remember your own puberty and the changes that caused in your behaviour. Or look forward to it, I guess, as OPs question is one of those philosophy conundrums that change nothing, no matter how they're answered. >>15998746

>>16002253
If consciousness is (in some capacity) coming from the brain, then anything that interacts with the body can interact with the brain which can interact with consciousness. Thus, things that would change awareness, such as drunkenness or sleep, will change consciousness.

But, if consciousness is outside of the brain, and is discrete, then it stands to reason that it cannot be interacted with by things outside of the body, which you agree with. Thus, if this were the case, and you were to undergo some bodily experience that would interact with the body, it should not interact with consciousness. Consciousness would be unchanged by this, and would experience no changes from sleep or drunkenness. You also say you agree with this. You would experience your normal consciousness, but would have trouble controlling your body. You also say that you agree with this

So, when you sleep, and get drunk, are you conscious and aware normally, or is it changed in some manner?

>>16002253
>the brain is a receiver
So does that means that I could swap the consciousness of two people, such that Receiver A is picking up Sender B's signals. How, exactly, do you propose that this occurs? What kind of process sends the signal? What is the signal made out of?

>>16000843
>There is nothing more futile than to consciously look for something to save you. But consciousness makes this fact seem otherwise. Consciousness makes it seem as if (1) there is something to do; (2) there is somewhere to go; (3) there is something to be; (4) there is someone to know. This is what makes consciousness the parent of all horrors, the thing that makes us try to do something, go somewhere, be something, and know someone, such as ourselves, so that we can escape our MALIGNANTLY USELESS being and think that being alive is all right rather than that which should not be.

it's a tuner

>>16002271
Radios aren't a one way communication device so even if you take the analogy literally, you would still be mistaken. The radio station or soul where the signals originate can both send and receive signals from the radio or brain, so there would be no disconnection from the senses.

Essentially you're making the same argument as the other guy when you suppose that changes in the body effecting your thinking means the signal must be coming from the brain. This is a fallacy. Damaging a radio will effect the music it plays, but this doesn't mean the music comes from the radio. Likewise, making changes to the body will effect your thinking, but this doesn't mean the thinking originates in the brain.

I've seen the other replies but I'm not going to respond to everybody because I'm just going to end up repeating myself over and over again and I'm already bored with this.

>>15999027
Literally a whole thread too dumb to just accept this and move on. A processing apparatus referenced itself as a system even though it was not totally capable of defining its object of reference. No big deal.

>>16002304
You keep refusing to answer the question.

Do you, the person reading this, experience any kind of change in consciousness or awareness during sleep or drunkenness?