/lit/ - Literature

Most philosophers of mind are indeed property dualists. It's a very easy position to conclude if you actually bother reading the arguments. Unfortunately most people who argue about this stuff don't read, yet feel qualified enough to loudly tell you that physicalism is retarded. Most of these people are the religious/spiritual kind and it is impossible to reason with them.

Not only is property dualism self-refuting, it's destroyed by neuroscience
Philosophy of the Mind is generally speaking horseshit though
The "mind" is complete nonsense, either have the guts to believe in the soul or accept neuroscientific facts

>>16262582
>Not only is property dualism self-refuting, it's destroyed by neuroscience
Neither of these statements are true

>>16262585
Cope harder
Are you the cuck that's wasting years of his life studying glorified theology?

>>16262593
>Cope harder
There is no cope. Property dualism is neither self refuting nor has anything in neuroscience "refuted" it somehow.
>Are you the cuck that's wasting years of his life studying glorified theology?
No I'm in graduate school for math.

>>16262596
I see you are incapable of arguement
>No I'm in graduate school for math
Zero worship is worse than any other religion
The only people in your worthless field to ever contribute to the world are the logictards

>>16262602
>I see you are incapable of arguement
You are the one who simply came in here saying "it is self refuting and neuroscience disproves it" despite no argument and neither of those things being true.
I can dismiss your baseless assertion without argument as you haven't given any in the first place. And neither of your assertions are true anyway.
>Zero worship is worse than any other religion
>The only people in your worthless field to ever contribute to the world are the logictards
Oh, you're literally retarded.

>>16262615
You're the one that originally claimed property faggotry is correct without evidence
So I discarded it without evidence
See how retarded your heuristic is

>>16262582

>>16262624
>You're the one that originally claimed property faggotry is correct without evidence
The evidence is the fact that various molecules and structures give rise to different qualitative experiences. This is empirically observed by every human on the planet and is thus the most scientifically rigorously tested idea that exists.
There is nothing self refuting about this and there is nothing in neuroscience that destroys this - it is the opposite, everything in chemistry and neuroscience as well as most rigorous philosophy supports property dualism.
One could argue that the reason a rose smells differently from ammonia is because the chemicals that constitute the smell have different atomic structures, which cause different neurological firings in the brain. This is true. But that still just asserts property dualism, because if different aspects of the physical evolution of the smelling and different patterns of neurological firing in the brain which is caused by these chemicals gives rise to different qualitative experiences of smell, then the physical evolution of the experience of smelling these substances does indeed have two aspects - the quantitative and the qualitative - and property dualism is true. There is nothing about this that is self refuting and there is nothing in neuroscience that "destroys" this.
If you claim that there is no qualitative difference between them, then you're obviously lying to save face and can be dismissed instantly.

>So I discarded it without evidence. See how retarded your heuristic is
No, because I wasn't dismissing anything, I was simply starting a thread. I'm just opening up a discussion.. If you are trying to assert something like eliminative materialism, then you should do that, without angrily attacking the other position with no argument (especially when no solid argument exists).

How about we talk of spirit instead?

>>16262690
>This is empirically observed by every human on the planet and is thus the most scientifically rigorously tested idea that exists.
I didn't know we determined the accuracy of ideas based on mob rule assumptions
I guess that's the problem with trying to come up with a purportedly physical interpretation of the world that relies on nonsense like the "mind" or "qualitative experience"

>hurr durr physicalism is real and expressed in an immediate depth of embedded historicity whose only use outside dogma is to continue the pulsating current inherited from its conception since any reference ever is just a departure from a fundamental substance that reacts with varying degrees but that is ultimately superficially in the current moment (pun intended hurr durr) and the current physical moment is and all there is and everything else is evolutionary baggage from still-not-understood past that we can only remember through trauma and joy hurr durr

You see how retarded you people sound

>>16262690
>various structures
*citation needed*
Show me a thing that objectively exists.
All things are wholes and without the world of forms all wholes are subjective constructs, not real discreet things.

>>16262753
>I didn't know we determined the accuracy of ideas based on mob rule assumptions
Yes, that's how the scientific method works.
Scientists routinely record qualitative aspects of chemical structure like their smell. Neuroscientists do this as well, so your original assertion doesn't even make sense.
>I guess that's the problem with trying to come up with a purportedly physical interpretation of the world that relies on nonsense like the "mind" or "qualitative experience"
As I said, you are not obviously lying to save face.
You deny qualitative experience exists? Then you have no problem with me peeling your skin off with a potato peeler and throwing salt on the womb.
This whole post of yours is cope with no counter argument.

>>16262770
If you want to deny chemistry that's fine for you, but I'm not going to engage.

>>16262794
The position that things are real because you pressure identity over time and Plato's definition of being from his Sophist, that a thing is a thing if it interacts with something else in anyway, you've already presupposed an ideal world, aka something transcendental.

>>16262776
>That's how the scientific method works
....... WAT?
>Dude, pain BAAAAAAAAAAD
Sam, is that you?

>>16262602
>The only people in your worthless field to ever contribute to the world are the logictards
This is bait right?

>>16262768
Don't shit yourself

>>16262794
>>16262807
I'M not denying physicality, I'm saying that YOUR presuppositions must deny it. There are no objects, or individuals, and hence no interactions if 'basic Plato' is wrong. Identity is a transcendental category.

>>16262811
People come up with a hypothesis that is tested as an experience (in an "experiment") and try to falsify it. They do this and publish their results. Other people follow the experiment and see if they get the same results.
Empirical evidence is LITERALLY anecdotal evidence done over time on a mass scale. That's literally what it is. When everyone smells that roses and dogshit smell differently, that is undeniable empirical scientific evidence that roses and dogshit have different qualitative experiences.

>>16262547
>dualism
pseud

>>16262776
lmao this guy argues the same way Ben Shapiro does.

>Philosophy of X

Dropped

>>16262547
Can everyone agree that epiphenomenalism is bullshit? There's no way evolution would leave us with consciousness, if epiphenomenalism is true.

>>16262582
Yeah, you kind of either have to accept some form of non-dualism or just go full religious. I don't really see a way around this otherwise. The fact that the only solutions to the Hard Problem are either stupid ("emotions aren't real"), nondualist ("mind and body aren't actually all that separate"), or require you to explicitly affirm some kind of religious doctrine ("souls are real") is a glaring fucking flaw.

>>16262826

>Hurr durr I can ignore the hard problems if I don't engage with pseuds hurr durr

>>16262582
>believe in the soul
>believe
Do you think it's some magical ghost that flies out of your body? How can you think the mind is complete nonsense, you are a mind retard.

>>16262582
I honestly wonder if people who say this kind of thing, behaviourists and the like, actually have a mind. Like, are they saying it because they're soulless and can't imagine why dualism makes sense, since they are without a mind/soul themselves, or are they just saying it because materialist dogma orders them to?
Here, you fucking retard: Imagine I play a Bach partita for you. Assuming you are not an actual NPC, you will hear it and experience it in a phenomenological sense. Now imagine some neuroscientist, whom you so adore, is beside us, and is examining your brain while I am playing for you. To be sure, he might detect with his brain scanner certain signals and movements inside your brain, but he will never be able to retrieve the actual mental experience of hearing me playing. Even if he cuts up your brain and searches for it everywhere, he will not find it, because it is not a physical, material thing; it is not IN your brain. At best he might INFER the experience from the correlative brain signals, but he will never be able to find the quale of hearing me play. Why? Because qualia are IN YOUR MIND, they are mental, non-physical properties, which only have a relationship with the brain, but are not actually inside it. This is what dualism asserts: mental phenomena, qualia, and the like, are immaterial properties -- which seems to be an irrefutable assertion.

>>16263136
>hurf durf brains are le computer!
No, they aren't. Go read a book.

What's the opposite of Epiphenomenalism? That is, the idea that the mental world can influence the physical world, but not the other way around?

>>16263145
Refute what I said or shut your mouth. Do you seriously not feel anything when you listen to music? Are you seriously an NPC who has no experience of qualia? Are you not conscious? Because this is the only way I can see you denying dualism.

>>16263159
Nobody is retarded enough to have proposed that.

>>16263136
Consciousness is a property of the brain, the same way music is a property of instruments.

>>16263136
>>16263163
>DUDE the BRAIN is just a COMPUTER and like, we're in the MATRIX! you have like, a HARD DRIVE that STORES STUFF!
Ah yes, I see the bugmen have gotten on. Which type of plebbitor are you, are you of the "I'm ACTUALLY just a little guy piloting my body!" variety or a are you a "I'm ACTUALLY just a satellite dish receiving signals from the mothersoi!" type?

>>16263136
>Even if he cuts up your brain and searches for it everywhere, he will not find it, because it is not a physical, material thing
Except he will, he will actually destroy it.

>>16263175
Only if someone plucks the strings.

>>16263175
Music, in the noumenal sense, is material. It is a bunch of vibrations and sound waves travelling through the air. Consciousness is not material. If you say it is, where does it reside? Where is my experience of listening to Bach? What stuff is it made of? Why can't anyone find it?

>>16263163
>refute what I said
The brain isn't a computer. You don't have a hard drive in your head. Human experiences are a process, not discrete things. You can't find the enjoyment in your head because you are a bugman who doesn't think. Normal people, however, could find the enjoyment in their heads because it's not a file in the head-harddrive, it's a multi-part process. The pineal gland has no role in human cognition outside of its role as an endocrine gland. You are a bugman, and it is why you are unhappy.

YOU might be a mindless robot only being piloted by forces separate from you, but the rest of us are not.

>>16263136
Don't bother, they won't understand. I feel you though, kind of scary.

>>16263170
I didn't ask if it's stupid or not, I asked what the term for it was so that I could read the stupid shit some guy said about it.

>>16263198
>Human experiences are a process, not discrete things.
You can call it whatever you want, it does not change the argument. Experiences, whether they are processes or "discrete things", exist, and everyone has them, and they are immaterial. If you say they are not immaterial, you have to pick my quale of listening to Bach up in your hand and show me it. But you can't.

>>16263131
not the same anon but he clearly meant Soul as atman or psyche or "pure consciousness"

>>16263191
You read the niggerbrain Kant and are using "noumenal" in the incorrect sense, qualia are not phenomena, they are noumena, Kant's definition of Noumena is incorrect. Also, you cannot assert reliably that the hypokeimena of phenomenal objects is noumenal. They may or may not be an illusion, the only thing that is noumenal (not taken in through the senses) are qualia

>>16263242
You have no idea what you're talking about. The reason that you can't put anger, or enjoyment, or any mental thing, in your hand is because it's a process. Your belief that mental phenomena are discrete things that are found within the brain means that YOU believe that you can put anger, or enjoyment, in your hand and show it to people.

Look into what the Hard Problem of Consciousness is. Hell, read the paper where Chalmers coined the term.
http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

This is only a problem because you're making it one.

>>16263286
>because I'm such a hardcore empiricist, I need to deny the existance of the only thing I can truly know empirically otherwise muh materialism and muh little bouncing balls are not real
materialism is a mental disorder

>>16263286
>Your belief that mental phenomena are discrete things that are found within the brain means that YOU believe that you can put anger, or enjoyment, in your hand and show it to people.
That is not my belief you fucking moron. How did you even manage to solve the captcha?

>>16263298
>materialism
You seem to be confused. Materialism and physicalism (which you are ACTUALLY accusing me of) are two different things. Physicalism is actually a form of pluralism, arguing that reality, of which mental phenomena are just one aspect of, occur because of the interactions of three or more substances (Modern Physics puts it at seventeen, in fact). Pluralists are not subject to the Hard Problem of Consciousness, for reasons that Chalmers lays out (that I mention in a few lines). Materialism, properly, is a form of dualism in which you just argue that one of the two things reality is made up of does not exist. I am not a materialist, because I'm not a dualist.

Also, you should reread the post you're quoting, because I never denied the existence of mental phenomena, in fact I'm explicitly affirming them as real. The anon I was responding to is the one who is entering the trap of
>How do the mind and body interact, given that Descartes ideas of the pineal gland being where the little guy piloting your body is simply incorrect?
which naturally leads into materialism as the dualist is thus forced to accept that mental phenomena do not exist, while still remaining in the mind-body framework.

I'm sidestepping that entirely by not being a dualist.

>>16263308
>That is not my belief you fucking moron
See >>16263136. Go read a book.

Good starter desu.

The material world is a trap made by Yaldaboath.

Spinoza's pantheism was correct. This material world and its Law of Causality entraps us. Our thoughts and passions are ruled by the material. Only our Atman stands aside from this. We are bacteria in the belly of the Blind God.

Gnosis of this reality is our only path to escaping. Seek Ein Soph.

>>16263353
>Your belief is that qualia are found within the brain
>Quotes a post where I said plainly: "It is not in your brain"
Retard.

>>16262602
>I see you are incapable of arguement
>>16262593
>Cope harder
>Are you the cuck that's wasting years of his life studying glorified theology?

Mhm

>>16263471
See >>16263353.

>>16263353
you are lying to yourself when you conflate qualia and mind. "Mind" is the interaction between the psyche (dasein, soul, atman, "first person Experiencer", the Observer) and the brain, that is easily proven because I can ask you to ask yourself "what thought am I having next" and you won't have any, because you'll be in a state of pure Experience. Even thoughts in your head are translated into qualia, you either subvocalize them or they come in the form of "intuitions" which are just jumbled up qualia.

>>16263508
>Soft Problems
That's nice and all, but that's not what the conversation is about.

>>16263518
explain that or I'll call it a cope

>>16263583
He's a retard. It's the difference between knowing and understanding. He probably read a bit about philosophy of mind, which is why he has all these prepackaged responses and nomenclature, but he has absolutely no understanding of it. He's just regurgitating what others have thought.

>>16262547
Dualism is brainlet tier.

The soulless determinist materialists are completely right and are btfoing dualists right and left.

>>16263353
Materialism is a form of monism, not dualism.

>>16263583
The Hard Problem of Consciousness is:
>Given that Mind and Body are separate substances that things are made out of, how does the body generate Mind?
It's a more specific variant of the general problem of Dualism:
>How do two substances interact?

The Soft Problems, however, are things like "How does thought happen" or "how does sight occur". Thus far, we've only been talking about the Hard Problem. I'm not saying your wrong, just that I'm not concerned with the Soft Problems right now. We can argue back and forth about Soft Problems all day, but they aren't the Hard Problem.

>>16263609
I cited the paper where Chalmers introduced the Hard Problem like, twenty posts ago, dude, and you STILL haven't read it? You haven't even checked the Wikipedia pa-
>prepackaged responses and nomenclature
Oh, nevermind, you just don't like that other people know more about these subjects than you do.

>>16262690
No one has been capable of refuting this.

>>16263767
Entirely true, but you're ignoring the context that the term is used in. That's rarely what people mean when they talk about materialism. Rather, they're a dualist-who-can't-find-one-of-the-substances. Mind and matter are separate, but only matter can be found.

There are indeed actual monists who can be viewed as believing the world to be "all material", but again, that's not what people are usually thinking of when they use these terms. Namely, anon implied that materialists don't think things like emotions and thoughts are real, which means he's using materialist to refer to a dualist-that-can't-find-mind, not to a monist. A monist has no reason to deny that thoughts and emotions aren't real, they're just made of the same stuff that everything else is. A dualist-that-can't-find-mind must deny the existence of thoughts and emotions, however, because they're made of mind, and he can't find any mind, so clearly he can't find thoughts and emotions.

>>16262811
He's not saying pain is inherently morally bad like Sam Harris argued, he's claiming the qualitative experience exists. He's arguing qualia exist, not making a moral claim about it.
Pain doesn't have to be morally bad to still exist and still be unpleasant and avoided.

>>16263768
If your "Hard Problem" is that then I'm saying your phrasing of the hard problem is incorrect and since this is an honest rational discussion you will not try to tell me "hurr but the book says this" or "b-but mr. Credential said that".
If it is a "Hard Problem of Consciousness" then it is about Consciousness which is not the "mind", it is not "memory" it is not "identity" and as netti netti goes on, is not anything other then consciousness itself. There is Atman all else is Anatman - there is the first person experience of the Experiencer which is just that, he who experiences it. Now read my post again and tell me how the fuck is that "soft problems"

>>16263780
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
its been refuted for 25 years dude

>>16263788
Oh, that makes sense.

>>16263797
This is not a refutation. Cope.

>>16263792
>It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.

>The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive there is a whir of information processing, but there is also a subjective aspect.
This is from the man who came up with the Hard Problem. You can read the paper where he outlines this. Some dude cited a webpage above, I'll give you a .pdf
http://consc.net/papers/facing.pdf

>>16263797
Ignoring the empirical reality of consciousness because it doesn't agree with your particular type of materialism is not "refuting"

>>16263813
See >>16263353.

>>16263819
Physicalism is not a form of pluralism. It's still reductive materialist and monist.

>>16263811
then formulating the problem as
>Given that Mind and Body are separate substances that things are made out of, how does the body generate Mind?
Is incorrect. "Mind" is not consciousness. Memory is not consciousness, Intellect is not consciousness, Rationality is not consciousness, Identity is not consciousness, etc, etc

>>16263824
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle
You're using terms that you don't know the meaning of.

>>16263136
I don't understand the need to call this "dualism". We intuitively understand the world in terms of tables and chairs and macroscopic "objects", but such constructs do not really exist in the world in a causally relevant manner. Must we now be "dualists" about tables and chairs?

>>16263829
Yes, and as I explained, under a dualist context, these are all Soft Problems.

If you're coming at this from a Vedantin perspective, as I assume you are by your usage of atman, then no, you are not subject to the Hard Problem, as you are not a dualist. Only dualists are subject to the hard-problem. Monists, Pluralists, and non-dualists who are not pluralists and monists are not subject to it. Only dualists are.

>>16263819
dude stop thinking like an absolute midwit. No one gives a fuck what doctor Credential PhD defined as "materialism" or "pluralism". We are calling you a materialist because you believe there is only one hypostasis ultimately. If it's composed of five or nine or infinite ontologically different substances, it doesn't matter. You are saying "qualia" are identical, hypostatically, to matter, as for all differences that they have, they still belong to the same unified thing called "Reality", that is incorrect

>>16263833
I study this shit in graduate school. I understand the formalism for QFT better than you.
It's all considered one type of information that takes the form of different elementary particles. It's monist. Not pluralist.

>>16263833
the standard model is monistic though, it admits that material substances have numerous modalities but they are all ultimately "physical".

>>16262547
>thread is about the mind, consciousness, determinism, dualism and monism
>not a single mention of quantum mechanics
You all are a bunch of retards pseuds.

>>16263845
>stop assuming that words mean what they mean, you're actually having a discussion by stepping outside of the dualistic framework, which makes it hard to fling shit in a ritualized manner

>>16263851
It would be monist if you didn't believe that the elementary particles could be broken down further, but not everyone believes that. I personally feel that we'll eventually find empirical evidence breaking them down even further. For now, however, the theory leaves it at seventeen fundamental substances that make up reality. That's pluralism. If you want to take it a step further, that's fine, but you're not required to do that.

>>16263862
You're just shoehorning pluralism into dualism, then. At that point, you might as well say monism isn't even monistic, because it's actually just all physical, and there's also mental, ergo dualism.

>>16263882
which one of those seventeen substances makes up consciousness and how do you know that?

>>16263890
it actually is dualistic, as it accepts that Space has properties which means it differentiates all things into either
>one of the however many particles that form Matter-Energy
>infinite endless Space-Time
which is epistemologically insane but scientists don't care

>>16263882
first poster you quoted here, answer my argument don't try to shift the conversation to actual shit flinging. Do you or do you not believe that whilst there is a plurality of substance, there is only one hypostasis?

>>16263894
All seventeen do, in varying degrees and proportions.

>>16263911
I would disagree, and argue that space cannot be considered a substance, and that lumping the elementary particles together as being just one thing is overly reductionist.

We have, however, taken this far-afield from my initial point: you can be a monist and not a reductive materialist (monists have no reason to say that "anger" isn't real), you can be a physicalist and not a reductive materialist (physicalists have no reason to say that "thought" isn't real). The only people who have any reason to say these things aren't real are certain kinds of dualists.

>>16263946
>All seventeen do, in varying degrees and proportions
how do you know, did you ever dissect someone's Consciousness?

>>16263833
The only substance needed in physics is spacetime. Everything else - elementary "particles" etc -- are just local properties of spacetime (fields).

>>16263882
>For now, however, the theory leaves it at seventeen fundamental substances that make up reality. That's pluralism.
You're wrong. You fundamentally don't understand how particle physics works. Everything is a field in QFT.

>>16263946
>We have, however, taken this far-afield from my initial point: you can be a monist and not a reductive materialist (monists have no reason to say that "anger" isn't real), you can be a physicalist and not a reductive materialist (physicalists have no reason to say that "thought" isn't real). The only people who have any reason to say these things aren't real are certain kinds of dualists.
right now, to reach that conclusion you have used Logic, namely three laws
A)The Law of Identity
B)The Law of non-Contradiction
C)The Law of the Excluded Middle
you seem to have no problem in saying "thoughts are physical" - that's okay. Now, without us talking about your thought of the Law of non-Contradiction, which according to you is physical, being a representation in your brain of that Law, without referring to that, please do tell me:
Where, physically, is the Law of non-Contradiction.

And if not in one particular place but permeating all of reality, please, do tell, what is the Law of non-Contradiction composed of. What is it's substance??? What little bumping balls is it made of?

>>16263768
>Oh, nevermind, you just don't like that other people know more about these subjects than you do.
No, I'm just saying that you have no idea what you're talking about. You KNOW about the subject, but you don't UNDERSTAND it at all. For example, in your interaction with that anon (who was in no way off topic), instead of answering his point with a substantive rebuttal, you have simply consigned it to a different mental pigeonhole. "The books told me that is the soft problem! You can't talk about that now! We must follow the books!" This rigidity of thought is characteristic of the closed minded person, one who may know but doesn't understand.
As for our interaction, you chose to respond to my point in exactly the same way, by accusing me of category-error, which you learned to do from the books. "No, no! Qualia are processes, not discrete things! Therefore you're wrong!" But this doesn't actually say anything. Mental experiences, whatever they are, "discrete things" or processes, are immaterial properties, yet their existence is fundamentally obvious to everyone. Again, if you deny this, then pick up a quale and show me it. If you don't deny this, you are a dualist. Simply assigning things to pigeonholes and saying "the books told me no!" is not how you do thinking.

>>16263191
>music
>material
Music is only music in your own experience. For everyone else it's just soundwaves lmao.

>>16263841
This doesn't seem to be relevant. Categories are abstracted from particulars, so no they do not exist in the material world. The category "chair" is immaterial. But this category does not exist (unless you're a platonist) in the same way as mental experiences exist. You holding your hand in front of your face, seeing the hand, thinking thoughts about the hand -- all of that is empirically obvious to you. That is a mental experience which obviously exists in some way; it is not merely an abstraction from a set of particulars. Just imagine denying it; imagine saying, "my experiences do not exist", or "I have no experiences". It is not quite as easy to swallow as "chairness does not exist". You must concede that mental experiences exist, and these are not material.

>make long effortposts
>Go to sleep
>They have no replies and the thread is usually dead
...
>Write tingly bait
>Thread has exploded when I come back
I hate this place

>>16263178
>bugmen
>plebbitor
>mothersoi
And you call others NPCs while being unable to form a sentence without using a whole collection of buzzwords?

>>16263768
>consciousness = mind
Anyone who spent any fucking time meditating knows that this is false.

>>16264264
>Dude, if I dull my senses with heavy breathing, consciousness and mind are separate
Anon, I...

>And you call others NPCs while being unable to form a sentence without using a whole collection of buzzwords?

>>16263845
This.

>>16264235
I'm not talking about "categories". Forget the "category of chairs". Consider the particular chair you are sitting on. It does not exist in a causally relevant sense. It is an arbitrary human construct. Likewise with mental experiences. As far we know, only quantum fields have any causally relevant existence. 'Chairs' and 'experiences' are just arbitrary constructs that we find useful as we maneuver through life.

>>16262547

>>16264283
You see what i mean?

>>16264264
Absolutely correct, which is why I did not imply that. Dualists do. I am not a Dualist.

>>16263971
Other than my own in meditation, no, but I don't really need to. All I need to do is posit that things are made up of three or more substances, and that these substances in some combination make up mental phenomena. That's all that's needed to explain a pluralist source of mental phenomena.

>>16264123
Your problem is that you KNOW about the subject, but you don't UNDERSTAND it at all. You should go read a book. An anon up thread posted a good place to start, and various texts explaining the Hard Problem (which you seem to be aware of, but don't really get).

>>16264272
>implying that you use your "senses" to detect your own consciousness
I would laugh but this is just sad.
How does consciousness taste? What does it smell like? What does it look like? What does it sound like? How does it feel like when you touch it?

Retard detected.

the dualists in this thread have been pretty butthurt that the non-dualist sperg has been btfoing them, so ill give you guys a chance to redeem yourselves. given that you believe that reality is made up of two substances, mind and matter, how do you propose the mind animates the matter? keep in mind, descartes theories about the pineal gland being necessary for human thought are wrong (link related).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5498116/

>>16262547

>>16264317

>>16262582

Based not lukewarm, not getting spat out poster.

>>16264329
>I don't need to provide with proof :^)
>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST PROPOSE THAT CONSCIOUSNESS AND MATTER ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT STUFF AND THAT CONSCIOUSNESS AND GOD ARE NOT A PART OF THE PHENOMENAL REALITY NOOOOO WHERE IS YOU EMPIRICAL PROOF

>>16264272
>meditation
>heavy breathing
What?

>>16264445
I'm not sure what you're getting at. You asked how one could construct a pluralistic system that explains mental phenomena. I've done so.

>there are people who do not understand subjective experience or deny conscious when both are things that any human would be innately familiar with above all else
What the fuck is going on, are they confused or are we communicating with golems?

>>16264451
>>16264488
Dualists aren't actually capable of consciousness, which is why they think that mental phenomena have to come from "somewhere else". They don't actually feel or think anything of their own accord, so when something strikes them and they DO feel something, they assume it had to come from externally, because this new feeling could not have come from within.

>>16264497
>dualists were actually the spiritually dead hylics all along
damn...

>>16264488
it is a mystery to me as well, the 'consciousness is an illusion' people are particularly spooky. Nobody who was conscious would misuse the word illusion like that

>>16264497
>>16264518

Underrated.

>>16263875
That Krauss guy seems like a fucking moron

>>16264329
>hard problem
Again with this. Do you have any thoughts of your own or are you just being an obsequious slave to the academics? So what, some guy with a famous name and a funny hat and a high-sounding title told you that you have to think about it this way — that does not mean that other ways of thinking are invalid. You think you have refuted dualism by calling quaila “processes”, when all you’re doing is regurgitating some shit you read in a book. It matters very little what category you want to place qualia in; as long as you acknowledge their existence, and acknowledge that they are not material (which is impossible to deny) then you are a dualist. Telling me to read some academic kike isn’t a rebuttal.

>>16265680
Your problem is that you KNOW about the subject, but you don't UNDERSTAND it at all. You should go read a book. An anon up thread posted a good place to start, and various texts explaining the Hard Problem (which you seem to be aware of, but don't really get).

>>16265706
Autist

>>16265706
I think this is a really interesting thing that you see a lot on 4chan. Some dude, like the one you're responding to, gets this vague idea that certain words relate to other words, but the words themselves don't have meaning. They just know that if they say "consciousness", some other guy is supposed to respond with certain other words like "qualia" or "dualism", and he responds with "materialism". It's very ritualized. You can go on any /lit/ archive and see hundreds of these threads play out, ossifying certain patterns and codifying certain shitflinging rituals.

So when someone comes in and actually discusses these words and topics, it agitates the ritualistic shitflinger, because they don't know how to respond. The words don't have meaning to them, they're just empty tokens displayed to get a response.

>>16265732
>lost the argument so he resorts to samefagging and psychoanalysing

>>16265752

Way to prove that guy's point, dipshit.

>>16265732
Telling someone that they don't understand a subject and they should read a book is not an argument lmao

>>16265778
I've rebutted your argument against dualism in good faith many times in this thread. All you can do is throw around buzzwords you've learned from the books and screech that I should read some Jew. You have no original thoughts.

>>16265791
Neither is not having an argument and just getting mad that your ritualistic shitflinging gets denied.

>>16265793
I'm not that anon.

No, you haven't. I've have not argued against Dualism in this thread, I've simply stated the Hard Problem of Consciousness and what it entails for you, and you've gotten angry because I'm actually discussing it and not just engaging in, what >>16265732 is calling "ritualistic shitflinging", which I think is apt.

You want an argument against Dualism? People like you defend it.

And on your second post, you are correct, and you can't argue for something you have no knowledge about, so in order for me to give an argument you would have to actually know what you're talking about and present an argument for me to argue against. Hence why I instructed you to go do the basic reading about this before holding an opinion on it.

>>16265896
I presented you an argument.
>1. Conscious experiences exist, and I know this because I am acquainted with them personally.
>2. Conscious experiences are not material.
>3. Therefore, dualism is true; mental properties are non-physical.

You responded
>Conscious experiences are processes, not discrete objects.

I responded
>It doesn't matter what you want to call them. They are existent, immaterial properties, so dualism is true.

Since then you've been telling me to read Jews as if I can't figure the most fundamental and primeval question of humanity, consciousness, out on my own. This is why I said you have no original thoughts; you fall back on academics in funny hats instead of thinking for yourself.

>>16262690
When I'm driving a car everything looks very different than watching someone else drive a car. Does that mean that there is a "substance" that accounts for the inside of the car and a different one for the outside? Does the car have a mind and a body? No, it's just a car. It's one thing. There is no reason to separate these things.

Another way of looking at it is this: In OP's picture Psychophysic Parallelism shows Mn and Pn to be identical. If everything in M matches everything in P, just say that M = P.
There is no difference between mind and body. Saying that there is a "qualitative" aspect to the mind is like saying there is something special about the interior of a car that is magically different from the way that same interior looks from an outside perspective.

>>16265855
The guy you're calling a ritualistic shitlflinger at least said said something, telling him to read a book as a response is just pathetic and it is hilarious you thought that was some kind of adequate rebuttal.

>>16265971
If there is no difference between mind and body, show me my experience of smelling a rose. I can show you your body -- your arms, your legs, your brain, your teeth. I can hold it in my hand and taste it and smell it and feel it. Do the same thing, please, for my experience of smelling a rose.

>>16265971
yes and nobody in this thread is saying dualism is mind-body dualism. You are conflating mind with consciousness they are not the same thing. There IS a dualism, in that there are two distinct types of thing in this reality - one is hypokeimenal, thoroughly unnaccessible but by all accounts real, the other one is not part of the hypokeimena of things, thoroughly distinct and yet is the only thing we can ever access, which is consciousness.

The hypokeimenon is the material substrate of things

Consciousness can access them and it utilizes qualia (which are a priori) to access them

>>16263136
>I honestly wonder
Do you honestly wonder this? Or are you using honestly, sarcastically?

>but he will never be able to retrieve the actual mental experience of hearing me playing
This is a complete assumption. You have no right to definitively say this about future science, or even present science. I know you've seen fMRI and EEGs, so you're just saying bullshit to maintain cognitive dissonance.

>>16265957
See >>16265706. Go read a book.

>>16266043
>fMRI and EEGs
machines can not comprehend qualia however. If you look at a computer, it is quite easy to teach it how to understand brightness and saturation - brightness will make it display more or less intense light and saturation will make it more or less close to colour X in opposition to monotone (which relates to brightness). You can't however have a computer figure out hue, it must be calibrated by a human, as "hue" will always be an arbitrary value assigned to a colour detected by a human able of understanding qualia.

>>16266004
There is no difference between consciousness and body. I reject all of these dualisms. All things that interact do so along some shared axis. The substrate is the process and the process is the substrate. When a ripple moves through the water, it is obvious that the ripple and the water are one thing.
>>16265989
>show me my experience of smelling a rose
Ok. Stick your head in an fMRI and smell a rose. Something will probably be shown in the screen and we'll see the location of your experience.
The reason many have trouble with this, is that the brain cannot feel itself. Not only is there no sense of touch or pain in the brain, but there is no sense that your mind changes it's shape as you think, even though it does. You may not subjectively feel like this, but if a surgeon opened your cranium and poked around in your brain, you'd feel things. There are many instances of this. Poking the brain, drugs, magnets, disease, all these physical things change subjective experience and also change neurology simultaneously. Why should I assume there's a difference between neurology and experience when they always act together?

The experience of smelling a rose is a process that your brain undergoes.

>>16266091
Here you just show that you're not educated.
The reason why need to calibrate hue is that visible light is simply a tiny slice of the electromagnetic spectrum. The cells in our eyes are stimulated only by light within this narrow slice of wavelength, and the computer monitor has to be calibrated to reproduce that wavelength.
There is nothing magic about calibrating computer monitors. I am honestly baffled that you thought hue was special.

>>16263191
>where is the sound wave hmm?
>tell me what atom the sound is inside
>why can't anyone find which molecule of air has the sound inside it?!?!

>>16266848
>Ok. Stick your head in an fMRI and smell a rose. Something will probably be shown in the screen and we'll see the location of your experience.
"The location of an experience" is not the experience in the same way the location of an apple is not the apple. This is not an argument.

>>16266848
>When a ripple moves through the water, it is obvious that the ripple and the water are one thing.
This is literally not true, waves are not the same thing as the material they propogate through.

>>16267024
If you take a wave and remove the water, the wave disappears.
The wave and water are only separate in abstraction.
>>16266995
Yes, I know. I stopped at location because I thought you'd have the mental capacity to pick up where I left off, and make the very simple conclusion that if your "experience" is located in the brain then the "experience" is caused by the brain, or is a process that the brain undergoes.

What do you have to say about chemicals, be they drugs, diseases, natural chemicals in the body, whatever, altering experience when introduced into the brain? You can take a liquid, inject it into your blood, and change your emotions, memory, thought patterns, awareness, etc. and this happens in every hospital every day.

>>16267273
we already have neuroimaging technology which allows us to look at memory in the hippocampus, or emotions in the amygdala, it doesn’t do anything which allows us to actually understand how that mental process *at that location* actually produces X qualia in consciousness, there is no reason right now to think that scaling computing power up will make a difference, the difference between consciousness and matter is qualitative and not quantitative, it’s not something which can be deduced by a formulaic program which itself can never experience or comprehend the qualitative experience of that which it is trying to render quantitatively

>>16263788
>A monist has no reason to deny that thoughts and emotions aren't real, they're just made of the same stuff that everything else is.
But how could a monist claim that when thoughts and emotions are obviously not made of the same stuff as physical matter? Isn't this what the hard problem of consciousness is in the first place?

>>16263811
>It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis
Well that's just false.
>Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.
It doesn't. I don't even know how to articulate this, it should be obvious.

>>16267431
The qualitative experience is the experience of neurons firing together. It can be said to be an "interior" phenomena within the physical objects, but there is a large problem of reifying scientific models.
Even you have fallen prey to this:
>the difference between consciousness and matter
You are making assumptions about the properties of matter, when you have only ever used a mind to interpret what matter might be. This is one reason why I reject dualism of mind and body, of physical and metaphysical, of these substances. We have only ever used one supposed substance to make claims about the other.
Look at it this way: Your assumption about what a "physical/material" substance is has lead you to believe that it is fundamentally incompatible with experience. Where is this "material" substance? All I can see is my own sense of vision. All I can hear is my sense of hearing. All I have are mental objects. This material substance is simply assumed to be different from what makes up the mind.

Another thing to consider is that we are terrible at examining our very own minds. We can look at red, and imagine red, but we really can't understand red from an external perspective. It is like we are only seeing this experience from the inside, and we may never know what it is like from the outside looking in. For example, if an animal is seeing a color we don't see, it is unlikely we will ever experience that color. I say this is because the animal has a different brain than us. This new color has developed in some part of its brain, and the experience of that color IS the excitation of that neurology. We can't experience or think about that color because we don't have that part of our brain. Thinking about red is challenging because it is literally a part of us, and we are trying to get outside of ourselves and wrap around ourselves, in a sense, while we are instead stuck inside ourselves and cannot get a tighter grasp of these mental objects than we what we have.

To conclude: you are making assumptions about mind and matter that make them seem incompatible, while we can barely grasp either one.

Dear God this thread is fucking trash. Uhhh, remind me as to who Spinoza was and what he solved again? Jesus fucking christ. It's obvious to any highly intelligent man that all is connected, and all is one. Personally, I lean towards Panentheism, Divine Conceptualism, and Dual Aspect Monism so as to make sense of reality (I've found that alternative theories don't hold up to scrutiny). You can say that you're a soul entrapped in a body, and it is clear that the soul is the mode of thought and that the body the mode of extension, but this is just a modification of substance (two attributes of the same thing), as expressed, that is, as a way of Being, a way of being Being. If you don't follow (I plagarized the last part from a Deleuze lecture), it might be helpful to imagine God/Consciousness/Reality as this large pool, and perhaps there are several glasses that take from this pool, and disassociate it. Bernardo Kastrup thought this of consciousness, that what constitutes difference is a disassociation of the single substance. I'm a little drunk but I think this is somewhat clear. It's all one substance that expresses itself in a large variety of ways.

>>16262582
>it's destroyed by neuroscience
Ok, build or show me a machine that can detect consciousness

>>16268068
Hey man, you're retarded. I bet you're a physicalist too lmao.

>>16262547
Multiversal Solipsism.
There is only your mind, but in infinite variations.

>>16263136
Maybe in the future we will be able to fully capture experiences. Then maybe in a farther future we will be able to fit them so your brain is the "experiencer" or maybe somehow create an experience transfer so you have the illusion you transferred between minds, maybe even between egos. Who knows. Neuroscience is really a baby science right now.

>>16267849
A monist will tell you that's a lie created by your brain. Its all the same, we just are a piece of 'material' that has the property of self delusion.