/lit/ - Literature

a net between living creatures
guess the t., pseuds

>>17095165
time to get into phenomenology

nothingness

>>17095191
who is the GOAT phenomenologist
whats the best phenomenology book

>>17095165
The soul or self appears to be designable in whatever way you choose. That's why philosophers are useful. They present new ideas for molding our mind. We decide what we internally are and should know this

The meaning of the word when it was first created has been lost because it was unique to its perception by its creator therefore no one knowns what it means because it doesn't mean anything. Discard it

take away your memories, instinctual reactions, and senses, what is left?

>>17095165
Universe becoming self-aware. Creation folding in on itself to watch it unfold before itself. The universe is vast and calamitous beyond reckoning and yet your brain, such a tiny and primitive thing of organic hardware running electrochemical processes, is able to comprehend such and etch out a personal order from stochastic chaos.

>>17095165
Anon, if you want to know what consciousness is, then follow my instructions precisely. First, raise your hands in front of your face. Stare at them - make sure to focus as intensely as you can. As you do that, don't forget to focus on being aware of your breathing and your body.
That's consciousness anon. It's not what you do or the part of you that followed the instructions - it's the awareness that lies even deeper behind, observing and directing.
>>17095197
Based and Nirvanapilled.

>>17095165
God

>>17095165
Intentionality
>>17095216
Check out Being and Nothingness by Sartre, Being and Time by Heidegger is one of the all time greatest but much more difficult. B&N is hard but a good intro existential phenomenology

it's just awareness, a process
write a program that analyzes some data, it will be aware of that data
humans are aware about the world, the data we received as we grew up since being born
that's literally it, that's all "you" are - information being stored and processed

>>17096109
>that's literally it, that's all "you" are - information being stored and processed

The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self.

>>17096127
>nooo i'm a special holy divine snowflake!!

>>17096139
Who are you quoting?

>>17095165
>>17095165
Consciousness is like, the universe experiencing itself, bro

>>17096143
everyone who disagrees with me

>>17096151
Cope

>>17096161
cope with what?

>>17096183
Having to fake quotes

>>17096109
So are computers conscious? That actually doesn’t make sense at all, because “information” is arbitrary. Any system takes “information,” what makes a group of atoms reacting to each other different than me reacting to my senses? I am storing and processing information, but that doesn’t explain how I am experiencing myself storing and processing information.

>>17096300
Based post.

>>17096300
>are computers conscious?
Yes, watch Serial Experiments Lain.

>>17095165
Sorry but /lit/ is not the appropriate board for this question:
>>>/sci/

>>17096323
>"watch anime!"
Yeah, no.
>>17096326
>implying that scientards are more qualified to talk about consciousness than those who dabble with the humanities
Anon, I...

>>17096334
cope

>>17096405
Scientism is for nerds, anon.

>>17096300
Yes, computers are conscious. In a different way of course, but they are processing information.
>what makes a group of atoms reacting to each other different than me reacting to my senses?
everything has a soul, take the shamanist pill
>how I am experiencing myself storing and processing information
There isn't anything "special" about "experiencing". What you refer to as experiencing is the process of processing of information.

>>17096636
>There isn't anything "special" about "experiencing". What you refer to as experiencing is the process of processing of information.
Pretty sure that there is an obvious qualitative gap between the type of "information processing" as it relates to a computer and as it relates to human beings. That's what anon is commenting on.

>>17096644
Nobody denies that humans can process more complex info. We can process general information about the world, but at its core the process is essentially the same.

>>17096490
I actually don't endorse scientism anon.
I happen to believe that there are just some questions that science just isn't equipped to handle.
For example most questions asked in pseudo-scientific fields that get filtered by the replication crisis are probably due to researchers asking questions which are by their nature unanswerable.
While I believe a field such as psychology will pretty much always be a pseudoscience because of said reasons I believe we can ask ourselves questions such as say, "what machines can we construct which we can call conscious?"
Questions such as "how do we define life?", which are semi-philosophical but deal with things which can be described by science (Biology) should be answered in a way which is purely useful to that science.
Anything which cannot be generalized, understood, and explained by science is pretty much just metaphysical speculation and is useless to everyone.
Remember what Wittgenstein said: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Computation theory, linguistics, and neurology do a good job of getting close to what consciousness is.

>>17096636
> What you refer to as experiencing is the process of processing of information
Except the vast majority of information is processed subconsciously without our awareness, and an Atom that collides with another atom simply has no mechanism to experience the information of the collision. If you want to be a panpsychist explain how it is possible for a rock to experience me dropping it. We can become completely unconscious through drugs, so surely although the presence of a mechanism to experience things does not create consciousness, it is impossible to be conscious without that mechanism.

>>17096665
You are still thinking quantitatively, anon. What I mean is that if you treat a human as a computer and you only rely on input-output and logic, you will be dealing with a very limited set of traits of the human intellect, but the rest will remain completely unused and idle. Even if we take "information processing" as the basis of our worldview, we can not reduce human consciousness to the same standard of "information processing" as that of a computer.
>>17096723
It appears to me that you a priori exclude the possibility of a holistic definition of consciousness which is why you propose that it should instead be studied by stemfags. If I had to guess, this would be because of your intellectual influences, since as far as I am aware Wittgenstein dismisses metaphysics as a whole, which is the basis for all deeper study of reality and without which it is difficult to zero in on ideas like consciousness.

>>17096741
>the vast majority of information is processed subconsciously without our awareness
So? Computers also have subroutines that can be relegated to other processes, other cores or GPUs. The main process doesn't have to be "aware" of those calculations, only the result data.
>Atom that collides with another atom simply has no mechanism to experience the information of the collision
It only means it has no way to process the type of info you're talking about. Just like you have no way to "experience" unpacking a 35 gigabyte 7z archive as a computer does.
Information about the atom collision exists somewhere besides the outside observer, otherwise the atoms wouldn't collide.
>If you want to be a panpsychist explain how it is possible for a rock to experience me dropping it
A rock could have microorganisms living on it that would process information in a different way than if you didn't throw that rock. Even if the rock is pure, the way atoms move through it would be different than if you didn't throw the rock. These changes in atom's movement trajectories would constitute information that is changed. Of course, this is just basic information of how atoms moved processed by nothing more than the physical world, but it is information nonetheless.
You could say that a rock is not "conscious", but if the concept of its place in the universe did not exist, then that rock would not physically exist.
Maybe you could say that the physical world is a type of consciousness storing and processing info on physics. In that case, a falling rock is a part of that process.

>>17096755
>the rest will remain completely unused and idle
What is "the rest"? Every part of human intellect is processing different types of information in different ways. That's the definition of intellect.
>we can not reduce human consciousness to the same standard of "information processing" as that of a computer
Why not? Processing is processing. More complex algorithm than that of a computer, sure. But it's still processing.
Is there something specific that differs human consciousness from information processing?

>>17096755
> without which it is difficult to zero in on ideas like consciousness
You can't though, that's the whole point.
There are limits to what we can know and what we can say of what we know.
Though I prefer the Tractatus, the concept of language games explains this clearly. What we define as consciousness is based on the context with which we are trying to use the word in, if we are truly trying to seek knowledge the context in which we are speaking, the game, is governed by the limits of what we can know. Therefor, since science is the best tool we have for knowing things about our world, philosophy (which also seeks knowledge) must submit itself to the rules of scientific language and conform to what ever definition is useful for it (thus the metaphysical cannot enter into any picture of the world we form with this definition).
There are other definitions of consciousness that exist, legally, religiously, commonly (i.e. the everyday definition), philosophically, etc. but these definitions can not help us understand and make meaning of the world unless they are scientific.

all hypothetical evolutionary models of emerging consciousness leads to featherless bipeds

>>17097005
>What is "the rest"? Every part of human intellect is processing different types of information in different ways. That's the definition of intellect.
Yet a computer can only process some types of information that humans can - though very quickly. My point is that the difference between the two is qualitative, rather than merely quantitative (volume or speed of processing).
>Why not? Processing is processing. More complex algorithm than that of a computer, sure. But it's still processing. Is there something specific that differs human consciousness from information processing?
Yes. It's not algorithms. Algorithmic and logical thinking is only one possible mode of human thought out of many.
>>17097042
I can only restate what I said earlier - it seems that your perspective, informed by Wittgenstein, seems to reject the very possibility of metaphysical investigation of concepts like consciousness, so from your perspective no progress can be made. Others will disagree - me included.

>>17097005
Not really, look up automata theory and listen to Penrose and Putnam.

>>17097202
>the difference between the two is qualitative, rather than merely quantitative
Yes, for fucks sake, your point is not that hard to get. At no point did I deny the quality of human info processing.
Human thinking is still info processing, and I am yet to hear any arguments against that.
>Yes. It's not algorithms.
Can you tell me what mode of human thought is NOT processing information?

>>17095165
Everything happening inside of your head is out of your control, “you” are merely experiencing what’s going on while thinking you’re in charge.
Here’s what consciousness is: whatever that “thing” is which gazes out from your eyes, that’s you.

>>17095165
Shut the fuck up

>>17097319
I am not referring just to quality, but to a qualitative difference between human and computer processing. In other words, a difference of category rather than of degree.
>Can you tell me what mode of human thought is NOT processing information?
Even if we can agree that all human activity is a form of information processing, my point is that a lot of it is non-logical and non-compatible with computer processing. A computer would be completely helpless to process anything resembling emotion or passion, for example.

>>17097375
>difference of category rather than of degree
What led you to believe that such a difference exists? What category exists outside of processing information?
>my point is that a lot of it is non-logical and non-compatible with computer processing
For fucks sake. Obviously they're different. It's all still forms of processing information. That's what thinking is.
>computer would be completely helpless to process anything resembling emotion or passion
Why would a computer have emotions and passions? I certainly wouldn't buy it, computers don't need to have such functions. Imagine trying to compile code or render a video and your PC says that it doesn't feel like doing it today.
What you call emotions are differences in the thinking processes caused by hormonal reaction to certain stimuli. You recognize a threat - cortisol gives a signal to your brain to enable "fight or flight" process. You see a beautiful woman - you get a cocktail of hormones designed by nature to encourage breeding, your thinking switches again.
Computer weren't designed to self-preserve or breed, but what prevents us from designing machines that could? Nothing but the economic pointlessness of such machines.
Humans have more complex emotions - but they also have their functional purposes. Inspiration gives humans purpose for creativity, which is what drives progress and technology. Loyalty gives your group - your tribe, family - a better chance to survive than they would as solitary individuals. Laziness optimizes energy efficiency.
These are all still types of thinking, types of info processing that help humans survive and spread the genetic code most fit for their survival - as a group or as individuals.