/lit/ - Literature

>>17623574
He's right tho

>>17623574
no because he's a fat retard
also consciousness can't study consciousness obviously, it's like wondering why you can't have a computer simulate a computer bigger and faster than itself lol.

>>17623581
no he's wrong and self refuting.

>>17623581
Motion is also impossible, as is the multiplicity of things. I'm sorry but if Dennett is convincing to you you must accept there's no way around Zeno's even more flawless logic. You can not move, and the idea you and I are different beings is an illusion.

>>17623600
KEK good one

>>17623581
Can you study and observe that studying and observing leads to true knowledge?
(No.)

Is there anything more retarded than a strict empiricist? Empiricism is, like probabilism, just the best patchwork solution to the irrefutability of philosophical scepticism... the idea what can be empirically verified is POSITIVELY the only real thing is demented.

>>17623581
Wait, I don't exist???

>>17623606
He's right, epistemologically. All taxonomy/categorization/individuation is belief not objective fact. Like all colors, the delimitation of all objects is convention, not reality, which which means and motion and plurality is convention and not true outside solipstic delusion.

>>17623574
Atheism and the scientific method have been a disaster for the human race

>>17623581

>>17623641
Not without faith. Blind dialectics (deconstruction without end) dissolve all things and makes knowledge impossible, including eventually at the end its own process. This is the true conclusion of scientism and atheism ("Skeptics"), if it was honest and self-aware of its own retarded contradictions. But these pseuds are nothing but dishonest.

>>17623574
Telepathy is either real or an entire tale can be communicated by a facial expression & a certain regard or look of the eyes.

Consciousness can exist. It's probably just that humans are ignorant about how to observe and study it. Does an as-of-yet undiscovered species that we cannot as-of-yet observe and study not exist due to our ignorance about its existence?

Did penguins not exist before they were discovered, observed, and studied?

>>17623574
>dumb strawman
>has this fat retard ever considered that this dumb strawman is retarded?
probably never occured to him

>>17623574
>>17623584
>>17623587
>>17623600
>>17623637
>>17623641
Okay cool, but his world view produces results (like rockets taking robots to other planets), what does your world view produce?

>>17623728
the consciousness that produced that worldview

>>17623728
>humans never progressed technologically until positivism was invented

>>17623744
>>humans never progressed technologically until positivism was invented
They did, but very slowly. Science has only existed for 0.25% of our entire existence as a species.
>>17623739
So it produces nothing?

>>17623748
I think you are confused. Dennett's essentially metaphysical claims - that consciousnses positively does not exist - are not necessary for scientific activity.

>>17623728
Oh really, his worldview did all that? That's funny cause Newton was a bible code fan who thought most of history had been chronologically arranged wrong. Cantor was a kabbalist and a Shakespeare truther. Leibniz was a panpsychist and a devout Lutheran...

>>17623763
>That's funny cause Newton was a bible code fan who thought most of history had been chronologically arranged wrong. Cantor was a kabbalist and a Shakespeare truther. Leibniz was a panpsychist and a devout Lutheran
But were they doing that to do science? Did Newton use the bible to do his work on optics or did he use the scientific method?
This is very dishonest argument regularly used by christcucks.
>but this scientist was a Christian!!!
Sure, but he didn't DO science with Christianity, he did it using the scientific method.

>>17623648
>epistemologically
you don't even know what that means
and I doubt he's very clear on it himself.
>>17623728
my worldview produced the kind of epistemology and metaphysics that made his world view possible in the first place.
We are not discussing two mutually incompatible worldview but a complete one and it's heresy.

>>17623728
>Results
He world does not even allow for thing like telos let alone the result of telos.

>>17623781
So you agree the efficacy of the scientific method does not rely on the practitioner aligning their worldview to atheistic materialism? I don't know why you even brought worldviews up then when it's obvious the work of science is not contingent on one specific worldview.

>>17623799
>He world does not even allow for thing like telos let alone the result of telos.
Literally just a bunch of nonsense.
It will never feed anyone, clothe them, or allow them to manipulate their environment. Who cares. You're only spewing all this garbage because science and engineering have made you so comfortable, provided such material benefit, that you can now sit around and actually have the leisure time to talk about this stuff. For the vast majority of human history, before agriculture was invented, you would have been scavenging for survival as a low IQ grugman .

>>17623806
No, but you need to OBSERVE and STUDY (i.e. do science). If something can't be observed and studied it most likely does not exist.

>>17623811
Why are you defending "science and engineering" so insecurely as if they are people with feelings, and not fields developed and populated by people who believe in a multiplicity of things? The giants whose shoulders modern science stands on generally believed in that "bunch of nonsense" and it motivated their work.

>>17623818
>If something can't be observed and studied it most likely does not exist.
? where are you getting this froM?

>>17623648
>Like all colors, the delimitation of all objects is convention,
Consciousness is not an object (otherwise it could be seen and touched), but is the basis through which one can delimit things, the determinations one makes about things through consciousness may amount to belief, but the existence of consciousness itself is not merely a belief but it is proven by the fact that we have the capacity to determine things through consciousness, if consciousness didn’t exist we would not be sentient of having this capacity.
>>17623641
You do
>>17623600
based
>>17623668
>Blind dialectics (deconstruction without end) dissolve all things and makes knowledge impossible,
No it doesn’t, that’s wrong you fool, dialectics cannot deconstruct one’s own consciousness, because in order for it to be understood as a valid deconstruction it has to be grasped in consciousness. But if consciousness is apprehending an idea then at that moment consciousness is not actually deconstructed because it is existing at that very moment as that light by which the mental ideation involving deconstruction is apprehended, which allows you to be aware of the thought of deconstruction. Furthermore, consciousness cannot grasp itself as its own object and so anything grasped by consciousness will inevitably be something other than consciousness like sensory perceptions, thoughts, memories etc.

>>17623831
Bill Nye the science guy

It’s crazy how ppl took Hume literally and instead of taking his empiricism as a sceptical lesson about the limits of our reasoning, earnestly believe that things that can’t be empirically proven literally don’t and cannot exist

>>17623600
Correct. Radical monism is the truth.
Gate gate paragate. Parasamgate Bodhi swaha

>>17623728
sneed

>>17623763
kepler was also a platonist whose mother was a witch and who was convinced that the universe needed to be arranged around the platonic solids

>>17623781
Newton is famous for his hypotheses, not for his scientific data gathering. His hypotheses about physics were massively influenced by things like Paracelsianism that were already building systems based around invisible forces that tied disparate objects together. He considered himself a "natural philosopher" rather than a "scientist" - and if you look at what "natural philosophy" meant at the time then the influence of non scientific thought on his theories becomes even clearer.

>>17623878
ikr

>>17623728
You don't think people could use both scientific methods and non-scientific methods?

>>17623574
No. Materialists like >>17623581 simply refuse to acknowledge that empirical evidence might be limited.

>>17623811
Duck comfort. And fuck your Evolutionay phycology, it's not science.
Still can't agout for any sort of "results".

Well if nothing is self evident, nothing can be proved

>>17623574

Introspection is a form of observation and study.

>>17623581
NPC algorithms typed this

>>17623728
Weak bait

>>17623574
For me it is his claim that consciousness is epiphenomenal. Supposing the word designates a real thing, it would indeed be strange that a Darwinist like him would brush consciousness off ass functionless. The inability to feel sensations or detect qualia leads to a noticeable loss of fitness. Someone with damaged taste sensations who finds rotting food delicious will be more prone to illness etc. It seems absurd that natural selection would cook up such a phenomenon only for it to be a mere shadow of the mind, waste heat thrown off from underlying unconscious processes.

>>17624280
>The inability to feel sensations or detect qualia leads to a noticeable loss of fitness.

You could be "acting purely on the data", never forming the qualias. P-Zombies are not completely inconceivable, but you have to assume that there would be physical differences in the brain's makeup that would give it away.

>>17623574
This bald faggot got Hume’d

>>17623781
Moving the goal post. Kys homo

>>17624322
>could be
Could be yeah but why does it exist then
>you have to assume that there would be physical differences in the brain's makeup that would give it away.
How could we tell? No amount of looking at brain tissue tells us whether it is conscious or not. The only indisputable confirmation that something is conscious is its own self-awareness.

>>17623574
He's referring to consciousness in an absolute sense.

>>17624182
Based. We observe consciousness directly.

>>17624337
>How could we tell? No amount of looking at brain tissue tells us whether it is conscious or not.

I think it does, however that's requires shifting your point of view on what "proves" consciousness to be there. Take 3d vision, for example. There are plenty of statistical operations that could be used directly on the data to 'recuperate' the visual information that was lost, instead, we use this super convoluted means that requires a sizeable portion of your brain and hyper-specialized cells to just calculate the distance between your two eyes. And that specific data is lost again in the process of applying it to the visual data and reconstructing the visual field. The difference is that, while a camera is capable of functionally the same things, at no point the question of data presence/loss is relevant. The camera always holds in some way the data that it holds, and never "knows" or could know that data was present or lost, because it purely holds it, never able to entertain even its possession of the data.
>Could be yeah but why does it exist then
Possibly because Nature doesn't plan ahead, whatever evolutionary choices were made early on forced living beings toward developing consciousness rather than being automatons. It isn't either inconceivable that some living beings are automatons or closer to automatons, and it seems also intuitive that the specific form of linguistic consciousness that humans seems to be the only one to possess also constitute a tier of it's own.

>>17624410
Still, I don't see how those neural correlates aren't just that, correlates.
>Possibly because Nature doesn't plan ahead,
I'm familiar with the the notion of so called evolutionary "spandrels" that are mere vestigial byproducts of evolution without a fitness function. Still, it's open to debate if consciousness is like that. Arguably the conscious apperception of qualia conveys information to the system. There is no pain without the sensation of pain. It is not merely a behavioral process characterized by reflex actions.

There is a rare condition called congenital insensitivity to pain which causes someone to feel no pain. It is a devastating condition and people who have it can break bones without even knowing it. The point is that they don't feel pain, hence "insensitivity." I don't know enough about how their nervous system differs from the normative case but it strikes me as merely correlated.

>>17624471
>I'm familiar with the the notion of so called evolutionary "spandrels" that are mere vestigial byproducts of evolution without a fitness function
I doubt very much that consciousness is a vestigial function, no, I mean that given the evolutionary paths available to living beings, consciousness might have been the only feasible form of organization possible.
Consciousness in general might be an exaptation, like hearing supposedly evolving from the emerging property of early snake jawbones being light enough and shaped like a diapason so that it would vibrate to sound. I couldn't say. I do think that it makes sense however that the specific form of human consciousness that involves constantly thinking in terms of linguistic constructs *is* an an exaptation of our sub-vocalization function. "Thinking" was originally just being able to hear the sounds you are about to make pin your mind, and as we developed language, that cognitive function started to run wild and eventually became the defining part of our beings.

>>17623574
>has this fat retard ever considered that the scientific method may not be all encompassing?
that would conflict with his faith in materialism

>>17623648
All objects have properties by which we can delineate them, therefore delineation is not merely a matter of convention, rather it has reality in the properties of objects themselves otherwise it would not be possible. Also speaking of reality as separate from observers misses the point that observers are part of reality itself.

>>17624182
Introspection has the mind/intellect for its contents, not consciousness

>>17624587
So you aren't saying that consciousness is epiphenomenal then. Even if consciousness is something like a runaway feedback loop bootstrapped by language this still doesn't explain qualia, but rather self-recognition.

>"Thinking" was originally just being able to hear the sounds you are about to make pin your mind,
Is that really true? Pre-linguistic cognition arguably exists in other primates, including rudimentary problem solving and tool use in chimpanzees. The function of language is to abstract objects and object relationships in a communicable form, so that reasoning can operate over the representation of objects rather than the objects themselves. Couldn't it be the case that only by consciously inspecting the "word image" conveyed by language that the words have meaning? Is semantics possible without qualia, or the apperception of a verbal or symbolic representation?

It kinda reminds me of Searle's Chinese room experiment. Symbolic processing alone does not imply understanding of the symbols. And arguably it is only by binding the symbols to qualia that semantics emerges. Through a mechanism of association the word is tied to a particular conscious state. And by virtue of this association the word has meaning.

Animal vocalizations, such as mating calls or signals of aggression such as growls, seem to communicate information even between species. (After all a cat hisses at a human and a human gets that it is behaving defensively and this works just as well if they were hissing at another cat.) One wonders if language is different and its level of semantic complexity is tied to the co-activation of conscious states.

>>17624635
We can only delineate things discretely, we can not actually delineate any properties continuously, this would require infinite continuous measurements. This means everything we can say objectively about something is necessarily limited and strictly regarding the past. We have decided by convention that limited knowledge of past states is relevant to a full picture of the present, but there's no hard epistemological certainty to that, it's simply the best we can do.

>>17624646
Depend on which level of phenomenological analysis you are, really. Most of Merleau-Ponty's research would be on the level of consciousness, and even Husserl's research on the perception of time would fit the bill.

>>17624651
>So you aren't saying that consciousness is epiphenomenal then. Even if consciousness is something like a runaway feedback loop bootstrapped by language this still doesn't explain qualia, but rather self-recognition.
That is correct. I believe qualia will eventually be explained by cognitive science.

>>17624651
>Pre-linguistic cognition arguably exists in other primates, including rudimentary problem solving and tool use in chimpanzees.
Was more refering to thinking as specifically having thoughts on the linguistic level. Cognition doesn't require it, seemingly.
>The function of language is to abstract objects and object relationships in a communicable form, so that reasoning can operate over the representation of objects rather than the objects themselves.
I think it is more reasonable to say that language's function is to communicate. Reason happens within language, is buried under it and needs to be excavated. Animal communication, as can be observed and if developed enough, imo satisfies the functional definition of language. So, to answer your question, ( >One wonders if language is different and its level of semantic complexity is tied to the co-activation of conscious states. ) I think that's exactly the case. However I think the specific state to blame is that of subvocalization, which humans have seemingly pumped to the max (with obvious return on investment). rather than the general association with all potential conscious states.

>>17623629
yes you can you idiot.

>>17623574
>consciousness can't be observed
How does he explain the mirror test?

>>17625741
A dog, when shown a mirror, is likely to smell the mirror (especially if you guide the dog to the mirror). This suggests that consciousness actually works differently depending on the organism; the dog identifies with its nose because its nose is a more powerful and reasonable sense than its eyes are and thus recognizes nothing in the mirror since it has no remarkable scent. What this also implies is that consciousness as in absolute consciousness doesn't exist (which is what is meant by "consciousness can't be observed"), only a form relative to the senses exists (in which case you're not observing "consciousness" but merely an organism's psychology).

For some reason consciousness is one of few topics that attracts non-retarded goodposts on /lit/. Nice work fellas.

>>17624759
>I think it is more reasonable to say that language's function is to communicate.
It is to communicate but what is being communicated? Communication must have a content. Representations of object-to-object relations. So that group behavior can be coordinated around a problem.

>>17625829
But a kid can still see before they can pass the mirror test. The same baby who failed will inevitable pass it, once they become conscious.

>>17623600
someone needs to read Bergson

>>17625869
But given the dog scenario, it makes sense to conclude that we wouldn't be able to recognize ourselves in the mirror if we didn't have the organic structure that made identifying things with our eyes an instinctive behavior. The organic structure is needed for it to occur at all. It's also not a given that all of our psychology is fully developed when we're born.

>>17623574
this man dick cannot exist because I cannot observe or study it

>>17625916
But the dog has sight and can’t recognise itself (the reliance on smell is irrelevant) the baby has sight and can’t recognise itself - but then can at a point in time not always relevant to brain age (i.e the Kenyans who failed at 5 years old).
The senses have to be ruled out and brain “psychology” developing is just a way of rephrasing what you can’t explain about consciousness.

>>17625921
have you tried asking him nicely?

>>17625916
My dof recognizes me by sight. My dog recognizes my dad coming home from work by sound. You're just coping because the mirror test absolutely destroys anything Dennet has ever said. No wonder he has never engaged with it.

>>17626026
>But the dog has sight and can’t recognise itself (the reliance on smell is irrelevant)
It's not irrelevant. The dog has sight, but its sense of sight isn't nearly as strong as its sense of smell, so it very quickly learns that it's nose is more reliable and to identify things with its nose. That's why if a dog's owner changes scent and the dog puts no faith in its sense of sight it will think the owner is a stranger and attack. A standard mirror test isn't going to matter to the dog because it only tests our sense of sight, but dogs do appear to recognize their own scent in an "olfactory mirror" test.

>>17626064
Different dog breeds and also different dogs will develop differently psychologically speaking. The average dog won't pass a standard mirror test but will pass an olfactory mirror test.

>>17623728
Not being depressed :)
But then for that mental illness would have to be real but it can't be since consciousness isn't real. So like just stop being sad bro

>>17626112
>olfactory mirror test
You don't understand what the mirror test is. I am sorry but you are retarded. You're probably Dennett himself

>>17626174
Dogs are used to their own scents and there's no reason to think that they don't recognize their own scents as being theirs.

>>17624759
>Husserl's research on the perception of time would fit the bill.
can you elaborate on why this is studying consciousness itself and not the minds perception of time?

>>17626187
There's no analogue for an olfactory smell test. The point of the mirror test is given a mirror which you can walk behind, DO YOU CHECK BEHIND THE MIRROR FOR THE PERSON YOU SEE.
Explain how you can replicate that with smell.
Also in your previous posts you were suggesting if a dog smell's a mirror they recognize it isn't a living being, so then why would a dog still bark at its image in the same mirror after smelling it? I thought the dog used it's nose to determine the image in the mirro wasn't a living creature?

>>17626249
>The point of the mirror test is given a mirror which you can walk behind, DO YOU CHECK BEHIND THE MIRROR FOR THE PERSON YOU SEE.
This is an irrelevant technicality of the test. The point of the mirror test is to check if the animal can recognize itself. Same with the olfactory mirror test.

>Also in your previous posts you were suggesting if a dog smell's a mirror they recognize it isn't a living being, so then why would a dog still bark at its image in the same mirror after smelling it?
Because it doesn't find a scent so it interprets the shape / movement it sees as being alien / deceptive and therefore potentially threatening. Dogs will still regularly smell mirrors when guided towards them and dictate their behavior based on what they smell (even if it's nothing). I also never suggested that they don't use their sense of sight at all in identification.

Dogs still appear to recognize themselves in olfactory mirror tests. They show virtually zero interest in their own scent and make a beeline for foreign scents. Dogs are also known for marking their territory with their excrement and identifying other animals by the scent of their excrement. If there's a reasonable wager to make, it's that dogs likely recognize themselves with their nose, which means their organic structure conditions them to do so, which means our organic structure conditions us to identify ourselves in our own way.

>>17626311
>This is an irrelevant technicality of the test. The point of the mirror test is to check if the animal can recognize itself. Same with the olfactory mirror test.
No it's not you utter bellend. Otherwise there is no way for a baby or a monkey to express recognition. You're such an idiot. I didn't read the rest of your post because it has to be even more idiotic. I'm not replying further. Goodbye idiot

>>17626380
>No it's not you utter bellend. Otherwise there is no way for a baby or a monkey to express recognition.
Sounds more like you don't understand how the olfactory test is a different type of self-recognition test. The baby / monkey are visual animals and as such a standard mirror test will work for them, but it doesn't work for the dog (while an olfactory mirror test does). The fact that the animal can see behind the mirror is just a technical detail of that particular mirror test. The olfactory test is still a mirror test because it tests for self-recognition, except through a different sense.

>I didn't read the rest of your post
Convenient.

>>17623992
I like to call them Baconians and call it the Baconian method because they've made le science into a kind of holy cow.

>>17626249
>>17626380
Alternatively,
>Explain how you can replicate that with smell.
Explain why I should need to, when the olfactory test is using a different sense (smell) to test self-recognition.

>>17623574
Kek