/lit/ - Literature

the dick apprehending itself

>>5331381
Delete this thread, faggot. It takes people books to formulate their theory, you really think some under-read 18 year browsing a Laotian image board will have the fuckijg answer?

I'm going to say "perception" and wait for some philosophy drop-out to have a stroke at me.

Reality.

>>5331381

It's a chemical property of material, like everything else

>>5331381
more like, what isn't consciousness?

I'm going to get Freud's definition on the Interpretation of Dreams to get us started. Wait a sec

>>5331401
then how do qualia then

why we do blue and not 450nm you feel me

speaking of, why we do happy and not 'serotonin in 5ht2a receptor'

how to explain subjective effect when just physical reactions and electical

>mfw materialists even try

>>5331393
Yeah, let's not discuss it because here you don't have to be qualified

LET'S DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF 4CHAN

>>5331425

blue is blue and 450nm is 450nm, don't confuse the two

also happiness and any other sensation are indeed material in origin, they don't just spontaneously generate out of magic, this doesn't detract from their significance

>>5331397
That's not even an answer

All you have done is shift the question to

'So what the fuck is perception anyway'

Why do these threads constantly crop up? Do actually expect to get the answer?

We don't have a large enough grasp of the concept to even begin to answer it. Consciousness has something to do with the brain, at least in part, but that's about all we honestly know.

It's like people asking "What is light?" a few centuries ago. They just couldn't answer it properly without giving some (now) blatantly incorrect answer or getting all mystical about it.

>>5331441
>mfw a materialist tries

>>5331439
You're an idiot.

>>5331442
Interpretations of various waveforms that constitute "the world" via your central nervous system.

>>5331449

good discussion

>>5331453
WHO is interpreting WHAT?

⇒So what the fuck is consciousness anyway

integrated information

>>5331463
>dat pic
what book's that from?
also, what is information, and how do you integrate it?

>>5331442
No senses no consciousness.

>>5331462

>WHO
my dick

>WHAT
itself

>>5331462
>WHO
The central nervous system
>WHAT
The waveforms that constitute "the world"

>>5331421
But what role there is left in our scheme for consciousness, otherwise so omnipotent and embracing everything else? Nothing more than that of a sensorial organ for the perception of psychic qualities (...). The excitement material flows to the sensorial organ of consciousness coming from two directions: of Pcpt (perception) systems, which excitements are probably submitted through a new elaboration before turning into a conscious sensation, and from the interior of the psychic apparatus itself, which quantitative process are felt as a series of qualities of pleasure-displeasure when, subject to certain modifications, penetrate in consciousness

>>5331497
This is probably the worst translation in the world, I just made it

All we know (from our perspective) is that consciousness is a chemical property of our bodies. Every sensation we experience is mediated through chemical reactions, and uncountable chemical reactions are occurring in our environment at every second.

From the moment of the Big Bang everything has played out in a long cascade of chemical reactions, the path of all matter being determined before it even existed. That is what we see.

But in the same way that a computer program is an expression - through increasingly more complex codes - of charged states in a physical medium, our reality seems to operate in commingling "layers" that are extremely difficult, if not impossible, for our minds to comprehend. Consciousness is a happy accident out of this phenomenon. What other ways of apprehending reality exist? All "material" is only material insomuch that we perceive it as such, but our understanding of physics continues to erode traditional notions about the tangibility of material, when you have things like mass particles and the fact that matter is equivalent to what we call "energy," which isn't a mystical force but rather is a phenomenon observed in our universe

anyway I'm rambling so suck my dick
APPREHEND MY DICK

>>5331497
I see this is not too different than the other definitions in this thread. But maybe we should add that consciousness is that organ that perceives external/internal information And try to make a sense out of it

>>5331512
>From the moment of the Big Bang everything has played out in a long cascade of chemical reactions
Top kek. Chemical reactions didn't begin until the universe was already a few million years old

>>5331463
This is right, sensor, visceral and somatic information integrated with memory, limbic system etc.

The right question though is, why do we have it

>>5331524

so those particles forming in the first instant of the big bang weren't chemical reactions you dumb nigger

>>5331393
The reason people write tomes about it is that they don't know. They just round and round in circles.

The answer is undoubteldly quite simple we just don't understand it yet.

>>5331524
Not him, but mate u know what he meant

>inb4 fusion is not chemical

>>5331493
but wait, doesn't this imply that the CNS is also just a bunch of waveforms? so, waveforms interpreting waveforms?

>>5331530
They were physical process. Chemical reactions imply atoms, which came later on.

>>5331463

If that is consciousness then why aren't computers programmed with this algorithm conscious?

>protip, it's been tried

>>5331540
because we are nowhere near computers capable of it

>>5331545
Wait, according to this definition Big Data algorithms are somewhat conscious

>>5331538

what's a good word for it instead, because it's a fairly pedantic semantics issue but there needs to be a distinction I guess

>>5331469
⇒what book's that from?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19098144

⇒also, what is information
information theoretic entropy

⇒and how do you integrate it?
Integrated information is the Kullback-Leibler divergence between a system and and its minimum information partition.

>>5331547

There's no interconnected positive feed-back loops, otherwise you'd probably be right.

>>5331549
I know it's pedantic, I'm just messing with you, but this is 4chan after all. Physical processes may be a good expression

>>5331469
It looks like Qualia: The Geometry of Integrated Information by David Balduzzi and Giulio Tononi, published around 2009. The integration part they outline in that paper, with caveats that the same information integrated the same way can produce different qualia etc, and information itself so much as its interplay is their focus. It wouldn't really solve the problems of consciousness/knowledge as a stand alone work since the theory only seeks to quantify qualia, but it is interesting reading.

>>5331557
Interconnected in which way?

>>5331547
>Wait, according to this definition Big Data algorithms are somewhat conscious
The most renowned neuroscientist says just that.

>>5331587

As in a closed system

>>5331535
Yes, that's what reality is. If you view atoms as particles everything in existence is pretty much all empty space and if you view them as waves then it's all just a huge orgy of wavelengths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality

>>5331381
I asked for books on this not too long ago, and I've since read one, which I'll try to summarize (it's The Ego Tunnel by Metzinger)

First of, consciousness is not solely limited to humans, nor is it an absolute that either is or isn't. Various levels of consciousness exist.

The human form is an entrapment in a transparent world view, of which we can not comprehend how it is created. (will elucidate)

Consciousness can exist on a cellular level, with cells being able to identify intruders that are harmfull to them, meaning they have a notion of being something, and a knowledge of what they are, and what can be harmfull to them. What exactly that is, nobody knows as of yet. This knowledge, however, counts for more complex systems of cells aswell. (think of your immume system)

Now, as humans we can create worlds. We have the ability to see, to hear, etc. But most importantly, we have the ability to remember.

So a world will appear to us through our senses (this doesn't necessarily require our primary receptors, think of dreaming), and because we have a memory, the brain convinces itself that it is a part of the created world in front of it and behind it. Because of this memory, and the fact that the brain can't escape the body, we also have the idea that we are always in the same world, and not rapidly jumping from reality to reality. The connection of your sensual experiences and your memory creates consciousness. There is an ability to percieve, which brings forth the idea that there is something percieving it.

The annoying part is the ''transparentness'' of the brain, because the illusion that is the self, doesn't have access to the way its brain creates the world. We only see what we see, and not what is actually in front of us, and how we morph that into our reality. It's impossible to see how our brain works, we are trapped in the world the brain creates, thinking we are an entity playing a part in it.

I hope that helped a bit.

>>5331589

At the very least it undergoes experience, like any other object, but it has the capability to interpret those experiences. it may not be entirely similar to ours, but it definitely has a "consciousness" of some variety that is difficult for us comprehend

>>5331603
dang man

>>5331603

pretty good summary

>>5331594
Oh okay, positive feedback loops generated from within. Like the role pleasure-displeasure sensations take part in our system?
An external factor, let's say a human, saying "good!", "bad!" and computational learning algorithms. would not count, for example?

>>5331566

it's cool bro

>>5331597
That's not related to the topic at all. Please keep your misunderstanding of quantum mechanics on /x/.

>>5331597

The cats gets it.

Consciousness is a ghost-chase. Remind me, again, why I should believe that an ill-defined mystical quality that "transcends language" is not just an "illusion."

"B-but it's obvious you're conscious! How could you deny it!" If the history of science has taught us anything, it's that we shouldn't believe something just because it's obvious (the Geocentric model of the solar system, for example).

>>5331637
>Don't answer that guy's question, dude

Oh okay

>>5331604
>undergoes experience
If sentience is the minimum bar for consciousness then
>interpret those experiences
being sapient in other words is a superfluous distinction. We might "consciousness" ,better" than dolphins or a dog but saying dolphins, humans and dogs are conscious in different manners answers none of the question of what is consciousness, just how much. From that we can only say things are unconscious in that we are not able to detect a significant amount of whatever actually constitutes consciousness. (unconscious in this sense is devoid of sentience or sapience since those are the best markers I could detect for consciousness.)

>>5331637
Matter is a collection of waves in a field. We are waves in a field interpreting waves in a field.

>>5331557

This guy gets it.

>>5331597
so, consciousness=reality, ok.
the crucial part seems to be the interpretation, how can wavelengths interpret each other?

>>5331654
Women are less conscious than men in the same way that dogs are less conscious than men and that worms are less conscious than men and that bacteria are less conscious than men.

Why would anyone on /lit/ be able to define consciousness? No one can do that. But if we're going to learn anything about consciousness it's going to come from neuroscientists, not people who read novels, for fuck's sake.

>>5331669
>>>/r9k/

>>5331669
Okay but they are only marginally less conscious. You are saying we should slaughter children for food because they are less conscious.

>>5331671
stay retarded

>>5331644
thanks Dennett, but what do you mean an illusion and what is that illusion made of? Why is the illusion even necessary?

>>5331669
This still answers none of the question of what is consciousness, only then to quantify it.

>>5331671
>not approaching cs. as a historical-social phenomenon

>>5331669
Yes, I'm sure that's the reason you don't have a girlfriend. It's certainly not because of your repulsive personality.

>>5331679
>why is the universe even necessary
this is what you just said

>>5331685
I don't have a girlfriend because I hate women. I hate women because I am gay.

>>5331694
E-Elliot?

>>5331680
From a scientific standpoint, that is probably the best we will ever be able to do.

Science can hardly answer why is consciousness anymore than it can answer why is universe.

>>5331688
not really unless >>5331644 was saying that ANY knowledge acquisition is just a ghost-chase and not only in the case of consciousness

>>5331547
Computers have existed just for a few decades, we are expecting to make such breakthrough eventually, that subjective experience and consciousness are somehow metaphysical phenomenon is a big claim, do you have anything to back it it up that is not muh ignorance of how it works? Yeah I didn't think so.

>>5331667
>How
Well obviously we don't know, really. Our brain paints whatever signals it gets as what we "see", and we can remember it (kind of). Memory is still very poorly understood. I'd be interested to see at what level organisms have some understanding of "me". Mammals at least obviously know that they are mating with another mammal or eating something alive or need to run from something that will eat them. But is it even all mammals that have this level of awareness? Do fish? I know there is that mirror study where they supposedly show that dogs and cats don't have a concept of "self", but how can that be if they interact with other dogs and cats and fear things that can lead to [bad end]?

>>5331688
>I failed my science classes
This is literally what you just said.

>>5331701
except we have no access to the emergence of the universe, but we have access to instances of emergence of consciousness.

Or at least we think so unless you all motherfuckers are zombies except me

The seat of consciousness is in the claustrum. Any electric stimulation to the claustrum causes a person to "go under" as if anesthetized. All other functions are unaffected. The person just sits there like a zombie. When "awoken", the person will not have perceived any passage of time, just as with anesthesia.

The claustrum is a "coordinator" of all our high faculties located in the prefrontal cortex. Consciousness is the concerted functioning of these faculties, together.

>>5331679
>Dennett
>implying Dennett denies the existence of consciousness
That would only be true if consciousness and qualia were the same thing. which they aren't.
>>5331694
And maybe you are gay and hate women because your repulsive personality prevents women from being attracted to you? everyone can be right, guise!

>>5331676
pray tell how you've unraveled the secrets of the mind without studying the brain.

>>5331688
Are you implying the universe is a illusion?

>>5331683
>not studying the physical object that is the brain

>>5331706
What are you saying? Seriously, it's so poorly written that I can't get the point
I'm just fiddling with his definitions

>>5331709
>Mammals at least obviously know that they are mating with another mammal or eating something alive or need to run from something that will eat them.
do we know this, really? in the sense of propositional knowledge? much of it can be explained by instinct.
also, i'm not exactly sure that a sense of self is somewhat crucial to consciousness, largely because there is no clear concept of what that word is supposed to mean.

>>5331381

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop

>>5331733
Actually, irl everyone likes me. They don't know I don't like anyone.

>>5331759

they know

>>5331759
They don't, or they wouldn't like me.

>>5331759
RIP thread
>>5331694
>>5331688
>>5331669
>>5331706

>>5331709
>but how can that be if they interact with other dogs and cats and fear things that can lead to [bad end]?

Instinct, that is: a series of chemical reactions that make them react to their environment without there being consciousness involved. Their brains reward them for acting in predisposed patterns but there is nothing more to it.

>>5331701
It's not why, it's the what. A basic unit of consciousness (and whether it's even a natural number or an integer) has a use, but how you define it is going to vary to that use even in quantifying it as is in diagram (those caveats again). I mean, it's great we can tell more of what we call electricity in what we call a brain being reduced to sets might predict a seizure with more accuracy than throwing up our arms and saying if only we had more than a heuristic, but this still biases us to casting a what-consciousness-is which might be objectively less what-consciousness-is and more in our own image. Tables might be more conscious than fish but we purposefully make sure that we do not place them on a scale like that because it is not our consciousness like. It would be a meaningless heuristic to ecology and probably fatal to us.

>>5331773

My brain rewards me for posting on 4chan and masturbating

>>5331715
>we have no access to the emergence of the universe, but we have access to instances of emergence of consciousness

I had a (libertarian) philosopher tell me we would never unravel this mystery because of infinite regress. I think this is an excellent argument against that view.

>>5331769
People like me and they're aware I hate them. Stop worrying about it so much, the only way to be rid of them is extinction.

Oh, what's this? An actual philosophical argument about consciousness? Most of you cunts will be too lazy to read it anyway:

http://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/the-philosopher-the-drunk-and-the-lamppost/

>>5331733
Subjective experience is an essential function of consciousness. Dennett denies subjective experience. He does so without ever presenting a single argument supporting his denial. This is like running into a physics department and yelling "I deny gravity. I refuse to accept that things fall down."

>>5331781
The distinctin we should be drawing is that between life and non-life, since as we've established all life is conscious to some degree.

The only difference between life and non-life is that non-life succumbs to entropy, while life has the ability to counteract it, deacreasing its own internal entropy at the expense of accelerating entropy in its enviornment.

>>5331799
>things fall down
Gtfo filthy atomist, gravity doesn't real

>>5331755
>>5331773
So they do not follow memory or have "thoughts"? They surely must possess memory in some form though, they like or dislike certain people/animals for example or know where they live. I guess this answers the question "are animals really fucking bored all the time". Actually, what about fucking otters. Otters "juggle" rocks when they are "bored". It helps their dexterity but is that really an instinct? I'm not really familiar with 'what we know' about animal consciousness so forgive my ignorance. What goes on in a dogs head when it's just sitting around being a dog if they don't think? Just pure stimulation, like a bad acid trip?

>>5331381
Awareness. Prove me wrong.

>>5331784
You could stop doing it, a dog doesn't have the capacity to make a decision of such kind.

>>5331801
Life is a more meaningless distinction than consciousness. Let's not try adding terms before we have one down.

>>5331823
I think they are equally meaningless. I think they're the same thing described with two different words.

>>5331805
>Actually, what about fucking otters. Otters "juggle" rocks when they are "bored".
:3

>>5331807
Can't

>>5331830
That's like saying air and breathing are the same. Life is just something alive, it's a pretty meaningful distinction except for the case of viruses. Unless we're about to discuss the consciousness of bacteria.

>>5331830
>let's equate two terms for which we have no definitions
>that will define it gooder
No. Pick one and work out what it is.

>>5331819

Sure it can, a dog can be trained, and it can even train itself (via learning). I'm capable of more complex training than a dog, but it's the same thing

>>5331840
I picked "life" and worked out what it is.

>>5331853
Good, now post something relevant to the thread.

>>5331381

Put simply: the combination of the senses and space-time.

>>5331603
/thread,

also, any book/texts recommendation?

>>5331381
>So what the fuck is consciousness anyway
Consciousness is a linguistic construct.

>>5331669

>>5331805
well, the general problem here, pertaining to both humans and aanimals, is the possibility of philosophical zombies, i.e. entities that behave as if they were conscious, but actually do nothing but move according to some complex mechanism, without anything going on on the inside.^

>>5331603
Good post.

But even if I had no memory, I would still have consciousness. It would be less 'populated' but I would still have consciousness, so this doesn't quite do it for me.

>>5331844
But no critical thinking would be involved. The dog is not able to make judgments about the world or about itself.

>>5331880
Or rather, I should say

Even if I had no memory, I figure consciousness can still exist. Your memory and your senses populate your consciousness. They give you something to look at, and something to remember. What is this THING holding these experiences, where is it?!

>>5331879
>With humans and animals
This is unclear. Are you saying that we're just a complex algorithm with nothing "going on"? I don't necessarily disagree but this checkmates the thread and doesn't provide any distinction between what we think and whatever happens to a dog. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you .

>>5331887
>The dog is not able to make judgments about the world or about itself.
Have you asked the dog?

>>5331887

>The dog is not able to make judgments about the world or about itself.

>The dog has no intrinsic need or want to judge the world or itself, for it has no requirement to deny nature. And so all that is is. And all that is is perfect.

>>5331893
>Are you saying that we're just a complex algorithm with nothing "going on"?
no. we actually know that something is going on insde of us due to decartes' proof.
what i was getting at is that we can't know the same of anyone or anything else.

>>5331910
>decartes' proof
>proof

>>5331888
>where is it
In the claustrum: >>5331727

>>5331887

The dog isn't making incredibly complex judgments , but they are judgments just the same. "If I eat this turkey on the table, that human guy will be mad, and then I'll be sad. So I wont eat the turkey." Dogs have been shown to have empathy, so if it's particularly intelligent it might even make the judgment that it doesn't "want" the human to be mad, so that also is calculated into its judgment.

It's similar to the same reasoning I would go through in struggling with the decision of whether or not to shit myself in public. The decision is more complex than the dog's - I don't want to be embarrassed, I don't want other people to experience nausea or distress, I don't want to have to clean shit off my Rainbow Dash boxers, I don't want to have the memory that I consciously decided to shit myself in public for no particular reason - but these are judgments I've made based on training I've received in my life.

>>5331927
whoa

>>5331928
>I don't want to clean shit off of my Rainbow Dash boxers

Oh my poor keks

>>5331860
This. It's higher-order sensory perception, to which the other senses are subordinate, as the actual functioning of your hands is subordinate to your motor coordination.

>>5331920
I think, therefore i am, is pretty convincing. Self-evident, some would say.
Now, you can deny that I think anything, and I can deny that you think anything, but you can't deny the existence of your own conciousness to youself, as it would require thought to do so.

>>5331973
No it's isn't. If you're convinced by that then you're easily convinced.

>>5331978
Go back to shitposting your stirner images

>>5331980
You have no idea about anything but it's not your fault so I forgive you

>>5331982
Epic

>>5331880
>>5331888
It doesn't exist. There is no ''you'' in that sense. ''you'' are what happens when perception and memory come together. Like I said in my post, memory isn't a necessity for consciousness (look at cells), but it's the core of the human form of consciousness.

There is no entity giving consciousness, nor is there an entity experiencing it.

>>5332031
Can you post some of the books you haven't read yet too? This is exceedingly interesting.

>>5332031
But according to >>5331727 you are wrong.

Unless the first time I remember something and see something my claustrum magically appears

>>5331381
Electricity bouncing around in pathways.

>>5332040
well, that poster is bullshitting y'all, anyway. the function of the claustrum has not been determined.

>>5332038
Recommendations I got in the thread I posted were:

Hofstadter - I am a strange loop
Robert Mcluhan - Randi's Prize
Celia Green - The Lost Cause

>>5332040
After a quick google I found an article about that being a new discovery, the article is from July second 2014, so it could be a new phenomenon, that was ommited from the book I've read for obvious reasons.
However, not all creatures have a prefrontal cortex, yet they do have levels of consciousness, so I don't know.
Remember that I'm not a neurologist or anything, I just summarized the one book I've read on this particular subject.

>>5332040

even if stimulation of the claustrum does disable/enable "consciousness" as we know it, think of it as an on/off switch rather than a controlling entity or "storage place"

>>5332078
I forgot:
Godel, Escher, Bach | Douglas R. Hofstadter
An Eternal Golden Braid

>>5332078
From what I now know about the claustrum yes, a whole wikipedia page apparently it being part of the prefrontal cortex is under debate

So my question is

Do you know if all animals have a claustrum?

>>5332078

might like "Eternal Golden Braid" too

>>5332093
>>5332087

gebmind

>>5332065
The function is well-esablished for over a decade, with experimental evidence confirming it being more recent. That it plays a role in what we call consciousness is undeniable. How crucial this role is in the overall phenomenon is what is being debated.

>>5332088
Nope. But I highly doubt consciousness would be a single area of the brain. It almost hints towards a soul. I've read a little neurology and psychology, and from what I can tell, there are few things the brain does on a purely local level. It's the neuron connections between lobes of the brain that make it work. Even with my limited knowledge, it would surprise me if something as complex as consciousness would be a single area of a brain, if not just for developmental/evolutionairy reasons.

>>5332088
All mammals have it

consciousness is the ability to respond to stimuli, i think that it exists on a long continuum. you can potentially call rocks and dirt conscious if you're trying to play semantic games, because they "perceive" physical force and respond with movement, but it's probably best to limit the idea of consciousness to actions that involve the independent mobility of energy, like we see in plants, who respond to the angle of sunlight by mobilizing stored energy reserves to alter their body position, the energy in the stimuli is not the same energy that mobilizes them, unlike the situation for rocks and dirt.

plants have a very simple consciousness, sunflowers respond to darkness by turning downward/retracting petals, trees respond to temperature/humidity/time stimuli by releasing seeds

tiny aquatic animals like copepods and barnacles respond to pH and solution dilution, and with physical touches with food, etc

humans have maybe the most complex consciousness that we know of. we have binocular vision, our eyes receive light from a million different angles, they measure the relative wavelengths of the light, and all these signals are integrated almost instantly into a unified picture

which really brings up the other question of consciousness, who is seeing this picture, and is this "picture-watching" process fundamentally/ontologically distinct from simpler forms of consciousness ?

the main distinction is, i think, SELF-consciousness. i would be inclined to believe that plants might have their own, very very simple qualia but without a self-consciousness to feel the qualia AND THEN to look back on that feeling and examine it, their qualia would be very different from ours in a way that the "hard problem of consciousness" doesn't really apply to them at all. I think that the hard problem of consciousness is entirely a matter of self-consciousness, of this reflexive perception of perceptions

i'm not particularly swayed by the anti-materialists who try to argue that "blue-ness" is fundamentally/ontologically different from 450nm wavelengths, or whatever. The nature of color-blindness and other perception disorders makes me more inclined to think of color qualia as a kind of arbitrary technique the brain uses to allow for self-conscious knowledge of "difference". Given what we know about color perception, that our rods and cones measure merely whether the light waves hitting them are greater or less than a certain wavelength, I am inclined to think that blue-ness is nothing more than a sensation of distinctness from red and green, the brain "demands" that we think of the 3 kinds of light waves differently and, knowing as it does that we have this reflexive, unified, picture-watching "perspective", "implants" in us the belief that they have unique qualia. Maybe blue-ness is not the same every time you experience it, maybe the "phenomenal" nature of blue-ness is random, even non-existent, a trick the mind plays through memory and information integration

>>5331425
How do we English grammar

>>5332120
It seems more like a "circuit" through which the different areas of the frontal cortex communicate with each other. If consciousness is more than the sum of the work that these areas do, this "piece of wire" enables that.

>>5332146

and then what is self-consciousness? since I have already gone down the road of talking about shit without the proper neuroscience background, ill keep going:

perhaps the brain has further sensory receptors inside it that respond to the brain states which are manifested by primary perception, when you receive blue light waves in the eye, this stimulates a chain of nerve signals, and then this chain of nerve signals stimulates a different set of nerves (maybe in the prefrontal cortex, which is associated with "higher-level" functioning?)

is there an end to this reflexive perception? maybe those "second-tier" receptors also respond to their own activation "further down the line", in a positive reinforcement cycle

but then of courses we also hvae to account for our mind's ability to filter out what it decides are unimportant signals

and how exactly does this self-conscious, reflexive perception, produce the "illusion" of the hard problem of consciousness? all my paragraphs and i'm not confident at all that I've even begun to answer that, except that it might be a trick of the mind. Maybe we are just forced to "believe" in qualia or think we have "experienced" them, even when they do not exist, because this serves the overall functioning of the self-conscious mind?

i am surprised that the study of the "hard problem of consciousness" has not been focused more on alcoholics.

it would be interesting to see if when you are blacked out, whether or not you are experiencing qualia or simply responding to stimuli without that reflexive awareness of these stimuli

of course it may just be that you are experiencing them but you dont remember, that would be a simpler explanation seeing as it has already been established that you do not form memories of your blacked out period (people ask you questions and you dont have the answers, but not only that, you do not follow through subconsciously on "knowledge gained" during that period of time), so there is no need to postulate also that qualia are not formed during your black-out, when it seems likely that even if you did, you wouldn't remember

>>5332206
That'd just be the new riddle of induction where t is ~hangover's second act where you are eaten by grue.

>>5332078
>Randi's Prize

As in James "The Bane of /x/" Randi??

>>5332239

robert mcluhan is a joke

Consciousness is the absence of omnipotence. If you consider that to have the knowledge of everything presently occurring in the universe, you'd have to somehow be the universe, or more than. I have to imagine that the vast amounts of moving energy in the universe expresses itself in an emergent phenomenon matter similar to consciousness, perhaps not with perception or will, but still an super-actualization beyond the matter of which the universe is comprised. In death, in the absence of the narrow corridor of reality within our brains, we will become the universe again.

>>5332286
'everything, except God, has in it some measure of privation'; thus 'all individuals may be graded according to the degree to which they are infected with mere potentiality'