/lit/ - Literature

And your evidence for this is...?

>>6795965
Natural forces create natural reactions. All natural reactions do is move matter, and create differentiatins in wavelengths of frequencies of other forces.

Consciousness is not matter, nor it a frequency, therefore, it reasonably follows, that consciousness is not a product of natural forces.

>>6795965
>>6795980
Yeah, you fucking dick. I agree with this clearly genious dude.

should probably define your terms, op

>>6795997
terms such as what, m8? I think it's pretty clear. You'll have to be more specific about what it is you need clarification on.

>>6795980
obviously, it's divine

i want r/atheism to leave

>>6795980

None of this is evidence. This is backing up claims with more claims

>>6795960
Materialist reductionists, go home.

>>6796008
>>6796012
You guys are right. Surely there's a naturalistic reason for consciousness that I'm just not aware of. Please educate me. Like thing number one said, it's not God. So what is it, then, friends?

>>6795980
Energy is governed by fundamental forces, any state of energy produced by these forces is a product of them. You sound like a nigger.

>>6796016
>Surely there's a naturalistic reason for consciousness
no one said that you illiterate undergrad

>>6796029
>a thing is a thing
>you sound like a nigger
Maybe you should take a logic class, m8

>>6796031
Excuse me for being presumptuous, but do you not believe that?
I would assume so, considering no one has agreed with me so far.

>>6796035
get some reading comprehension lad

>>6796040
that's not an argument, lad. go try some chocolate mint icecream, lad. I heare it's quite good.

>>6796044
try reading your replies retard

>>6796050
oh fuck, i mispelled "hearde." i meant to say hearde. No one has given me a worthwhile argument yet, kid.

Well, the truth of the matter is, no one knows where consciousness comes from. And anyone who claims otherwise, is just grasping at straws.

>>6796032
Maybe you should take be nice class meanie, I was just trying to be smart. God. Ugh.

>>6796074
hi, omegle

OP, your problem is that you don't read enough. You need to learn how to act under pretense. You need to learn how to be pretentious about what it is you believe, else no one will listen, m8. Now that's just truth.

>>6796092
yeah op sounds like afaggot

>guys this is what i believe about consciousness
>no ur wrong faggot, try agian
>okay, im sorry guys. please dont hit me

>>6796095
OP is clearly right as fuck, you silly fuck.

>no ur wrong faggot, try agian

Show me, kid, where OP said that.

I personally grew powers since I was 6. My powers consist of knowing when the shower will get to hot, and autoraping girls. Like straight auto-rape. Anyway, I think I have a third power, and that is knowing OP is not a faggot this day, but rather he is correct.

is consciousness not just a stream of thought?

>>6796104
just stop you spastic, no one said it was natural

it's getting embarrassing tbh, don't worry you'll hit the self bump limit soon

>>6796128
So consciousness isn't natural?

Fuck. New computer made me lose my pasta I wrote for these threads.

Anyways, funnily enough, Thomas Metzinger argues (and with him several other neurologists/philosophers) that consciousness is indeed just a combination of natural forces of perception within a limited space (the brain), without the brain being aware/able to show how these perceptions are created. The ego only sees the results of the brain, not the creation of perception itself, it relies on the ready made answers, and it receives these in chronological order, with a memory to back up the claim to these events belonging to something/someone.

The idea that these perceptions belong to someone is consciousness. This is a very short version of parts of Metzinger's book (The Ego Tunnel), so it may contain vagueness. I could elaborate if you want me to.

>>6796125
I don't think consciousness is defined by thought.

>>6796135
well I do :^]
>>6796132
if you did elaborate, i would read it

>>6796142
what defines thought

>>6796132
Man.. Fine.
>consciousness is indeed just a combination of natural forces of perception
This is like saying that consciousness is indeed just a combination of natural forces of consciousness
>without the brain being aware/able to show how these perceptions are created
K
>he ego only sees the results of the brain, not the creation of perception itself, it relies on the ready made answers
Yes, preconceived notions. This says nothing, though, about how anyone would understand perception even as a concept. It literally says nothing about the phenomena of awareness or consciousness. We already knew that the brain cannot comprehend ever aspect of consciousness, nor everythign that's happening when... oh what? our brain is thinking. It is common knowledge that there are varying levels of consciousness, and it seems to me that what you read it meaningless drivel.

>>6796153
perceptions and feelings are thought. anything "ocurring in your head" is thought, whether simple or complex. a consciousness is the label put on your thought, and because it is constant and ever present, and because we are quite alert it seems like a bubble of awareness. but it is just many quickly ocurring thoughts.

>>6796158
I was told there would be good arguments here. not just regurgitations of meaningless shit that not even the poster of such regurgitations understands.

>>6796164
>perceptions and feelings are thought
didn't read the rest of your post, opinion discarded

>>6796164
so you're saying thoughts are not awareness. nice, friend, we're finally making progress. explain yourself.

>>6796169
perceptions and feelings are thought, you fucking idiot. if anyone's opinions should be discarded, its yours.

>>6796158
>This is like saying that consciousness is indeed just a combination of natural forces of consciousness
No, it's not. Because perception does not necessarily lead to consciousness, and various forms of perception can lead to various types of consciousness.

>and it seems to me that what you read it meaningless drivel.
As opposed to your sources, which are?
Also, I hate to do this, but
>'As of 2011 he holds the position of director of the theoretical philosophy group at the department of philosophy at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz and is an Adjunct Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies and on the advisory board of the Giordano Bruno Foundation. From 2008 to 2009 he served as a Fellow at the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin; from 2014 to 2019 he is a Fellow at the Gutenberg Research College'

(Gallese has a part in the book)
>Vittorio Gallese is professor of human physiology at the University of Parma, Italy with appointments in the departments of neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. He is an expert in neurophysiology, neuroscience, social neuroscience, and philosophy of mind. Gallese is one of the discoverers of mirror neurons. His research attempts to elucidate the functional organization of brain mechanisms underlying social cognition, including action understanding, empathy, and theory of mind.

Let it rain insults and mockeries, I'll still trust a researched work by senior professors over a 4chan post that, to my knowing, hasn't actually backed up anything with anything so far.

>>6796179
back to reddit you insipid undergraduate

>>6796169
:^[]
>>6796176
no they are, i just meant to imply that awareness isn't anything separate from the thoughts you have in every instant or some amount of time. sorry it's 4:40 am here

>>6796193
>No, it's not. Because perception does not necessarily lead to consciousness, and various forms of perception can lead to various types of consciousness.
Concsiousness must necessarily exist in order for perception to exist. One cannot 'perceive' without being conscious.
>Let it rain insults and mockeries, I'll still trust a researched work by senior professors over a 4chan post that, to my knowing, hasn't actually backed up anything with anything so far.
That was my refutation of what you said. So, hopefully that will help you to learn how to think for yourself.

>>6796195
>back to reddit you insipid undergraduate
Hi, old friend.

>>6796199
I agree that thoughts are separate from awareness, in a way, but you must agree that thoughts are not possible without awareness.

>>6795960
Rocks and other inanimate objects display will, but they don't have consciousness.

>>6796213
>Rocks and other inanimate objects display will
Please explain.

>>6796216
Using "will" in the context of Schopenhauer's definition of such. Read dWaWuV, it's explained there.

>>6796200
>Concsiousness must necessarily exist in order for perception to exist. One cannot 'perceive' without being conscious.
[CITATION NEEDED]
Honestly, all you're doing is spouting these truisms like you own the place, without anything to back it up, or any reference to anything or anyone ever.

>So, hopefully that will help you to learn how to think for yourself.
The most ridiculous thing people say.
''I'm just going to think for myself about neurophenomenology and not rely on any current knowledge on the topic, bcuz I dun need no books!'' You sound like my uneducated friend, who is still a cool guy, don't get me wrong, it's just that this is the kind of shit he whips out when he doesn't agree with something. Let me guess, your next argument is about ''your experience''.

That will be all, this is turning out to be a massive waste of time. Have a good one.

>>6796217
I think you misunderstand. Inevitability of happenings does not contitute will.

>>6796207
i disagree. awareness is not possible without thought. awareness is defined by thought. in my opinion, the thoughts get more and more insignificant and inseparable from sensation and perception as you travel down the foundation of awareness. i am rounding them all up (sensations to deep thought) as 'thought' and saying that it all comes together to construct your awareness of your 'self', which is your label for your collection of thoughts.

>>6796219
>[CITATION NEEDED]
Honestly, all you're doing is spouting these truisms like you own the place, without anything to back it up, or any reference to anything or anyone ever.
You're right, I should cite soemone else who intuitively knows that to be true.
>The most ridiculous thing people say.
''I'm just going to think for myself about neurophenomenology and not rely on any current knowledge on the topic, bcuz I dun need no books!'' You sound like my uneducated friend, who is still a cool guy, don't get me wrong, it's just that this is the kind of shit he whips out when he doesn't agree with something. Let me guess, your next argument is about ''your experience''.
I was actually mocking your apparent inability to cite anything yourself. I would like for you to, as believe it or not, I'm here to learn.

>>6796222
Okay, and I respect that opinion - that awareness is just a culmination of thoughts. Afterwall, how can i be aware, if there is nothing for me to thinkabout? one cannot imagine themself in nothingness. But, I think it is awareness that exists, first and foremost, and then thought, if only because it is not immediately thoughts that are impossible, but awareness. Then again, maybe they're the same thing.

>>6796221
Incorrect.

For Schopenhauer there is a hierarchy of Will's objectification, beginning with inorganic matter up through humans (who, however, do not define the "purpose" of the world or Will)

>>6796226
>I was actually mocking your apparent inability to cite anything yourself. I would like for you to, as believe it or not, I'm here to learn.
Fine, I'll trust in the last sentence and bite before I'm off to work. If you read my first post, I already wrote what I'm paraphrasing.
>>6796132 So if that was honestly what you were trying to do, you need to start reading what people write.

>>6796237
Schopenhauer also assumed that 'the will' is a thing that wants to fuck us all over. His definition of "the will" was nothing more than a thing that expects us all to fail. How can you possibly have respect for that man's opinions?

>>6796235
fun talk, friend

>>6796240
No, I purposely disagreed with that. Because I don't believe that any findings by neurologists have anything to say about consciousness. What they found is a perfect example of how one should not confuse correleation with causation. I'm sorry I think that.

>>6796241

Incorrect.

The will doesn't have a purpose, it is the blind, timeless urge, and the thing-in-itself, thus beyond the world of subject-object.

I'm not sure why you misconstrue his arguments so poorly, perhaps you've just gathered some erring idea of his works though /lit/?

>6796252
Do you actually believe in his rendition of "the will"?
If so, please explain it to me so I can better understand.

>>6796252
Do you actually believe in his rendition of "the will"?
If so, please explain it to me so I can better understand.

>>6795960

>consciousness cannot possibly be an emergent property of any combination of natural forces.

Ehhh, it obviously was a combination of "natural" forces. Doesn't mean a god didn't set it all in motion. What is most interesting, even from an agnostic kind of perspective, is that the fundamental forces spun matter in such a way that it woke up. Amino acids in a closed jar eventually form proteins (link below). This process leads to life. Life lead eventually to us, beings aware of themselves and with the ability to plan. Other animals have more primitive forms of this, but there are some other animals like higher primates and elephants that feel empathy and solve complex problems.

In summary, consciousness is an emergent property of natural forces but that doesn't mean it isn't divine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

There are animals that I would argue both have a will and do not have consciousness.

>>6796259
Negative. Abiogenesis is impossible and not even a single protein can be made in a test tude. Your link doesn't help.

>>6796254
>Do you actually believe in his rendition of "the will"?
I think Schopenhauer makes a compelling argument, if that's what you mean.

If you have familiarity with Kant (and perhaps Plato) perhaps you can jump into Book 2 of the first volume of dWaWuV for a decent understanding of Schopenhauer's metaphysical system.

Schopenhauer sees the Kantian thing-in-itself not as any sort of thing, unlike how Kant conceptualizes it. I think this is bold and enriching.

Schopenhauer simply labels the absolute reality that underlies everything, i.e. the world of representation, as Will.

>>6796264
But then how is he not assuming that absolute, objective, or noumentalistic reality has a will? He's assuming it to be a will. How is that not anything more than an assumption? What reasons did he or you, have to believe in any such thing?

>>6796269
I just said that Will is beyond the subject-object distinction.

His reasons are numerous, which is why I suggested you check out Book 2, Volume one of his most famous work if you are seriously interested. I would do a disservice to simply rehash.

>>6796263
>abiogenesis is impossible

Says who? You? I dumbed it down in my explanation but that doesn't mean much smarter men than myself haven't investigated.

Miller-Urey Experiment came close to proving this, but there is obviously still work to be done in fully understanding it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

http://people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

>>6796279
Just explain this to me, then. If the "will" is not subject-object, then what is the difference between schopenhaur's "will" and God?

>>6795960
Schopenhauer's aesthetics are his greatest part is what I think.

>>6796284
>Miller-Urey Experiment
>implying the experiment even simulated primitive Earth climate

>>6796284
I know the theory relatively well. Primordial soup + energy led to the first protocell. rna started out on clay and such. And a protocell made of phospholipid bilayers took in the rna. and holy shit, next comes real cells. Surely your hero scientists know way more than what i've just explained, though.

>>6796292
You can just do some greentext meme on 4chan and that undermines one of the greatest scientific experiments in human history?

>implying your sweeping critique means shit

>>6795960
is the pic supposed to be related? because im pretty sure Schopenhauer would not endorse such a belief, at least in the noumenal world, insofar as Will applies as much to rocks as if does people

>>6795960
>>>consciousness cannot possibly be an emergent property of any combination of natural forces.

>Nothing of what I know could explain consciousness, so it doesn't exist.

>>6796285
Read his work, at least the book I specified. It's one of the greatest works of German philosophy and is actually written well (unlike Kant or Hegel).

Schopenhauer was an atheist and the Will is not some sort of divine entity which has some sort of omnipotent powers or whatnot. It's a blind, pointless urge. Again, please read his work for a better understanding and not some /lit/ post disservice.

>>6796299
Yeah, that's what I was getting at in my initial comment to OP. Unsure of why Schopenhauer was used.

>>6796295
>my hero scientists
No, they just know a lot more about it than I do. I'm not claiming to be an expert on any level. I don't consider them "heroes"

>>6796297
oh so it did simulate primitive Earth climate?

was primitive Earth just sparked boiling water?

funny how you just handwaved it

>>6796297
Are you fucking kidding? the miller-urey experimetn is even regarded by modern atheistic scientists as being a failed experiment. Dude, at least do some more research before you're going to spout "muh abiogenesis" There is no explanation for abiogenesis.

>>6796304
Then you should know that there aren't even any current working theories on abiogenesis. None that could be considered feasible, anyway. It's a complete unknown. But that's fine. All atheists need is life to exist in the first place.

>>6796309
I agree that I know little of this, but neither do you and you cannot just claim "abiogenesis is impossible" or "consciousness cannot possibly come from natural forces" without proving it.

>>6796302
ah right, just caught up on the debate

>>6796285
the other anon has it (and rightly maintains that you should read his work as opposed to hearing it from us) - the kantian noumenon is best thought of as a single thing in itself/ultimate reality (Will) as opposed to a conceivable 'true' object underlying each thing. there is no hint of any absolute, nothing that could be understood as 'truth' or 'morality' in Will. If you tried you could somewhat understand it religiously, in a natural, we are all reality sort of way (the shared essence is how Schopenhauer grounds his morals) - but that sorta breaks the spirit of the 'blind urge' characterization.

>>6796302
give me your tldr of it, then. if you think it's as great as you seem to, I want your understanding of it.
Because as far as I can surmise, there is no reason to believe in a "blind, pointless urge" that is the will. As that simply doesn't explain why we exist. I think that the nature of reality must coincide with why we exist, because we exist. It's the most immediate thing we know.

>>6796321
>but neither do you and you cannot just claim "abiogenesis is impossible" or "consciousness cannot possibly come from natural forces" without proving it.
something cannot give what it doesnt have, happy?

>>6796312
Well, I am sorry if I was misinformed. I don't research much stuff like that usually, I should read up on it. I do stand by my statement that OP can't say "consciousness cannot possibly be an emergent property of any combination of natural forces" because he cannot prove it.

>>6796322
I might read it. But I would just like to be more intrigued by the concept. It's fine that Schopenhauer had this concept, but what was his reasoning other than just thinking up a concept? Why would he, or anyone, consider his notion of a "will" to be the actual truth?

>>6796328
Well that's a weak argument with human's extremely limited understanding of consciousness and the origins of the universe, but sure ok.

>>6796329
Let me try. Am OP. Forces just move shit around. Forces are defined by how they interact with matter. Therefore, there is no reason, as in it is not reasonable, to believe that any universal forces, or any combination of such, could create what we know as consciousness. Because consciousness is not just the moving about of matter, or energy. We are aware. I find that profound beyond reason.

>>6796340
I agree that it is quite profound and seems to be the one thing that sticks out from everything else around us. True minds with subjective abilities. I don't know, man. Do you believe in god or something like that?

>>6796339
it's a metaphysical principle, one which we abstract through information we receive from the senses and applies to everything

>>6796345
Only because I am aware, yes.

>>6796324
My understanding of it is potentially flawed and wouldn't necessarily be correct or complete. I'm not sure why you are hung up on having a random stranger explain one of the most complex thoughts of 19th century German philosophy.

>Why would he, or anyone, consider his notion of a "will" to be the actual truth?

He ascertains this through a reading and understanding (plus subsequent critique) of both Kant and Plato. His "reasoning" for such is tied up with his critique of both of these thinkers.

>>6796346
Again, everything you have said is within the realm of understanding of a high primate.

>>6796324
Just read the book, you shiteater.

>>6796351
>high primate.
>not rational animal
i cant believe you fucks actually think youre stupid on purpose just because classification through origins puts us next to a monkey

>>6796350
I ask because I have a limited attention to give. I want to know reading his bullshit is worth is. I also want to know that you understand it, and are not just backing up your philosphy hero. Surely if you understand what you think, then you should be able to explain some of schopenhauer's concepts. SURELY, they are not so profound that you, a mere mortal, could not explain them.

>>6796349
I think there's some design to it. I find my consciousness to be proof of some kind of higher power (I understand this could be a delusion, but I choose a meaningful life over nihilism and atheism). I only disagree that consciousness couldn't come from natural forces because the higher power could very well have designed nature to yield the life the same way it moves particles around innately. We'll never really know the answer, especially in our lifetimes.

>>6796335
>>6796324

this is the shaky grounds, otherwise he would have basically solved all of philosophy and understanding of life as we know it.

are you following up to now, that there is a kantian thing in itself, neither subject not object yet it must be interconnected with the world at such a level that this world can exist? (I'm explaining it poorly, think two sides of the same coin, noumenon and phenomenon)

Kants original idealism would have people unable to know anything of noumenon, but this double aspect theory means that there is another aspect to everything which is the noumenon, and Schopenhauer thinks that he has found it in his own body. (his brain thinks for his body to move, his body moves, these actions happen in tandem). so he introspects, and finds Will (blind urge). given the metaphysical system laid out above, this Will is one and the same underlying all of reality.

i forget entirely how he explained human consciousness, but am pretty sure he did mention it. i hope the above has been at least approximately faithful to the source

>>6796357
We're not "stupid", we just don't understand that much about the origins of the universe. My point is that we have an extremely limited perspective, looking out from our tiny planet with lenses and seeing billions of stars. We don't know anything yet. The argument is not whether humans are "rational", it's whether a human can say "consciousness can't come from natural forces" and not sound like an ant claiming to understand the ant-farm salesman.

>>6796360
I think that God 'moved particles around' as such to make the brain. And it is in our brain that our consciousness lies. But no God, no consciousness, no anything.

>>6796364
Yeah. I suppose I can agree with that. Sry if I was shitposting. I think I misunderstood your original post's intent.

>>6796358
>I want to know reading his bullshit is worth is.
If you want just a cheap SparkNotes style answer to things then perhaps its not for you, although some of his essays and aphorisms get at his concept of will.

>I also want to know that you understand it, and are not just backing up your philosphy hero
What does it matter to you what I understand of an author you have no understanding of in the first place?

Schopenhauer is a great thinker, but "hero" is a bit of an absurdity in his case.

>SURELY, they are not so profound that you, a mere mortal, could not explain them.
Schopenhauer explains them the best, consult his works. You're on a literature board with Schopenhauer as the OP's picture, surely you have some sort of interest in reading it? Set aside a few days to (re)familiarize with Plato's Ideas and Kant's metaphysics then dive into it.

Fundamentally Schopenhauer arrives at his conclusions through Kantian critique and introspective, subjective-thinking. Are there cracks in this? Of course, especially from Hegelians, but his underlying concept and explanation of the Will as manifest in all things as blind urge simply resonates with my own introspection and observation.

If his opus is too much for you to digest perhaps just poke around Parerga and Paralipomena?

>>6796363
>"consciousness can't come from natural forces"
but it cant, the principle of proportionate causality shows it cant

>>6796362
I understand Kant's noumenal world. I don't understand, however, how Schopenhauer could assume his own urges to be some sort of noumenal force. What I even further don't understand, is how people respect his philospohy so much.

>>6796367
You didn't. I'm saying God is necessary for consciousness.

>>6796035
He's right. Just because a philosopher disagrees with your argumentation doesn't mean he implicitly takes the opposite position he's deconstructing .

>>6796374
I agree with that. Maybe I'm just having trouble separating god from nature. I see nature as god's creation, and nature as man's creator in a way. Anything in particular you recommend I read on this subject?

>>6796369
I am hesitant, despite what I already know about him, much of which you've reitterated, to delve further into his works. It seems to me that he confused the Id of his own consciousness to be some sort of noumenal force. It also seems to me that he probably didn't understand Kant's works, at least not all that well. So yes, you probably know more about him than I, but I'm still not sure it's worth it to know much more about him, or his 'findings'.

>>6796370
please explain

>>6796380
>Anything in particular you recommend I read on this subject?
I wouldn't know what to recomment. Most of what I argue in this subject, I know intuitively, as did any philosopher whom you would read anyway. Forgive me for not being a great philosopher.

>>6796371
>I understand Kant's noumenal world.
I'm not quite sure you do, or at least not familiar enough to follow through on any sort of serious critique like one Schopenhauer is putting forth.

The thing in itself is a characterization of the metaphysical "entity" that causes our sensations, it's wholly absolute and mind-independent. Kant tells us flat out that this thing in itself is unknowable as it is, obviously, "in itself." Humans can, therefore, only know what reality is as it appears to us, not how it truly is. Metaphysical knowledge is therefore, impossible.

Schopenhauer, however, says we should eliminate cause and object from our vocabulary when discussing the thing in itself, as the thing in itself is not a thing of any kind, contra Kant (Schopenhauer explains this through the Principle of Sufficient Reason). Further, he goes on to critique Kant's "terrible confusion" between intuitive knowledge and abstract knowledge. Book 1 shows how perceptual knowledge trumps, at least from a philosophical angle, abstract knowledge.

There's much more to this, of course, which is why you should pick up his book and start reading, rather than taking my word for it. Simply, the world as a whole is regarded in the same way we regard our personal selves, being a body (physical, presentation) enlivened by an inner mind (will).
>>6796385
>Id
If you're really that concerned and caught up with Freud then you most certainly do need to read Schopenhauer, as his ideas on mind were extremely influential to Freud. It boggles my mind you are trying to bring up Freud and at the same time wholly dismissing elements Freud found extremely relevant and worth of study. Schopenhauer is usually brought up in any serious course on Freud within the introduction.

>>6796401
This is a quality post. It made me think.
Just a few thoughts:
>Schopenhauer, however, says we should eliminate cause and object from our vocabulary when discussing the thing in itself, as the thing in itself is not a thing of any kind
It seems to me that this is a limitation brought about only by language and the definition of "thing" in that a "thing" can only be defined. The "noumenal" cannot be truly defined, which is sort of part of its definition.
>Book 1 shows how perceptual knowledge trumps, at least from a philosophical angle, abstract knowledge.
I don't know what you mean by this. Please put it in a form of empircism or rationalism.
If what this means is that emprical 'knowledge' trumps rational knowledge, then i'd love to have that argument with you, even though it wouldn't be you who said it.
as for the >id thing, just because freud drew a concept from Schopenhauer, doesn't mean that Schopenhauer's "will" was a sort of universal, trancendant thing.

I will probably pick up some shit and read Schopenhauer - one of his works. But undersatnd that even it it's in my own ignorance, that i see most people whom philospohers study from, as ignorant, which is *obviously* stupid of me.

>>6796249
So who has an authority on it then? Metzinger is a philosopher/neurologist, his work features psychological experiments, neuroscience, evolutionary biology and philosophy. Who else do you expect to solve this puzzle then? Also, if you'd just read the book, or anything on it, then you'll know that we don't have the answer, we're just thinking of the most probable thing at the moment, with the available knowledge.

>>6796432
Here's a hint my friend: What you're looking for - as a naturalistic cause of consciousness - doesn't exist.
>So who has an authority on it then?
Apparently no one.

>>6796401
> Kant tells us flat out that this thing in itself is unknowable as it is, obviously, "in itself."

but, how is that satisfactory? what does it mean that its in itself?

>>6796439
It is that in its own idea.
Kant could have defined the "noumenal world" as anything he wanted.

>>6796436
>What you're looking for - as a naturalistic cause of consciousness - doesn't exist.
I don't understand what you mean. This reads to me like you saying nature doesn't provide consciousness, which sounds like a God argument.

I don't so much argue for ''a cause'', as what I've read on it leads me to believe it is a phenomenon that occurs in gradations, depending on the development of your sensory abilities combined with an entity of which the senses can claim possession, while having the idea of being in a logical continuum. So it's not so much ''a thing'' or ''a cause'', but a culmination of several things, that can only become causes once in a proper combination.

>>6796427
>It seems to me that this is a limitation brought about only by language and the definition of "thing" in that a "thing" can only be defined. The "noumenal" cannot be truly defined, which is sort of part of its definition.

Fair point, and I wouldn't disagree that Schopenhauer might just be playing with semantics, at least at first, but the idea of the noumenal itself is taken as a "thing" in Kant, which Schopenhauer says would go against Kant's own conceptualization of it. Again, this relates to Schoepnahauer's thesis and prior essay works on the Root of Sufficient Reason and the Principle of Sufficient reason dealing with the ideas of spacio-temporal relation and thingness as well as ability for apprehension (which further is detailed when Schoepnahuer looks at Platonic Ideas).

Schopenhauer is trying to be more Kantian than Kant, in a way.

>>6796427
>I don't know what you mean by this.
Well, that's why reading the book would be a good idea, as many examples are provided (one of my favorites deals with a pool player knowing and having a feel of the game makes him a good player, not some abstract knowledge of mathematical angles.). It's a difficult concept to put across on an image board. Even so, I don't think this point is truly essentially to understanding for the purpose of this thread, but I was giving insight into the "logic" of Schopenhauer.

>id thing, just because freud drew a concept from Schopenhauer, doesn't mean that Schopenhauer's "will" was a sort of universal, trancendant thing.

The "Id" isn't something directly pulled from Schopenhauer, but rather Freud's entire concept of memory, childhood, and reflection has roots in Schoepnhauer's discussion of human psychology.

>>6796439
Welcome to the thread, Hegel.

In itself means that it exists in and of itself, i.e. transcendental in character.

>>6796436
dude, all youre doing is looking for a bridge from the physical world, to the mental world. and your problem is assuming those are different worlds

all these philofags thinking the ground is solid

>>6796451
I was only saying the bridge is necessary, as the mind is separate from the physicial world.

>>6796256
The first thing that would help you understand is reading his fucking books, retard.

>>6796451
This whole is mental because it is mind that can comprehend all of these phases and sub-parts as steps in its own process of comprehension

>>6796461
What is 'the will', friend?

>>6796448
>Welcome to the thread, Hegel.

>>6796464
Yes!!!

>>6796465
Some sort of basic impulse or driving force behind nature. We can only see its effetcs, or "feel" them on ourselves (our desires).

>>6796476
Yes, the presumption of such. As opposed to reading, I think it might help you to think a bit.

>>6796464
The only mental thing is the limited knowledge you have of the whole. Everything that's outside of our knowledge but is still working is obviously not mental.

>>6796479
What kind of criticism is that. You seem more retarded than I thought.

>>6796485
it doesn't seem to me that you have any intuitive understanding of anything you've said. By that definition, I believe you would be the literal retard here.

>>6796489
>NO U
Really? Great argument, again.

>>6796493
No, FAGGOT
U
U SO MUCH.
U. PERIOD.
U.

>>6796496
>>6796493
I concur...
no u.

Because we don't even know what we mean by consciousness I'll leave this quote here

>Our private senses are not closed systems but are endlessly translated into one another in the synesthetic experience we call consciousness.

Makes sense to me. Like we audio-read visual text, we can imagine taste at the sight of a yummy food, we visualize the faces of known voices, we get uncomfortable watching someone fall ("ouch that hurt"). At least this mixing of senses helps awareness. If you look at that merely visually you'll see it's a quite strange experience. The text does not seem to communicate. Pure awareness of things is in a way hypnotizing or somnambulist. Mixture of senses creates a sort of "synaesthesia" which is quite common. Otherwise we wouldn't recognise sarcasm on internet posts, if not for cues which are more auditory than visual, for example. And we wouldn't put emotion into movies. We translate ourselves endlessly and that is in a way consciousness, in the sense that it keeps us wide awake.

or whatever

>>6796509
in the synesthetic experience we call consciousness.
Your quote only redfined consciousness as not being significant. it explains nothing.

>>6796513
excuse my lack of meme arrow usage.

>>6796480

its outside our knowledge yet you know its not mental?

ITT : metabasis and mixing genres.

Also confusing essence and occasion.
For instance, metabolic motions could be seen in element1-based lifeforms and element2-based lifeforms. Saying life "stems" from any or that it is "made of" or "made by" element1 or element2 is false.

>>6796029
>Energy is governed by fundamental forces
This rustles my jimmies.
People should have mandatory analytical dynamics before using these words while pretending to speak about physics. "Energy" is not governed by anything. We give energy an geometric-finalist form.

>>6796524
>>6796524
its governed in the sense of being consistent, it behaves predictably

>>6796524
Oh, you silly silly friend. I'm annoyed with your arrogance, so good luck.
>Also confusing essence and occasion.
If you can explain this adequately, then i lose.
>For instance, metabolic motions could be seen in element1-based lifeforms and element2-based lifeforms. Saying life "stems" from any or that it is "made of" or "made by" element1 or element2 is false.
I don't believe anyone said this, but if you are attempting to refer to biogenesis, then there should be zero lifeforms from which things could "stem" from, or be "made of."
>People should have mandatory analytical dynamics before using these words
That is literally a meaningless statement. There is no such thing as "analytical dynamics." What the fuck is wrong with you?
>before using these words while pretending to speak about physics
You're referring to "energy being governed by fundamental forces." Fundamental forces prodece what we know as "energy." It's quite that simple, kid.
>"Energy" is not governed by anything.
This is where you truly fucked up. Obviously energy is governed by laws we think we understand. I can only surmise that you're not actuall this grossly stupid, but you're actually trolling.

>>6796518
The structure of reality itself can't be mental.

>>6796537
how can you say forces produce energy? the same net energy has always existed

>>6796544
I said what we define as energy.

If consciousness isn't generated by the brain, isn't it a kinda weird that various molecules that interact with the brain in specific ways can have huge effects on consciousness?

Or do you think that the pot you smoke ALSO possess some metaphysical qualities that interact with your metaphysical consciousness?

>>6796557
>isn't it a kinda weird that various molecules that interact with the brain in specific ways can have huge effects on consciousness?
You know, it might actually help me understand if you could just explain how that's "weird."

>>6796557

>>6796563
If "consciousness cannot possibly be an emergent property of any combination of natural forces", then how come tetrahydrocannabinol binding to cannabinoid receptors produces changes in consciousness? I'm pretty sure THC, being a molecule, is a natural force.

>>6796572
It's a known fact that chemicals can change states of awareness. But, that doesn't necessarily say anything about consciousness or how it exists. The chemicals in the brain can obviously alter how we think, but there is no explanation for the fact that we think in the first place.

>>6796576
>But, that doesn't necessarily say anything about consciousness

Unless you come up with some magical way for the physical cannabinoid receptors to interact with the supposedly metaphysical consciousness, yes it does.

And let's not even get into how silly this conversation is when viewed from the perspective of evolution.

>>6796581
Chemicals in the brain affect how we think. This is a known fact. But this says nothing about the nature, or origin, or consiousness.

>>6796588
motherfucking typos. It says nothing about the origin or nature of consciousness.

>>6796581
but surely the great Lord Schopenhauer would have concluded that there is no consciousness, and what we percieve as "consciousness" is only the ominous "will'." What an arrogant fuck. Though I did practically promise I will read him. Ugh, I can't wait to fucking disagree with all his ill-witted bullshit.

This board, to me, is just a slower, less racist, /pol/. For fuck's sake, someone explain to me how it's more than that, other than "we're here to reed bruh." Though that is the purpose of the board.

>>6796615
motherfuck, read* Kind of ironic, yet expected.

don't make me greentext, faggots.

>be me
>be hot as fuck 'cause summer
>take a 3 1/2 hour bus ride to purchase a boat
>regret it immediately
>have visions of sailing the open sea
>free from everything
>boat sits in its dock
>be paying marina fee
>wishing i had never bought it.
>only wanted to get away

>>6796527
A derivative of a function is determined by said function. It's a formal a priori and purely mathematical operation.

>>6796537
>Fundamental forces prodece what we know as "energy." It's quite that simple, kid.
It's presented in this order in high school physics because people there can't into calculus of variations. Presenting algebraic equations relating force and position is less demanding than going for the Lagrangian directly.
It's irrelevant which "comes first". All of purely mechanical problems can be dealt with energy argument without refering to forces. And that's how it is done past a certain level where Hamiltonian format is systematic.

> There is no such thing as "analytical dynamics."
But there is. You may find the Mechanics by Lev Landau interesting since Landau uses the masterrace energetic approach.
You may try the classic never surpassed Treatise on Analytical Dynamics by based Whittaker.

>>6796640
fuck it. I'm willing for you to be right, if only because I need to think about this convoluted shit with which you've presented me.

>>6796615
You're certainly not improving it by shitposting your opinion. And using /pol/ as le obvious awful repellent full of mean baddies.
Reddit will probably be more up your alley.

>>6796640
>It's presented in this order in high school physics because people there can't into calculus of variations. Presenting algebraic equations relating force and position is less demanding than going for the Lagrangian directly.
>It's irrelevant which "comes first". All of purely mechanical problems can be dealt with energy argument without refering to forces. And that's how it is done past a certain level where Hamiltonian format is systematic.
That's all great, m8. It was nice of you to flaunt yoru hypothetical education. Obviously what I was saying was very simple: That there is no such thing as energy without the 4 fundamental forces. Furthermore, the purpose of this post was to suggest that no interaction between these forces could produce consciousness.

>But there is. You may find the Mechanics by Lev Landau interesting since Landau uses the masterrace energetic approach.
You may try the classic never surpassed Treatise on Analytical Dynamics by based Whittaker.
I still disagree that that's a thing. You would to well to explain how it is, rather than citing sources you hope will bump up your ethos so much that i won't be able to argue with you. Because kid, that won't happen.

>>6796652
>You're certainly not improving it by shitposting your opinion. And using /pol/ as le obvious awful repellent full of mean baddies.
Reddit will probably be more up your alley.
/pol/ is the shit, actually
And regarding your comment about reddit, you should probably just leave 4chan, because you're obviously not old enough to be here. Yes, I deduced that from your very stupid comment.

>>6796385
>he probably didn't understand Kant's works, at least not all that well
No - firstly Schopenhauer's critique of Kant is regarded as one of his major contributions, and secondly, his work is an extension of that done by Kant, taken in an new direction but nevertheless one that can meaningfully follow from accepting (most of) a Kantian framework. If you can't make the connections, it's more likely to be from a gap in your own education than in the steps taken between them.


I don't mean to say that Schopenhauer is right or necessary from his contribution of the Will, but you certainly have not earned the right to affirm the opposite.

>>6796666
You're right, in that I don't know enough about what he thought, to adequately argue that he was wrong.

>>6796666
Entertain me, though. inb4 "not my job" If you understand his concepts, then tell me. If you don't, then you're an idiot for believing anything he said.

>>6796666
I will say that i wrong in assuming what schopenhauer though, specifically. But it also seems to me that anyone who tells me knowing his work is so imperative, is full of shit. So then, forgive me for not listening. Particularly if you can't even summarize conceps you supposedly believe in.

>>6796694
>>6796666
thought*

>>6796675
I'm heading to bed (live in one of those upside down countries), but I made a hurried attempt up here >>6796362

It's not a perfect theory and I doubt my explanations did it justice but I'll show up tomorrow again if the thread is still up. The important move is from Kant's idealism to a dual aspect theory, from which introspection is a genuine method for obtaining knowledge.


Also, FYI it is possible for one to defend something without believing it.

>>6796704
>FYI it is possible for one to defend something without believing it.
Obviously
>Didn't seem obvious to you
Not my fault

>>6796712

>If you don't, then you're an idiot for believing anything he said.

>if you can't even summarize conceps you supposedly believe in.

>>6796720
True.

>>6796660
>I still disagree that that's a thing.
You disagreed with "analytical dynamics" being a thing. This is the name given to this field.
I won't teach you about mechanics in a Belgian metalworks imageboard. Basically, it is about using the variation of the action and the related variational principle to set up the differential equations of motion.

>>6796725
fair enough,m8

I find it funny that this bullshit post, is still on the first page. And that I could probably go to sleep, wake up, and find this thread still there. I mean, the fuck, man?

>>6795980
>differentiations in wavelengths of frequencies of other forces
Could it not be said that brainwaves or the jumps between synapses are the signifiers of consciousness, insofar as we can come to terms as consciousness as a process or transference of forces rather than a product? It's an immaterial object which is always in motion or differance, never settling, but stays as a fixed contingency through which the reality can exist - I can only be aware of the materiality of the universe by first accepting that the displaced centre of the 'I' must also be present to observe its existence. However, I wouldn't be capable of experiencing reality were it not also for my own necessary physicality. Quantum Mechanics works as a kind of allegory for consciousness, insofar as they both occupy two impossible and contradictory states simultaneously.

>>6797082
That's an identity thesis. If consciousness is a process of synapses then you aren't really explaining anything, since you are not addressing its first-person phenomenological properties that we tend to attribute to consciousness: awareness, and so on. The task is to explain how these neurological processes are isomorphic to awareness and other first-person psychological phenomena. Moreover, WHICH neurological processes IN SPECIFIC are responsible for this. Some specific set of neurons? If so, which? The problem is that neither 'consciousness' nor 'jumps between synapses' refer to anything in concrete.

>>6795980
You haven't made clear why a natural force can only create a natural reaction. Consciousness sure seems like a valid piece of evidence against that claim.
I (the matter that is now my body) was ways a natural thing and will always be. I began to be organic in my dad's balls and my mother's ovaries. And at some point I was conscious. The best I can come up with for having become conscious is a natural reaction: my father cumming inside my mother's cunt. I'm not claiming certainty, but there is no such thing as certainty on a posteriori claims so that in itself would be a rather silly thing to do.

>>6796606
What a faggot.

>>6795960
In order to combat my lack of free will, I use a random number generator to choose from by calibre library of 1000+ which book I will read next. I usually end up with a shit book I dont really feel like reading, but I know that if I selected the book without the random generator I am a slave to my own lack of free will.

>>6797500
>I (the matter that is now my body)
Consciousness aside, this implies that you deny the psychological realm. How do you propose to reduce instances of will, beliefs and dreams, among many other things, to neurobiological cells and their activity? Note that this does not necessarily imply that if one admits the psychological realm, this realm must then be in some sense unrelated and not caused by the physical realm (the brain).

Is it that difficult to understand that we, our body as a whole including the parts which make us aware of everything, are nothing but a kind of machine which was naturally built by agitated molecules through billions of years of random mutations and natural selection? It's just that we don't understand yet how it all began.

Stop thinking that we are more than that.

>>6795980
What even is "natural"?

>>6797671
What is "what is 'what is even' even" even?

>>6797618
You completely failed at the question and so resorted to dismissing it.

The truth is that science cannot explain ANY emergent phenomena. There is nothing in the behavior of an individual atom or combination of atoms that indicates how it could generate consciousness, or why, say, an acorn would grow into an oak rather than remaining static and dead.

Schopenhauer and the Easterners are quite correct. The "will/desire" precedes reality and is the noumemon. The world as it exists appears to the will as it does only because the will desires.

Fat manifests itself to us as delicious on the tongue, rather than as nothing, because the will wills it, and ditto for all other sensations.

The world as will and representation.

>>6798115
When I was 14 years old I went on a walk with one of the neighbor girls. We walked into the forest and talked about school and other stupid things but I couldn't avoid the thoughts I had about getting sexual with her. Impulsively without any consideration I grabbed her hand and told her I liked her. She smiled and I smiled. That was the first time I expressed my feelings to someone aside from my immediate family. That night I jacked off to the thoughts of hugging her and holding her hand.

>>6796427
>It seems to me that this is a limitation brought about only by language and the definition of "thing" in that a "thing" can only be defined. The "noumenal" cannot be truly defined, which is sort of part of its definition.

Schopenhauer endeavors to define the noumenon through inverting the characteristics which belong to representation. It therefore receives a negative definition

>thus whereas all representations were plural, finite, temporal and causal, the Wille (Schopenhauer's interpretation of thing in itself) was singular, infinite, timeless and acausal.

>Book 1 shows how perceptual knowledge trumps, at least from a philosophical angle, abstract knowledge.

Sensation is physical, it results from the stimulation of nerves and sensory organs under. This data is raw material, nothing like the mental picture we have in our heads.

Perception on the other hand is intellectual, that is to say, it involves and presupposes an intellect which imposes formal structure upon the material. Sensation provides the raw material which is then worked up to form the mental image or representation which we know as the world of appearances. This function belongs to the Understanding, which is a component of the human mind.

In other words, the whole world of appearances, extended in space, enduring in time, and causally governed does not simply waltz into our head. It appears in just such a fashion because our intellect imposes forms and structure upon the raw data supplied by our senses. Take away the intellect and you can't have perception. Mere sensation can still operate, and indeed does, in the absence of an intellect. Plants respond to stimuli. The human spinal column reacts to stimuli without input from the brain. But sensation does not equal perception. Vision, for instance, is not a physiological process but an intellectual one. Your eyes may function perfectly but if the part of your brain that processes visual data is damaged, you can't see.

>>6798142
welp. as they say, the tongue can't taste itself.

>>6795960
will is just an arrogant word uppity apes use for their specific type of fake-free determination tbh

>consciousness is metaphysical

I'm done with this board.

Good rage for those who will stay.

>>6798264

To understand Schopenhauer you must understand the difference between physiological processes and intellectual ones. Gathering and supplying sensory data is a physiological process; it can even be reduced in most cases to a purely mechanical process. Vision is more complicated than the other senses, likely because light is a more delicate stimuli than say an odor or a sound, which is at bottom a vibration of the air.

Vorstellung, which is often erroneously translated as 'Idea', means representation. This term is not simply a concept, but a description of a complex physiological and intellectual process. It also refers to the way in which our whole perceptual apparatus operates.

The human body deals only in effects, that is to say, everything we receive from without must be construed as effect. When you run your hand along the bark of a tree, nerve endings in your hand relay a particular kind of data up the nervous chain. It passes through the spinal column and is forwarded to the brain, specifically that faculty known as the Understanding. This faculty takes the raw sensory data and imposes the forms of the intellect upon it, namely time, space and causality. The last is most crucial in grasping the purpose of this function, for it is only through applying the law of causality to sensory data that we arrive at perception of an object. The EFFECT arrives first; it lingers as a kind of resonance, because it is awaiting its ground or sufficient reason, so that it may then ENTER active consciousness in a causal fashion, that is, as the effect of a cause. The cause however has to be worked up and PROJECTED by the Understanding. Only once this process has been carried out do you perceive the object which is the cause of the sensation you just experienced: you then perceive the surface of the tree as an object extended in space, enduring in time, and casually operative. It is just the same with vision: the sensation, that is to say, the stimulation of various cells within the retina, is classified as an EFFECT which needs a cause. The effect is traced back to its source by the Understanding; an object is worked up in the mind according to the data it has received from the eyes and PROJECTED into space to ground the EFFECT which has just arrived and which is currently waiting to appear in the proper fashion. The object then appears in your vision. Thus we pass from the effect to the cause without stopping. This process is automatic and consistent, and moreover it is integral to the human brain. It develops through experience, but it does not derive therefrom. Failure to distinguish this difference is the chief failing of English empiricism.

>>6798355

The overarching consequence of this process is just what Schopenhauer states, namely:

>Therefore, the fact that, on the occasion of certain sensations occurring in my organs of sense, there arises in my head a PERCEPTION of the things extended in space, permanent in time, and casually operative, by no means justifies me in assuming that such things also exist in themselves, in other words, that they exist with such properties absolutely belonging to them, independent of my head and outside it. This is the correct conclusion of the Kantian philosophy.

>>6798326
listen dude, when you die, youll just be buried. it will all be over soon. lights out for eternity

typical /lit/ faggotry

somebody makes a great post and the entire thread clears out

fuck you faggots

>>6796259
>but that doesn't mean it isn't divine
How do you jump to this conclusion? Why doesn't it mean the opposite - that it isn't divine?

>>6801721
nice photoschopen

>>6798374
do you have any proof?