/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11411515]

How do we solve the hard problem of consciousness?

[Anonymous No.11411555]

Consciousness is an illusion created by the virtualization of matter.

[Anonymous No.11411563]

Why does it sound so erotic?

[Anonymous No.11411567]

>>11411555
>virtualization
trading one mystery for another

[Anonymous No.11411582]

>>11411567
Not really. We understand how computers work.

[Anonymous No.11411589]

>>11411582
this meme again

[Anonymous No.11411591]

>>11411582
wetware != hardware, bucko.

>>11411555
I'm not an illusion. I think I exist. Therefore I exist.
-t. Descartes

[Anonymous No.11411600]

First, get a select list of very smart people who have fully and actually understood the critique of the possibility of metaphysics in the late Wittgenstein and Heidegger. Then ask them all: Are you still interested in metaphysical truth, i.e., are you still interested in truly understanding nature and the cosmos? If they start saying shit like "Y-yeah, but only in the context of social and cultural life, man! We can never escape the ethical! The purpose of philosophy is THERAPY, man! Science can only ever give us hard naturalist approximations about a fundamentally inscrutable and indifferent world, and that's only useful insofar as it furnishes engineering applications for improving our liberal-progressive doubleplusgoodfeelies!," then you tell them to leave immediately or you will open fire.

Then, you separate all the Peirceans and process theologians and other Spinozist, "naturalist" monists, with their pet theories about how consciousness is a [insert buzzwords like "virtual" or "aspect" or "modality" here] of matter, onto one side of the room. Tell them they're on thin ice, and they aren't to begin spitballing any dumbass architectonics until ground rules have been laid for an inquiry theoretisch-like. Then everyone has to read Kant, and demonstrate familiarity with the problematic established by Kant, and swear that they understand why dualism is a problem that cannot be overcome by rhetorically appealing to an elegant Spinozist monism again. Then everyone has to read Fichte and secondary literature on Fichte very carefully until they understand the necessity of beginning with practical regulative critiques of the possibility of knowledge, within a broadly Heideggerian and Wittgensteinian analytic. Then people start reading Schelling, in order to see the exact moment in his thinking where the whole last two centuries of "pre-critical metaphysics that thinks it's post-critical" Spinozist metaphysics kicked off. If several people start clutching their skulls and screaming in despair that their whole careers have been a joke hitherto, you have done it right. From there you start doing real philosophy. Station armed guards to shoot any rogue Peirceans who try to splinter off from the group and write more neo-Platonist tripe. They have gone insane on leaving the cave, and retreated into "enthusiasm." They can't be saved.

Ideally what you want to do is winnow the list down to a small set of undiscovered or underappreciated Bergsons, Einsteins, Gödels, Nietzsches, and Jameses, people who are are capable at standing at the threshold without retreating into dumb Spinozism, drive away all the lesser chaff, and then get those guys to start spitballing and reading Vedic literature and half-forgotten esoterica from the 1920s and taking their shirts off until someone manages to break through to supersensible revelations like in that Colin Wilson book where they all become psychic and start throwing pyramids at each other.

[Anonymous No.11411606]

>>11411600
Anyone can write any words that mean anything. The naturalistic reality doesn't bend to your words.

[Anonymous No.11411610]

>>11411591
Wetware works with the same principle as hardware does. Also, Descartes just repeated a tautology and made it sound profound. Dualism in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.11411618]

>>11411600
good post, can you talk more about what one should be ideally digesting from heidegger and wittgenstein, why dualism is still tenable (i agree), what are the mistakes people keep making, and all that. i like your writing style

[Anonymous No.11411620]

>>11411610
because consciousness is a tautology, I = I

[Anonymous No.11411633]

>>11411610
computers are static
the brain moves, both literally and in area intensity (every part of the brain fluctuating in speed and efficiency), and everything is interlinked WITHIN CELLS INTERLINKED WITHIN CELLS INTERLINKED WITHIN ONE STEM

[Anonymous No.11411636]

>>11411555
>consciousness is an illusion
Not Even Wrong(tm)
to be capable of being under any illusion you need to have consciousness first

>>11411515
we wait for meme physicalists to die off

[Anonymous No.11412056]

>>11411636
based

[Anonymous No.11412523]

Mystical nonsense devised to be unanswerable, to preserve the mystery of human character and motivation. Consciousness is the (nonexistent) well-spring of will, and without free will, the value systems that frame society are nonsensical. Determinists are ramming down the door, this “hard problem” is a last ditch effort to divert them.

[Anonymous No.11412531]

>>11412523
except no amount of recognition of the truth of determinism can ever remove the felt truth of freedom, this is the problem

[Anonymous No.11412621]

>>11412531
The “felt truth of freedom” is a pretty simple thing for your mind to manifest when the entire culture you grew up in constantly insists you are free. People experience similar things in religious and paranormal rituals but are quite dismissed because they are considered superstitious.

[Anonymous No.11412638]

>>11412621
lol my experience of my consciousness as self-directed is not culturally conditioned you fucking goober

[Anonymous No.11412648]

>>11412638
I’m sure you believe that

[Anonymous No.11412668]

>>11412648
I cant wait til faggots like you die out so we can have actually insightful discussions on the nature of consciousness without autistic groids trying to explain why im not actually experiencing my consciousness as volitional right now because I watched too much sesame street or something

embarrassing

[Anonymous No.11412675]

>>11412531
>the felt truth of freedom
are you serious, this is your argument, that it just feels like youre free?

[Anonymous No.11412683]

>>11412675
ppl who believe in consciousness are inherently deluded to the point that their feelings overtake everything including their own sense of self.

[Anonymous No.11412687]

>>11412683
what? consciousness is literally impossible to deny, free will has nothing to do with that

[Anonymous No.11412694]

>>11412675
>>11412683
yes you fucking retards it feels like im free, which no mechanistic explanation can deflate or account for, since it only makes it more unaccountable, internally I am free, externally I am determined by mechanisms outside my control, this is a basic distinction even kant recognized, any explanation about why my misrecognition of my felt sense of freedom is just a misrecognition does not actually account for the existence of this misrecognition in the first place, your pseuds who don't know shit about shit, try harder

[Anonymous No.11412703]

>>11412694
you still haven't presented anything resembling an argument, 'Kant knew this' who gives a shit.

Your felt sense of freedom means fuck all

[Anonymous No.11412712]

>>11412703
im so tired of arguing with droids like you. fucking retards

[Anonymous No.11412722]

>>11412712
Butthurt and without arguments, behold! Tye lowest of the bugs!

[Anonymous No.11412724]

>>11411600
I think my sides have become things-in-themselves.

[Anonymous No.11412732]

>>11412712
once again no argument, do you really think pointing out that we have a felt experience of freedom means that our internal experience is not also subject to causality?

the existence of the misrecognition means nothing. You think you are much smarter and more sophisticated than you are, you aren't even grasping what the people you're arguing with are saying. you just know that you're supposed to say x and we are saying y so you sperg out like a child.

[Anonymous No.11412736]

>>11411515
BUT ANON THERE IS NO HARD PROBLEM ITS ALL NEURONS AN DENDRITE WEIGHTINGS AN SHIT

[Anonymous No.11412738]

We prolly never will, cuz nothing can ever finally be explained, it all just is

[Anonymous No.11412742]

>>11412732
>once again no argument, do you really think pointing out that we have a felt experience of freedom means that our internal experience is not also subject to causality?

the point is to explain this felt experience of freedom with regards to causality

a point I made very clearly in the post you quoted

[Anonymous No.11412750]

>>11412742
if it is subject to causality then you run into the exact same problem that a neural account of behavior has for free will. You extend the chain of causes backwards and eventually leave the individual completely as the causes go back into the environment.

[Anonymous No.11412751]

>>11411555
matter is an illusion created by the reification of conciousness through images.

[Anonymous No.11412828]

>>11411600
>that last paragraph
Such a shame. Opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.11412990]

>>11412751
based

[Anonymous No.11413984]

>>11411600
>tfw you are a dumb Spinozist

[Anonymous No.11414128]

completing german idealism

[Anonymous No.11414220]

Since it's not a problem, it can't be solved.

[Anonymous No.11414319]

Qualia don't exist

[Anonymous No.11414323]

>>11411515
Problem?

[Anonymous No.11414328]

>>11412703
lol

[Anonymous No.11414387]

>>11411555
An illusion requires an observer. So this illusory consciousness must be deceiving some higher awareness, and we are at consciousness again.
Everyone but panpsychists and dualists needs to be lined up against the wall and shot.

[Anonymous No.11414500]

>>11414387

>An illusion requires an observer.

An observer requires an illusion.

>deceiving some higher awareness

Awareness *of* what?

[Anonymous No.11414503]

>>11412751
Where do the images come from?

[Anonymous No.11414525]

>>11411600
>current interests are Peirce and Whitehead
>just starting to get a handle on their ideas
>read this
>wonder if I really am some deluded crypto-Spinozist just gazing at my own reflection in the sky
and I went through Witty, Heiddy, and Kanty years ago
none of it helped
it never helps
nothing has ever helped

[Anonymous No.11414532]

>>11414500
>Awareness *of* what?
what would be the 'illusion'
like when i am watching a magician performing a magic trick
yes, there is an explanation of the trick
but there is still a trick

[Anonymous No.11414536]

>>11411600
>wittgenstein
>bergson
lmao

[Anonymous No.11414549]

>>11414525

Fuck the rules, snort lens dust for life.

[Anonymous No.11414551]

>>11414532

you're nowhere near as smart as you think you are

[Anonymous No.11414552]

>>11414532
No trick--- nothing to be aware of.
Illusion is for real.

[Anonymous No.11414566]

To look at consciousness with the right perspective you must first understand the perspective of a photon. What does the universe look like to a photon, how does time pass for a photon, how do objects move? Only then will you begin to understand how to look at the mind.

[Anonymous No.11414573]

>>11414551
say more
>>11414552
trick illusion--they are two words for the same thing
understanding consciousness as an illusion does not make it disappear, just like understanding how the magician knew which card was yours does not mean he didn't perform a magic trick

[Anonymous No.11414578]

>>11414566

So, nothing?

[Anonymous No.11414581]

>>11412694
>well if what you say is true how do you explain MY FEELINGS???
the absolute state

[Anonymous No.11414590]

This used to be a place where people would discuss books

[Anonymous No.11414593]

>>11411600
Colin Henry Wilson (26 June 1931 – 5 December 2013) was an English writer, philosopher and novelist.(...) eventually writing more than a HUNDRED books.
ok, yea, can you just tell me which one you're talking about?
Also, based.
thank you for btfoing these dumb "the brain is just a computer, brah" shitbags

[Anonymous No.11414596]

>>11414573
>understanding consciousness as an illusion does not make it disappear, just like understanding how the magician knew which card was yours does not mean he didn't perform a magic trick

Awareness can only exist in the form of illusion.The 'trick' must be there for the observer to be there, and the other way around.

>understanding consciousness as an illusion does not make it disappear

It does, if you're a real nigga with direct insight.

[Anonymous No.11414599]

>>11414573
Consciousness is just abstract thinking brain circuitry connected to self preservation circuitry.

[Anonymous No.11414604]

>>11414500
Awareness of the illusion you halfwit.
An illusion is an appearance contrary to reality. There must be an observer to perceive the illusory appearance. Thus, if consciousness were an illusion it would have to be perceived by another non-illusory consciousness.

[Anonymous No.11414612]

>>11414503
Tfw /lit/ can't beat this based materialist.

[Anonymous No.11414615]

>>11414599
This.

[Anonymous No.11414616]

>>11414604

Read the chain of replies before posting.

>An illusion is an appearance contrary to reality

Is the illusion real?

[Anonymous No.11414622]

>>11414599
>>11414615
But why are we able to perceive things?

[Anonymous No.11414626]

>>11414596
I think we are saying basically the same thing, and just reacting to the terms we're differently.
>>11414599
>>11414615
yeah, okay, so now we have a mechanical/computational metaphor that just kinda pushes the problem back without dealing with it directly. now you have 'conscious' circuitry, rather than 'unconscious' circuitry. how has that helped any?

[Anonymous No.11414631]

>>11411610
>I think therefore I am is just tautology
t. Brainlet who was convinced by an evil demon that he does not exist

[Anonymous No.11414639]

>>11414626

Maybe. I think what I'm talking about some form of dialectical monism.

[Anonymous No.11414651]

>>11414631

There is no you to think. Thoughts just arise from a matrix of references dialectically raping each other into novel configurations, with no possible independent existence.

[Anonymous No.11414654]

>>11412732
Yes. If you lack x organ, you will not recieve the experience to register it in your consciousness. It literally don't exist to them.

[Anonymous No.11414660]

Žižek. What I am currently engaged with is the paradoxical idea that, from a strict evolutionary standpoint, consciousness is a kind of mistake—a malfunction of evolution—and that out of this mistake a miracle emerged. That is to say, consciousness developed as an unintended by-product that acquired a kind of second degree survivalist function. Basically, consciousness is not something which enables us to function better. On the contrary, I am more and more convinced that consciousness originates with something going terribly wrong—even at the most personal level. For example, when do we become aware of something, fully aware? Precisely at the point where something no longer functions properly or not in the expected way.

Daly. Consciousness comes about as a result of some Real encounter?

Žižek. Yes, consciousness is originally linked to this moment when “something is wrong,” or, to put it in Lacanian terms, an experience of the Real, of an impossible limit. Original awareness is impelled by a certain experience of failure and mortality—a kind of snag in the biological weave. And all the metaphysical dimensions concerning humanity, philosophical self-reflection, progress and so on emerge ultimately because of this basic traumatic fissure

[Anonymous No.11414661]

>>11414622
abstract thinking has pattern recognition, what you perceive is just patterns
>>11414626
>computational metaphor
who said anything about metaphors? thats literally what consciousness is, a concept that comes up from the interaction of self preservation and pattern recognition/abstract thinking

[Anonymous No.11414664]

>>11414661
But why can I perceive them? Why can't they just happen without me noticing them? Why aren't we philosophical zombies?

[Anonymous No.11414665]

>>11414651
Non-existence of ego or self is one thing.
Awareness exists.
> with no possible independent existence.
so thoughts depend on something else in order to exist, such as... a conscious mind? which thinks thoughts? and therefore exists?

[Anonymous No.11414674]

>>11414661
consciousness is now, according to you, literally circuitry, and literally a concept that 'comes up from the interaction of' circuitry

[Anonymous No.11414676]

>>11414664
not perceiving would probably be naturally selected against pretty fast

[Anonymous No.11414682]

>>11414651
So if I torture you, is that ok? I mean, there's no real you that I'm torturing. Hell, there's no me either so there's no way I could be torturing you.

[Anonymous No.11414685]

>>11414665
How does the mind acquire thoughts? It can not do this on its own existence. Mind is aggregated, or aggregates, or both. I have no idea. Regardless, the dependence of consciousness on phenomena makes me really doubt any form of dualism. Other than a necessary arising illusory dualism.

[Anonymous No.11414686]

>>11414676
Why? We would operate in the exact same way without perceiving, that's what a philosophical zombie is

[Anonymous No.11414689]

>>11414676
what makes you think that?
bacteria are the most successful organisms on the planet, if we measure success by purduration of genetic line and environmental saturation
but bacteria are not conscious
they do not have a central nervous system, i.e. a circuit system that enables, among many other things, 'abstract thinking'

[Anonymous No.11414696]

>>11414682
what would you say about the statement "all pain is self inflicted"?

[Anonymous No.11414700]

>>11414685
>the dependence of consciousness on phenomena
this is not a thing.
Consciousness CHOOSES to observe/experience a particular nexus of stuff. What we are physically does not create consciousness, this is the baseless assumption that invalidates all monism. It's the other way around, we are what we are, and conscious is an incidental epiphenomenon.

[Anonymous No.11414705]

>>11414689
bacteria perceive their medium, just not in the way we do

[Anonymous No.11414714]

>>11414696
According to this fag, pain is also an illusion and therefore irrelevant. So I'd say that your phrase means it's just my brain firing in the place which is "pain".

But in my opinion, that phrase is bullshit

[Anonymous No.11414715]

>>11414682

Come on now, there's no need to get violent.

[Anonymous No.11414722]

>>11414714
>But in my opinion, that phrase is bullshit
but why? pain is just that, an alarm, it feels bad because it needs to. You dont set your alarm ringtone to a lullaby, neither does the body

[Anonymous No.11414724]

>>11414700
>Consciousness CHOOSES to observe/experience a particular nexus of stuff.

How.

>What we are physically does not create consciousness

Your mode of consciousness can be materially manipulated.

[Anonymous No.11414726]

>>11414714
Hey. I never said illusion was not real.

[Anonymous No.11414728]

>>11414722
Adding to this, feeling pain is a short term loss with a long term gain which tangibly increase your chance of reproduction.

[Anonymous No.11414730]

>>11414714
also an illusion does not mean its irrelevant, just that we can give it the subjective relevance we choose to give it

[Anonymous No.11414731]

>>11414705
yes, but you said consciousness was literally 'just abstract thinking brain circuitry connected to self preservation circuitry'
bacteria do not have this circuitry
you also said that lack of consciousness would be heavily selected against
but bacteria are not conscious, yet they are have been overwhelming selected 'for'
you do not seem capable of answering the questions that are actually posed to you, but rather only diverting those questions with trite little nothings
i am starting to doubt that you are actually capable of abstract thinking
you are failing the Turing test real fucking hard here, dude

[Anonymous No.11414738]

>>11414731
You don't understand the epigenetic and how there are entire signaling molecules systems that are literally moving around in response to the changes in the homeostasis. And these motions are entirely chemical based. There is no reason to think that it's any different from the neurological level.

[Anonymous No.11414744]

>>11414738
Why didn't you answer my question>>11414686
:c?

[Anonymous No.11414746]

>>11414731
>you also said that lack of consciousness would be heavily selected against
i never said that, i said lack of perception would

[Anonymous No.11414748]

>>11414744
Yeah, that is what an illusion is. It's not actually there. :)

[Anonymous No.11414754]

>>11414748
But how does the illusion arises?

[Anonymous No.11414755]

>>11414744
he is not me, i googled philosophical zombie but only found a dumb dinosaur comic, so maybe if you clarify what you mean by it i can answer

[Anonymous No.11414757]

>>11414754
It's the matter observing matter.

[Anonymous No.11414763]

>>11414724
>how
I'll astral project real quick beyond the physical universe and get right back to you on that.
>AHA! so you admit your claims are unfalsifiable!
Yes. We're talking about the essence of something here. Ask a physicist what's the essence of energy. What's the essence of the electromagnetic field, and what's the nature of its interaction with the rest of the physical world? Oh, things have "charge" what does that MEAN??
And yet I'm still right, because when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
>Your mode of consciousness can be materially manipulated.
the brain can be manipulated and consciousness experiences those changes in the same exact way it experiences everything else. Dreamless sleep? no relevant activity going on, nothing to experience, like watching a TV that's turned off.

[Anonymous No.11414767]

>>11414686
That's assumes that this is actually possible, and that you can undergo the same information processing while simply lacking consciousness, as opposed to consciousness being a necessary part of this.

[Anonymous No.11414768]

>>11414755
>>11414757
A philosophical zombie is a human (I guess any other conscious creature could apply too) that behaves in the same way as any other human but does not experience any og what's happening, a machine if you want to call it that.
My question is, how does the "perceiver" arises from merely materialistic interactions? Why can we see things instead of the eyes just sending signals to the brain without an "individual" seeing that

[Anonymous No.11414776]

>>11414738
except there is plenty of reason to believe it is different at the organic level, considering the wildly divergent behaviors we see between human beings and bacteria
not to mention all the silly thoughts that are bubbling about in your head, what those thoughts actually are, whether they are themselves composed of chemical 'signals' or--what? i don't actually know. but you don't either.
but do you see how you keep moving about with these metaphors?
consciousness is 'literally' circuitry
consciousness is 'literally' just a concept
consciousness is 'literally' molecular signaling systems responding to to changes in homeostasis
you also draw a distinction between perception and consciousness, but then also curiously seem to deny the distinction
>>11414746
regarding this, the question was originally why perception of the 'illusion of consciousness' was necessary or even possible, to which you made the reply that a lack of perception would be maladaptive (speaking of which: what about the plant kingdom?). this is yet another example of your dodging tactics. bacteria apparently don't perceive that they perceive; why do we?

[Anonymous No.11414777]

>>11414763
>I'll astral project real quick beyond the physical universe and get right back to you on that.

I have good reasons to believe in astral projection. But I do not see how this answers my question.

>the brain can be manipulated and consciousness experiences those changes in the same exact way it experiences everything else. Dreamless sleep? no relevant activity going on, nothing to experience, like watching a TV that's turned off.

So, consciousness has no independent existence?

[Anonymous No.11414779]

>>11411515
>>11411515
>>11411515

[Anonymous No.11414781]

>>11414767
is necessary part equivalent to necessary consequence?
I believe consciousness, or at least the concept of consciousness to be just an emergent property of the way we process information, not a requisite to process information the way we do. Maybe there is no difference between the two

[Anonymous No.11414784]

>>11414776
maybe you need to realize you are talking to different people and how 4chan works

[Anonymous No.11414787]

>>11414784
you're saying the same things, so why does it matter that you are different people? it's all the same to me, whether you are real or not or whatever. you might as well be a computer program.

[Anonymous No.11414796]

>>11414787
ok, so pain not being real is dumb, but me not being real is a possibility.

[Anonymous No.11414807]

>>11414777
> I do not see how this answers my question.
I'm a dualist. I'm saying awareness (non-physical) observes the physical world. You ask "how". You ask me to lay down the workings of something non-physical.
"physical" just describes those things of which we have a working explanation. As freaky things such as magnets and heavier-than-air flight come to be understood we move them under the umbrella of the physical.
So when I say Awareness is non-physical I'm admitting I don't know what it is, while affirming it is not any of the other things which we do understand. It's not electromagnetism, it's not gravity, it's not charm quarks. It's also not an interaction between these things.
My joke about Astral-projection hints at the thought that I would need some method of gaining new information that is completely outside of modern science.
> consciousness has no independent existence?
I didn't say that, and don't think so. I think astral projection or seeing the light at the end of the tunnel during near-death experiences could very well be experiences of consciousness existing independently of the body.
However, because we don't know the nature of consciousness, these questions are pointless. Perhaps in the realm of pure awareness it doesn't make sense to talk about dependence or independence in this way.

[Anonymous No.11414818]

>make up a bunch of bullshit
>someone says bullshit isn't real
>call them reductionists

[Anonymous No.11414824]

>>11414616
Illusion is appearance, which is idea, nonreal. But ideas require thinkers. Hence the need for a consciousness to intuit the illusory consciousness, were consciousness merely illusory—contradiction.

[Anonymous No.11414828]

>>11414818
what is the cure for thinking pulses propagating though circuitry give rise to subjective experience?

[Anonymous No.11414833]

>>11414828
Beatings.

[Anonymous No.11414834]

>>11414818
>Have subjective experience
>Someone says "It's just an illusion bro!"
>Come up with a different theory that can reconcile what we experience with objective reality
>"Whoa! You're not adhering to reductive materialism! That must mean your theory is bullshit! You're just chemicals and it makes me irrationally angry when people don't accept they're biological automatons because it's the only way I can cope with the fact I'm a fucking failure! It's not my fault I was programmed this way! I HAD NO FREE WILL REEEEE"
Fuck off dude

[Anonymous No.11414837]

>>11414776
But that is point. Bacteria does have experience. However, it's an experience that only arises due to the computation. The computations can take many different forms. That is what materialists are trying to say: there is no free will and that it's based on entirely on the physical processing from the starting state.

[Anonymous No.11414839]

>>11414834
mate you can believe anything you want, and it will be real for you, as real as anything ever can be. Materialism just states the obvious, you are not special in the natural world

[Anonymous No.11414851]

>>11414834
You are refusing to believe in mountains of empirical evidence that back this belief up. Is this the power of neohumeanism?

[javascript:quote('4942612');(...) No.11414856]

>>11414851
but evidence doesn't suggest what you're suggesting desu

[Anonymous No.11414868]

>>11414851
Are you aware of what "empirical evidence" actually is? How can you appeal to empirical evidence when you deny the validity of subjective conscious experience? It's so tiresome dealing with you "I fucking love science!" cuckolds when your epistemology is so awful.

[Anonymous No.11414874]

>>11414856
What exactly gives you the free will then? The random nature of the ordering of the particles in orbitals? It's just something else that we don't understand. You insist that we something tnat is not real because you refuse to accept that we don't know everything. So, you make up an incredibly contrived theory that takes the most bizzare and ridiculous thoughts, so that you can believe in the lie.

[Anonymous No.11414878]

>>11414868
I don't deny the experience. I only deny that there is something mystical.

[Anonymous No.11414880]

>>11414868

[Anonymous No.11414884]

>>11414868
subjective experience is directly related to physiological differences. you literally just cannot believe it.

[Anonymous No.11414890]

>>11414878
Nobody is appealing to the "mystical". Imagine being so brainwashed that you literally think anything other than reductive materialism is mysticism. All knowledge stems from the single axiom cogito ergo sum. If you deny that and claim it's not true then you have no knowledge at all and can hardly be expected to believed. After all, you claim you're nothing but a pre-programmed meat machine, why should I accept your conclusion any more than I do a faulty calculator that spits out 3 as the answer to 1 + 1. The calculator will never arrive at the correct answer because it's logic gates are flawed, and so the assumption must be made with you, whose logic gates are flawed and you lack the ability to transcend and reach the correct conclusion.

If you argue for reductive materialism you should be ignored because your own argument makes your testimony invalid.

[Anonymous No.11414902]

>>11414884
>subjective experience is directly related to physiological differences
Nobody has denied that though. Subjective experience gives rise to non physical phenomena though. This is the hard problem of consciousness. Reductive materialists are forced to hand wave the issue and claim that it's an "illusion". An illusion being played on what? They deny the existence of the subjective observer but at the same time there's an observer which is being fooled by an illusion. The argument makes zero sense hence materialism is false (Not that we didn't already know this)

[Anonymous No.11414909]

>>11414890
>If you argue for reductive materialism you should be ignored because your own argument makes your testimony invalid.
this is retarded. either its true or it isn't, it cant be both

[Anonymous No.11414915]

>>11414781
>Maybe there is no difference between the two

That's basically what I'm suggesting.

[Anonymous No.11414917]

>>11414902
No, if the illusion is directly from physical states, then it *is* physical.

[javascript:quote('4942612');(...) No.11414922]

>>11414874
>we don't understand so let me give an explanation full of conjecture based on my own incomplete knowledge

[Anonymous No.11414926]

>>11414902
>They deny the existence of the subjective observer but at the same time there's an observer which is being fooled by an illusion.

Pretty good way of summing up the problem.

[Anonymous No.11414929]

>>11414926
when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

[Anonymous No.11414932]

>>11414922
No my point is that, we still don't know and I am presenting the best available evidence. You are one who is arrogantly presuming to be the right one.

[Anonymous No.11414936]

>>11414922
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

[javascript:quote('4942612');(...) No.11414945]

>>11414932
No, I agree we don't know. What I'm saying is that a hypothetical illusory would necessarily take precedence over some "objective reality".

[Anonymous No.11414946]

>>11414837
does my laptop experience the television shows i stream on it?

[Anonymous No.11414964]

>>11414945
Why do you assume that there is evidence for the "hypothetical illusory"'s existence? There is none! It's literally all matter.

[Anonymous No.11414966]

>>11414946
Dunno, but probably yes.

[Anonymous No.11414969]

>>11414966
what about my digital kitchen thermometer when i stick it in my roast turkey?

[Anonymous No.11414973]

>>11414946
>>11414966
>>11414969
and are these experiences analogous to human experience?
are they homologous?

[javascript:quote('4942612');(...) No.11414977]

>>11414964
Because "free will", within your view, is an illusion. I'm saying that the reductionist outlook doesn't explain anything about dasein. There isn't even a 1:1 connection between brain and mind. Saying "if we stimulate this part of the brain then the subject feels X" doesn't actually explain *what X is like* which is actually the important question.

[Anonymous No.11414985]

>>11414977
but dude, it's like, there is no 'like' for it to, like, be like
like this if you agree

[javascript:quote('4942612');(...) No.11414988]

>>11414985
huh

[Anonymous No.11415004]

>>11414977

imagine a body without organs and a consciousness without sensation. qualia only has merit as an absurdity which is absurd in itself, ultimately a question of being and non being. there are no satisfactory answers here

[javascript:quote('4942612');(...) No.11415016]

>>11415004

It seems like we agree then? I personally think the debate exists beyond the realm of human expression and ultimately it can only be understood in a way that doesn't technically match reality. With that being said, the simplest way I resolve the question in my own head is by accepting what IB Singer had to say about it; "We have to believe in Free Will, we have no choice."

[Anonymous No.11415072]

>>11415016

I do not agree about free will. Not in an idealist or naturalist world, or anything in between.

Every argument about it tends towards semantics.

The definition from Wikipedia:

''Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded''

One is always impeded, otherwise there would be no result, no ''choice'', i.e. absolute freedom, is an absolute nothing. Ideas of limited freedom do not make sense, how can there be a limited freedom, a simple choice between two things-- these things themselves are forces, restrictions, funnels, acting upon ones condition, desires etc. Then you can claim that you may not have the choice over what you get, but that you can still choose. But your desire is conditioned in the same fashion as the objects of choice which have ended up before you. There is no golden mean here, if limitation is what produces choice, then there is no freedom, only a memory of an occurrence. Given the option between A and B. Whichever I chose, is conditioned by forces acting on me, as an infinitely regressing homunculus, an aggregate or a magical subtle body.

I often don't see why people find free will to be intuitive. Especially if I am very mindful. But then I wonder about what is the thing that pays attention. At which point there is no thought to explain it, just a blank self-reference. Or a series of causal references of virtualized image aggregates.

But, all I have are speculations, and sparse theories predicated on my own limitations.

[javascript:quote('4942612');(...) No.11415096]

>>11415072
Which is why I generally walk away from the debate because it ultimately changes nothing, whether free will is present or not. And honestly dude, if cascading images of self-reference regarding other agents as well is objects is what produces the "sensation of free will" then it actually is just as good as free will. For I all know free will could be real but eternally obscured by our ability to impose order on chaotic material forms and therefor making us practically determined although materially free.

[Anonymous No.11415112]

>>11414834
>all of my ideological opponents are just trying to rationalize their personal failings haha based
peak cringe

[Anonymous No.11415169]

>>11411600
What do you think of Plotinus

[Anonymous No.11415636]

STEM-lord knows best, as usual: https://youtu.be/hUW7n_h7MvQ

[Anonymous No.11415767]

>>11412712
Lel u mad

[Anonymous No.11415775]

>>11411600
That was pretty fun to read

[Anonymous No.11415872]

>>11415636
The PHENOTYPE tells how it is

[Anonymous No.11416073]

We have evolved consciousness because that is the optimal way for us to survive and replicate. You'll notice our brains aren't hardwired to perceive reality objectively, but hardwired to make sure we stay alive long enough to reproduce. That's why loud noises startle us, we recognize human faces in non-human objects, etc. Kant actually anticipated this pretty well, the conscious world we experience is as much a product of our mind as it is of the impressions created by the actual, objective world.

As for how seemingly immaterial consciousness arises from the material world, consider the following passage of Nietzsche:
>Judgments, judgments of value about life, for it or against it, can in the end never be true: they have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of consideration only as symptoms; in themselves such judgments are meaningless. One must stretch out one's hands and attempt to grasp this amazing subtlety, that the value of life cannot be estimated. Not by the living, for they are an interested party, even a bone of contention, and not impartial judges; not by the dead, for a different reason.

[Anonymous No.11416322]

>>11416073
>the reason i can see the face of jesus in a piece of toast is because i can fuck it to make more babies
makes a lot of sense to me

[Anonymous No.11416417]

laughing @ all the brainlets here who don't even get the hard problem of consciousness and are trying to solve it. If you don't see what a damning problem it is you don't really get it.

[Anonymous No.11416535]

>>11416417
nah, nah brah, you don't get it, you see, the brain is like a computer...

[Anonymous No.11416971]

>>11411515
The hard problem of consciousness remains an uncomfortable dilemma for exponents of the materialist paradigm. Ironically, in all other fields of scientific research such lack of evidence would undermine the premise upon which the theory stands, but in a leap of faith that betrays the irrational nature of materialism itself, the conviction at its heart is not undermined by the lack of supporting evidence, nor indeed by compelling evidence to the contrary. In this respect, the prevailing materialistic paradigm shares many of the characteristics of religion: it is founded upon an intuition that there is a single, universal and fundamental reality, but it allows belief rather than experience to guide the exploration and, therefore, the implications of that intuition.

[Anonymous No.11417061]

listen up brainlets, the reality of the situation is that humanity has battled with this question from the beginning of time and it is safe to say that there is no answer. people much smarter than you have dwelled on this for 4x your lifetimes and here you are making pathetic attempts at interpretation. just enjoy it for what it is. fuck bitches, get money, and drive fast cars

[Anonymous No.11417070]

>>11411600
I just learned that love is real, fuck my sides

[Anonymous No.11417188]

>>11414738
There’s no reason to think they’re similar. Every biochemical process can be described and explained by physics and the properties of matter except the creation of consciousness. I can say entropy drives the binding of two molecules in step A, which then results in the event in Step B, and so on. So what is the property X that drives the development of consciousness? Where’s the model that we should be able to develop? It just doesn’t exist with our current understanding of physics. The closest we get is some weird results in quantum mechanics that seems to be caused by our conscious observation, and that goes against a materialist position.

Another thing. Neurons and their processes operate identical to any other cell, which means they are highly ordered systems that respond to a change in conditions. Like computer programs constantly responding to inputs. We should behave like crude robots rather than conscious beings.

[Anonymous No.11417193]

>>11417188
>some weird results in quantum mechanics that seems to be caused by our conscious observation,
They're not, I can't believe people still repeat this. Measuring something requires interacting with it physically. That's what that thing is about, it's not about consciousness

[Anonymous No.11417202]

>>11411600

The 20th century will one day be known as the Wilson Century, mark my words.

[Anonymous No.11417232]

>>11411600
>>11417202
Is this fucking thread gonna archive before somebody tells me which Colin Wilson you guys are talking about here?

[Anonymous No.11417242]

>>11417232
BOOK. which colin wilson book

[Anonymous No.11417254]

I am not joking.

[Anonymous No.11417272]

>>11417193
wrong, you don't understand, even if something is merely observed at the level of conscious awareness it changes

[Anonymous No.11417286]

>>11417272
Read a physics book and stop being a pseud

[Anonymous No.11417327]

>>11411515
Microtubules and Biophotons ?

Quantum Consciousness

quantumconsciousness.org

Biophotons, microtubules and CNS, is our brain a "holographic computer"?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14962620

[Anonymous No.11417365]

>>11417327
I find all this Stuart Hameroff stuff fascinating, but let's be real, he's starting from the assumption that the quantum phenomena in the microtubules give rise to consciousness, and working his way back.
What actual evidence is these that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of brain activity? We know how the brain receives stimuli from the body and how it sends control impulses, but this is fundamentally a separate thing from the raw subjective experience.

[Anonymous No.11417422]

>>11414834
You know the archetypal reductionism advocate Dennett believes in free will? Even if substance dualism or some even more retarded metaphysic of the mind was the case you still couldn't have free will with a capital F. Read Galen Strawson, pleb.

[Anonymous No.11417441]

>>11414834
kek it's true

[Anonymous No.11417451]

>>11411600
Nice

[Anonymous No.11417457]

>>11411515
>Dennett

[Anonymous No.11417477]

>>11414525
Interested in Whitehead as well.

Monistic process theory seems to be the most probable explanation for metaphysics.


Altought I think it is a mistake to seek Metaphysics in the first place since I find that the interest comes from a limited perspective of consciousness as 'Contentful'.

It seems that Consciousness instead is the spontaneous phenomenon that we have no control over. Thus our consciousness must be linked to a unified field of consciousness.

In otherwords, we don't have an individual identity. We are however manifestation of the collective consciousness that clings to the illusion of seperation, because of its evolutionary beneficience

[Anonymous No.11417496]

>>11417477
>In otherwords, we don't have an individual identity. We are however manifestation of the collective consciousness that clings to the illusion of seperation, because of its evolutionary beneficience

>when your philosophy comes to the same godless will to power nihilistic conclusion that every other philosophy has in the past 150 years

[Anonymous No.11417506]

>>11414596
>>11414599

No that assumes that abstract conception is a necessary condition for the realization of consciousness.

The mystics and spritual teachings describe higher states of consciousness, where the clinging to conception has been transcended.

Thus claiming that conception is not a necessary condition for consciousness.

It seems however to merely serve as an evolutionarily advantageous quality of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.11417518]

>>11412531
free will vs determinism is nonsensical
it's starting with an idea of free will and then negating or affirming it rather than starting from known information and developing explanation from that - it deals with names rather than naturally developed references because it is nonsensical metaphysics
there is the way things are, there is the way i feel i will (and this feeling is composed of multiple parts, it's not a simple singular experience), and you can't simply separate this stuff, there's no essential distinction between 'my will' and 'the world', different ways of describing the same thing. if it's predetermined i'd will something, or free to choose via some unexplained or convoluted metaphysical after-explanation, frankly... it's all the same!

[Anonymous No.11417534]

>>11414824
Agree.

Illusions must be evolutionarily beneficial falsehoods.

They thus serve a purpose, which explains conscious beings clinging to the illusions.

However, by realization of their falsity one becomes able to transcend ones state and be aware of a much more comprehensive and inclusive mode of being.

It seems the illusions of the mind are like complementary software programs. And at transcendance of one program leads to another. And this progression slowly reveals more and more of the conjecture of the hardware, which is the truth of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.11417543]

>>11414874
Why do you think we have free will?

Its an illusion bro

[Anonymous No.11417550]

>>11414926
This

[Anonymous No.11417555]

>>11414917
The reason the reductive materialist call it an illusion is excactly, because it is non physical.

[Anonymous No.11417588]

>>11415004
>> Body without organs and a Consciousness without sensation

I don't think we can conclude that is the same.

This is the essential problem with the debate.

The answer that solves everything is that:
- Consciousness does not need sensation.

This is because sensation is bodily function, and the body runs on a program, which automatically reacts to input and gives output.

Consciousness is however the pure observer, that witnesses everything.

But this is an illusion as well, because just as
we have no control of bodily functions.
We have no control of observation.

It must thus be a spontaneous phenomenon, and the I we identify with must be beyond the illusion of 'free will' and 'observation'.

Thus the next level is a substratum of consciousness, that manifests when conditions are appropriate.

We must thus be I with this 'collective' substratum.

We are thus one. I is All consciouss beings.

[Anonymous No.11417600]

>mfw scientist-philosophers try to larp their way into theology

[Anonymous No.11417605]

>>11417254
yep

[Anonymous No.11417613]

>>11417496
>> godless will to power nihilistic conclusion

All fear is illusion.

Walk through no matter what. Surrender the fear, and have Faith in God.

It only seems Godless until you surrender it.

[Anonymous No.11417681]

>>11417588
>Consciousness is however the pure observer, that witnesses everything.

Is it a being? Is it being itself? How many beings are there? One?

What does it observe? Without anything to observe, it can not come into being, it remains (even if it is there) a self referencing nothingness.

Consciousness does require sensation. And ultimately what I mean by sensation, is a dualism, be it an illusion or not.

>Thus the next level is a substratum of consciousness, that manifests when conditions are appropriate.

> when conditions are appropriate.

Then it depends on those conditions to either give rise to the illusion, or to interact with some being.

But in my opinion. Even dasein is conditioned by the fact that it requires a separation. Being can not ''be there'' without a ''there'' to be etc.

>>11417506

>higher states of consciousness, where the clinging to conception has been transcended.

Yes, and what does that end up being? Nothing really. Bodhidharma staring at a wall.


>No that assumes that abstract conception is a necessary condition for the realization of consciousness.

Its not. But for the type of consciousness humans ''possess'', it is.

>It seems however to merely serve as an evolutionarily advantageous quality of consciousness.

Most likely, considering in what way it depends on the environment.

[Anonymous No.11417818]

>>11417422
Strawson got free will wrong but he redeemed himself with the panpsychism stuff.
>free will with a capital F
there's just one

>>11417534
>>11417588
>muh computer analogies
reddit pls stop