[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 58 KB, 220x220, 1550567994721.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12676022 No.12676022 [Reply] [Original]

Where does consciousness even come from? What is your philosophical stance on it?

>> No.12676035

Nothing. Materialism is correct. Consciousness does not precede the physical, material world. It is merely a part of the world; it's a bunch of brain chemicals and muscle fibres doing what the universe has already decided it wanted to do. We're not special. We just are. That's it. Now go and accept life to the best of your abilities lad. Don't let the Christfags sucker you into believing their hodgepodged bullshit.

>> No.12676041

Its like my pa used to say: your damned if you do, your damned if you dont.

>> No.12676051

>>12676035
Yes

>> No.12676052

>>12676035
Determinism does not necessarily preclude mind.

>> No.12676065

>>12676052
Care to give a little more detail on that one chief?

>> No.12676067

>>12676035
Eliminative materialism is generally considered an inchoate theory of mind but most likely actual.

>> No.12676070

>>12676022
I'm fond of the global workspace model myself.

>> No.12676086

Well, begin with the basics.
You cannot separate consciousness from thought.

Someone with a dementia could not maybe identify something as simple as a flower and may ask "What is this?"

There certainly is consciousness present in the dementic patient, but the totality of thought, reason, experience and memory has stopped functioning in a linear fashion.

Man is just a memory.

>> No.12676092

Consciousness came from the breakdown of the bicameral mind.

>> No.12676102

>>12676035
nah

>> No.12676429

>>12676035
You literally know only how to parrot modern, incoherent materialist narratives given to you by the clergy of current. Congratulations - you have not a single original thought to contribute on the matter, nor even the simplest logical understandings of the incoherency to the claims you make here. You think, wrongly, that by repeating an incoherency presently being peddled to the masses that it becomes true; yet the only truth is that you and the ilk you align with will be forgotten by time once your nonsensical conceptions are no longer accepted by the mainstream establishments, both of academia and of the public.

Don't think yourself wise for acting as a speaker for a modern-day Church's theology, anyone can do that. You are yourself conscious, and have a mind too. Try and use them and see if you can come up with any insights of your own on the matter. Reading drivel which simultaneously drips such confidence like this genuinely makes me sick, and worse is knowing that your kind will likely remain as slavish as you presently are even when the doctrines change. If panpsychism hits our culture next, and we become bombarded with related narratives, your tribe will continue to unimaginatively and mindlessly repeat whatever those different worldviews are, no different than you are now.

>> No.12676477
File: 1002 KB, 500x319, tumblr_nqdef13ORV1uqlov4o1_500.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12676477

>>12676429
Why are you so mad about him saying that Determinism is correct? Are idealistfags really this adamant that consciousness comes from somewhere else beside the brain? I honestly don't get your perspective on things.

>> No.12676480

Science literally btfo this a long time ago. It’s a result of evolutionary mutation in an attempt to outsmart predators. Anything that dabbles in the idea of it being bestowed from on high is just wishful thinking.

>> No.12676483

Actually how the fuck are we supposed to know? How do we even know we have consciousness?

>> No.12676488

>>12676429

>this absolute 19 year old faggot can't cope with the notion that his sapience is in no real way special and has spilt paragraphs in order to avoid ego-death

>> No.12676490

>>12676086
>>You cannot separate consciousness from thought.
t. someone whos never meditated
learn to quiet your monkey chatter anon

>> No.12676496

>>12676480
Child.

>> No.12676506

>>12676022
Consciousness is to your brain what music is to an instrument.

>> No.12676509

>>12676477
Because you display not even the slightest sight of the logical nonsensicality to your oh-so-confident claims. To tell you something so basic as the fact the brain is observed by consciousness, and does not precede or substitute for that consciousness, is to present you information you are incapable of grasping. To claim that the notion of "chemicals perceived as being the source of perceiving", requiring an infinite regress of "self-perceiving chemicals" anderefore not even coherently describable as merely "chemicals" is another such statement which you couldn't understand. If I ask you to point to what, exactly, in these "chemicals" or "muscle fibres" makes them and them alone conscious, while anything else I point to - a rock, a tree, water, a table, or otherwise - is not, is another puzzlebox which you would be stumped by.

Until your scientific clergy has given a statement to you, you literally refuse to even ponder a problem for yourselves. Worst of all is that you actually think of yourselves as smarter than anyone else because you've swallowed up every narrative of your day, as if it takes any effort to be a passive sheep to the mainstream authorities of your time. Do you consider modern-day feminists or neoliberals to be the deepest of thinkers too? No? Then why consider yourself the same, when your kind is to modern philosophy what they are to modern politics? You know that mainstream ideologies change, right? And the ones today are replaced by new ones tomorrow?

I'm not going to explain a thing to you or anyone else. Use your mind for a change, if you have one. If you only have a brain, I sadly can't help you further from there.

>> No.12676511

>>12676506
i like your analogy anon :)

>> No.12676516

>>12676022
>doing what the universe has already decided it wanted to do
>>12676480
>It’s a result of evolutionary mutation in an attempt to outsmart predators

Notice materialists will still incorporate non-materialist teleological explanations.

>> No.12676525

>>12676022
It's a complex question, and it took me a while to figure it out, but I eventually did. Essentially, there is a foundational error being made in a lot of analysis, in that the analysis embeds the following premise:

>'Perception' is a function of interactions between discrete and separable entities (observer/thing observed)

This turns out to be wrong. Instead, the process of cognition turns out to be a sort of adjunct effect of the point of cognition (a mind, let's say) being embedded into a continuous trans-temporal super-set of phenomena, only a small portion of which can be processed in a coherent manner by a typical body-based cognition point. This is the source of much confusion and angst, but is trivially resolved once the correct premises are understood.

>> No.12676528

>>12676488
Just promise me that you'll hold onto this worldview the rest of your life, even if or once panpsychism or similar becomes the mainstream scientific narrative. Do you promise me that? I will be immensely disappointed if you merely hop off and onto any and every narrative handed down to you by trending establishments of the time. Remember, if you currently and truly believe in "materialism", not because science posits it but because you yourself agree with it, then you should believe in it no matter what later ideologies science transitions into later on from now. And I hope you stick to that, and aren't going to be on here spewing new drivel once your authorities have shifted ideological gears.

>> No.12676543

>>12676516
They're almost literally braindead, is why. They don't even read philosophy, and therefore have the slightest understandings of such notions as "teleology", "anthroporphication" of nature, or anything else their worldviews involve. Nope, they literally just receive the information directly into the empty cavern where a brain is supposed to be, directly from the geiser of scientific dogma. And, having drank their fill of propaganda for the day, rest contented believing they understand the nature of reality more clearly than their peers who actually reflect on the nature of these worldviews.

>> No.12676544
File: 13 KB, 220x324, 220px-Mind_and_Cosmos_cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12676544

>>12676022
How will eliminative materialism faggots deal?

You fags should kill yourself for real

>> No.12676550

>>12676516
fking this lmao

>> No.12676585

>>12676480
This is the answer, really. Except I don't really like the way you worded it. Evolution isn't an attempt to do anything, because it doesn't happen on purpose. Saying it was an "attempt" to outsmart predators makes it sound like we did it on purpose, when in reality it's just random mutation that happened to be beneficial so the ones that mutated out-survived the ones that didn't.
If you think about humans as animals, there's nothing special about us. We're not that fast, we have shitty endurance compared to prey animals, we're not that strong (especially for our size compared to most animals our size), we don't jump high or swim quickly. All we have is our brain, that's the reason we survived is because we're intelligent creatures. Turns out it was int>str/dex, after all. Now if our intelligence is the driving factor behind our survival, wouldn't it make sense that the more we depend on it to survive, the more likely a lineage with a gene expression that allows them to think consciously would out-survive those without, if all that they have to depend on is brainpower?
It could also be more direct than that, via epigenetics. If you notice, sometimes you act without "thinking". This could be the "default" mode of the first humans. Since we're not so special, we had to begin to work together to survive. To work together, we need to communicate. I feel this goes without saying. If we have a need to communicate, we need a means to do so. That is where language comes in. Consciousness could be the direct result of the creation of language: We would need a way to "parse" information from the world and reinterpret it so to speak in this new spoken form of communication. our brains happened to be so complex that we developed a consciousness to harbor our new communication abilities. this is what makes humans the apex predator, our extremely complex brains that are capable of mutating and adapting in impossible ways.

>> No.12676596

>>12676543
>science is propaganda
tell that to the computer you're typing on, or the medication you're taking, or literally anything you interact with in any capacity.
what happened to philfags? you morons used to suck natural science's cock off thanks to intelligent people like the greeks who understood the value of observation. somewhere along the line you got obsessed with compensating for the fact that nobody gives a shit about anything you do. science and philosophy should synthesize, yet absolute nonces like yourself fail to understand the relationship between the two.

>> No.12676624
File: 96 KB, 500x384, im-not-talking-about-making-a-porno-film-about-hegel-1186449.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12676624

>>12676543
wtf dude chill. I really do think that science should be studied and be taken as a sort of authority and philosophy should complement, but not replace science. This question about consciousness is really important because before I used to think that there could be a philosophical answer to this question, but I was wrong. I had gone through some really bad times and I kept asking myself about this question of consciousness to the point of almost obsession trying to find a way and observing my own consciousness just to realize that philosophy simply cannot answer this question yet, and unfortunately I didn't study neuroscience that could have given me an answer to what I was going through and what I had felt. Consciousness itself, specially the hard problem is way out of the reach of science but a ton of things like how consciousness is altered by substances and neuropsychology shed light into a multitude of questions about consciousness and it really was a shame that I didn't study it and take it into account before studying the philosophy of consciousness. When regarding this topic I think that being too philosophically inclined and not taking into account new advances into neuroscience is being really short-sighted and even arrogant. Stop it.

>> No.12676734

>>12676624
Sorry for speaking harshly earlier. All I'll say is that science is merely a recent branch of philosophy, not some failproof and distinct discipline. It can only answer questions of a certain kind in the first place (ones connected to its methods), and that when it comes to consciousness, it has reached the limits of its investigative scope. I've already left the relevant questions above, such as explaining where within chemicals and muscle fibres lies consciousness, versus that of any other substance one can point to, and things of that nature. I can't really say much else. Just keep pondering these questions and don't merely accept whatever the mainstream explanations are without questioning their soundness yourself. Anyways, you have a nice night and take care. Have a good day tomorrow. That goes for all the other anons in this thread too.

>> No.12676739

>>12676022
I lean towards property dualism, though I am open to panpsychism. Physicalists have a problem defining the physical. Physical is either what our best physical theories explain, which is problematic because physics is not complete, or as whatever a future physics will encompass, which is meaningless because it might encompass anything. Physicalism is pretty useless as it is currently formulated. At best it leads to a kind of neutral monism.

>>12676480
Science (biology and neuroscience, actually) doesn't pretend to address the hard problem. But anyone who thinks that believing in dualism is a crutch for believing we are "special" or "unique" doesn't understand what it properly entails. It would just mean there is a substance other than the physical that exists, everyone would have it, it would be a part of nature. I don't see how that makes us any more special than it would if only the physical existed.

>>12676477
He didn't even say determinism is correct. He said consciousness is material in origin. That's an entirely different question. I see no reason why the nature of consciousness should have any bearing on the question of determinism.

>> No.12676752

>>12676480
Evolution is not a science

>> No.12676770

>>12676739
>I lean towards property dualism, though I am open to panpsychism. Physicalists have a problem defining the physical. Physical is either what our best physical theories explain, which is problematic because physics is not complete, or as whatever a future physics will encompass, which is meaningless because it might encompass anything. Physicalism is pretty useless as it is currently formulated. At best it leads to a kind of neutral monism.
Got any good books that covers these sorts of arguments?

>> No.12676803

>>12676770
Just about the entire tradition of analytic philosophy of mind from Ryle's "Ghost in the Machine" to Goff's defense of Russellian monism and analytic phenomenology in "Consciousness and Fundamental Reality" (spoiler alert: it's crypto-panpsychism). I'd start with Russell's "Analysis of Matter", because we need to understand what the physical actually IS first before we can try to identify what ISN'T physical

>> No.12676811

GOD
God is the unmoved mover.
God creates us in his image.
Therefor we are unmoved movers.
Determinism btfo.

>> No.12676814

>>12676739
Wow actually a based, informed post on /lit/ Thanks for restoring my faith in /lit/'s ability to read contemporary stuff about phil. of mind.

>> No.12676822 [DELETED] 

>>12676814
Pointing out that consciousness can be explained by science while also being a problem of philosophy is based and informative? The bar is not very high here, I figured that much should go without saying.

>> No.12676828

The soul

>> No.12676837

>>12676822
>The bar is not very high here
have you seen this board?

>> No.12676843

>>12676837
Fair. I'll delete my post

>> No.12676887

>>12676022
It’s the divine logos within the pneuma.

>> No.12676991

>>12676035
Some correct answers don't move us closer to an answer.

You say that consciousness is a property of a physical system that is too complex to grasp for humans, so we just can't see how it works naturally. So be it! Experiments to weigh the soul failed anyway. Ideas and thoughts — well, aren't those terms too specific? — are complex artifacts of the process of nurture and transmission of culture from human to human. So be it! Mowgli kids has demonstrated the difference that makes.

However, it is as useless as stating that steel is different from iron because it has different atomic structure and alloying elements, and, therefore, to make steel from iron you need to change its atomic structure and alloy those elements. You still don't know how to work with steel. Consciousness doesn't grant you immediate ability to study and manipulate atoms, it allows you to organize what you perceive with your limited abilities, and act on that understanding.

When one wonders what that limited mind can say of itself, it is called philosophy. Some philosophers define consciousness through the very process of (self-)observation that doesn't depend on preexisting metaphysical subject making it, if you worry about that.

>> No.12676994
File: 20 KB, 1396x106, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12676994

>>12676843
Coward.

>> No.12677013

>>12676994
You can do this natively with 4chanX. I deleted it as a joke to go along with the other guy in saying that everyone here is retarded. Thanks for proving us right, dipshit.

>> No.12677032
File: 73 KB, 1615x284, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12677032

>>12677013
wtf

>> No.12677050

>>12677032
Just click the link that says (Dead) next to it and the post will show back up in the thread, you don't have to go to the archive. Welcome to 4chan newfriend enjoy your stay

>> No.12677059

From the soul

>> No.12677060

>>12677032
How did you make screenshot without looking up how to make them? Really an interesting philosophical problem.

>> No.12677064

>>12677050
get owned retard https://gyazo.com/5c9d540c004f24d5ab9ff2bcc2f5fd3d

>> No.12677070

>>12677060
I saw a youtube video. My IQ is like 4.

>> No.12677082

>>12676022
The only honest answer is that no one really knows yet.

>> No.12677089

>>12677082
OK. Then *what* anyone *knows*, as of today?

>> No.12677091

>>12676035

Oof yikes

> Tips fedora

>> No.12677100

>>12676752
lol, says who?

>> No.12677112

>>12676528
Not him, nor do I profoundly disagree with you, but in this post and the last you've made the same fucking point four times. Shut the fuck up.

>> No.12677113

>>12677100
Anyone who can think for themselves. It simply cannot follow the scientific method.

>> No.12677114
File: 17 KB, 400x400, Bakker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12677114

Consciousness is a magic show.

>> No.12677117

>>12677070
I believe that you are wrong. Natural process of making screenshots is well studied: looking up "how to take a screenshot" in a new tab, making a screenshot, posting it. The rest is just mythology, just like believing that you have soul that “knows” how to make screenshots.

>> No.12677118

>>12677112
I could repeat it no less than a million times and it still likely wouldn't get through to the kinds of people here.

>> No.12677137
File: 317 KB, 1548x698, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12677137

>>12677117
What the fuck is this antiquated non-sense? PrtSc? Fucking cretins.
At this rate im gonna be recreating all my screen shots in MS Paint FOREVER. At least I have a tablet, so it looks good.

>> No.12677141

>>12676506
Read Phaedo

>> No.12677900
File: 6 KB, 180x280, images(5).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12677900

>>12677114
>Consciousness is a magic show.
Bhikkhu Nanananda?

>> No.12677985

>>12676022
Consciousness is a gift from God and proof of our soul. Our brain and our mind are separate. You literally can't prove me wrong.

>> No.12677996

>>12677985
based

>> No.12678042

Modern scientific training's deprecation of consciousness is one of the more disturbing trends of our time.

>> No.12678159

>>12676516
They’re just anthropomorphiizing a abstract concept so it’s easier to put into words. In reality it just happens that a more conscious mind is better at not dying than an less conscious mind because it can react to more robust stimulus.
Continue the trend and throw in some extra incentives towards things like creative thinking and socializing and you get man

>> No.12678163

>>12676585
I’d disagree with calling it a mutation as that implies it was a very finite unconscious->contours shift as apposed to a gradual drift towards it

>> No.12678170

>>12676022
It's an emergent phenomenon resulting from the complex system formed by interactions of our body and brain, various parts of the brain with themselves, skills like memories, language, and organizational problem solving.

>> No.12678196

>>12676585
>If you think about humans as animals, there's nothing special about us
lmao shows how much you understand about nature, our ability to sweat makes us literally the most enduring mammal in the whole kingdom. We used to fucking RUN our prey to death, literally just run and track for days and it gets exhausted and can't move before us. We're fucking great at that. Another thing we have is incredible fine motor control, our sight is way above average as well

>> No.12678212

>>12676022
It comes from biology.

Will feeble brains ever understand what relativity means for things-in-themselves? Why do questions like this keep coming up on this board?

>> No.12678225

>>12676035
>Consciousness does not precede the physical, material world.
You say that as if it somehow dispels all of our notions of consciousness out of virtue of being true.

>> No.12678231

>>12678170
Listen to this man.

>> No.12678238

>>12678170
explain emergence

>> No.12678259

>>12678238
An emergent property is a property which a collection or complex system has, but which the individual members do not have. A failure to realize that a property is emergent, or supervenient, leads to the fallacy of division.

>> No.12678282

>>12678259
We all know the definition. I said explain it. Appeal to complexity explains nothing.

>> No.12678288

>>12678259
Consciousness being emergent does not exhaust the nature of consciousness, nor is the hard problem predicated on proving that consciousness is somehow not emergent. You've said basically nothing.

>> No.12678289

>>12676022
don't know don't care

>> No.12678299

>>12678288
Go reread the OP question.
"where does consciousness come from"
I answered that.
>>12678282
I honestly have no idea what you're on about. Explain why complex systems yield emergent properties? You know I'm using the technical definition of complexity here, not just to sound smart.

>> No.12678308

>>12678259
Terrific, you can use words. Now, can you actually tell me what makes neurochemistry and other biological phenomena different from any other substance I could point to, in terms of containing consciousness? Where can the "consciousness" can be found within synaptic firings, versus that of water, or fire, or soil, or a table?

>> No.12678309

>>12676035
this is true, I don't know what more people want

>> No.12678310

>>12678042
Well-said.

>> No.12678311

>>12678299
A triangle emerges from three points, there's nothing special about that. Consciousness would be strong emergence though which is a whole different ball game.

>> No.12678318

>>12676035
What makes chemicals and muscle fibres conscious, and not everything else? Why is it in them exclusively, and where do we find it?

>> No.12678321

>>12678299
No, your answer to the question of how consciousness emerges is basically that it does.

>> No.12678331

For Nietzsche it is a communication tool developed because of necessity for survival so you can explain to others what is that you need help with. You have to know what is first so you can communicate it. For him, this means that the repressentation of yourself is always born from what do you think it is that others perceive you. Something that he also says to back this is that all conscious thinking just happens in words, and words are signs, meant for the exterior. The consciuos and in-language thought comes after some generations have already made of their habitat a safer place by comunication based colaboration.
From this, Nietzsche gets to the point that consciousness is something meant to function as a way to dominate others and the external world. The ones who can't do that and already have consciousness but can't force their will develop bad consciousness which is some sort of self fragelation that leads to ressentiment and goes along with slave morality.

>> No.12678341

>>12678308
OK.
That which can self replicate efficiently does so.
Aspects of the replicating organism which yield an efficiency advantage cause it to have an advantage.
These aspects can be magnified through the efficiency advantage they confer, they can be brought about randomly through inherent flaws in the molecular replicating mechanism, or through outside forces.
Over time, more and more complex systems find they have an advantage. None compared to simplistic stuff, obviously a single celled organism can (and has, and will) create a biomass larger than any we've seen. Among higher order mammals an ability to solve problems created some replication efficiency advantage. This lead to more problem solvers among the mating population, which caused subsequent generations to retain this problem solving ability. Amplification, as I described earlier. Might not be problem solving specifically but it's some advantage conferred by a more complex brain and development of a frontal cortex. All of which were originally advantageous, by the way, because they allowed a more effective understanding and response to environmental factors from planning multistep actions to tool making. Also, culture.
My personal take: there's a phenomenon we see sometimes called a Fisherian runaway. Female hyenas with high test are better able to provide for their pups, thus a female hyena with a big cock is more likely to reproduce, but they have to give birth through their fat cocks so they frequently die. An aspect that made them privileged breeders also hurts survival. This, to me, is analogous to the toolmaking/culture aspect of human intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway..
Anyway. We perceive a lot of stuff going on in our heads and more stuff goes on then we perceive which affects our actions, moods, relationships. All of this is emergent from complexifying some original neurophysiological slurry, some primordial "see threat, run" pathways. We are privy to what's going on because we are what's going on.
This doesn't preclude any specialness to humans, maybe some transcendent god made us turn out like this, maybe some aliens, idk. But the form follows the function. Your question is "why does something inorganic, which does not evolve or self replicate, not also have consciousness?" and my answer is "because consciousness is a product of the processes which drive and result from the primary function of life, which is to reproduce."
But you guys don't like this because it doesn't stroke your narcissistic boners enough. Go ahead and call me names, scoff, yikes, whatever. I'm just going to remind you that my theory has yielded actual change in culture, technology, and legitimately increased applicable human knowledge while yours only serves to be repeated and micromanaged among the privileged and gay members of your impotent academia. Might as well be having this conversation in latin.

>> No.12678344

>>12678321
I fucking answered how it emerges.

>> No.12678346

>>12678331
dude, it's like this book i read called the bicameral mind! the author said that people weren't, like, conscious a few thousand years ago, and just went through life on auto-pilot! pretty interesting, huh? nietzsche's really intelligent too, he had really profound ideas.

>> No.12678355

>>12678344
No you didn't. You people's arrogance is astounding. It's the greatest mystery in the known universe for fuck sake.

>> No.12678357

>>12676596
>tell that to the computer you're typing on
Capitalism making commodities to distract and dominate
>medication
Capitalism getting money off the ill
Science doesn't excist in a vacuum. Making it a point of reference for truth is a political move right now

>> No.12678360

>>12678344
>How did this table came to be?
>There was a complex process probably involving wood and humans and machinery
great answer thanks for the input

>> No.12678363

>>12678344
No, you just gave a technical definition of emergence. Do you really think consciousness being an emergent property of the brain is anything but the most trivial "explanation" of it?

>> No.12678366

>>12678355
So you want some explanation for why you feel your mental processes are especially significant?
I can answer that one too: Participation trophies

>> No.12678374

>>12678360
If you want to go into what forces drive evolution and how that impacts specific organs like the brain (or the kidneys) go read a book.
It seems to me that you guys place a lot of significance on your consciousness, while you're on a planet with a bunch of mammals that have their own alien consciousness which evolved through the exact same basal forces.

>> No.12678375
File: 82 KB, 874x474, 0_q77yR_v6vF_-yqyG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12678375

>>12678366
You have no explanation, only hubris, which doesn't usually end well.

>> No.12678388

>>12678346
Nietzsche doesn't think living beings go were on auto-pilot before consciousness. The brain was already thinking, making representation, memorizing patterns, etc, before it was conscious about it.

>> No.12678391

>>12678374
Stop attributing a teleological aim to evolution to debunk the teleology of consciousness, it tells us you don't know what you're talking about

>> No.12678394

>>12678375
Whatever man. You don't know me. I'm not some tech cultist. If you think it's something deeper or more profound than the material processes I'm describing you are the hubristic one.

>> No.12678399

>>12676065
Not him but I might be able to give my thoughts.

What's the difference between the chemicals in your brain interacting according to preset rules and your consciousness actually manifesting?

In a deterministic universe (which this one might be) you're totally at the mercy of chemical reactions. Every original thought you think you have is the result of neurons firing as a result of other neurons firing as a result of external stimuli.

If you didn't have a consciousness at all, your physical body (including brain) would still act exactly the same way as you do now, by converting input and stimuli to actions and movement.

But my consciousness is definitely here. And I presume yours is too.

>> No.12678400

>>12678341
Again, a lot of words and not a proper answer given. No, friend, no "narcissism" here. You just don't seem to understand what is being asked of you. You mention complexity, self-replication, and many other biological buzzwords, but you haven't told me what makes those biological elements you consider exclusively conscious to be exclusively conscious. Where can it be found within neurochemistry, such that you connect these to consciousness, and not anything else? I'll explain better: there is biological phenomena. cells, synapses, so on. technology has electrical phenomena. electrons, etc. what makes the biological circuitry conscious, and not the technological ones? You're making empirical claims, but I find no method of how you derived them. Where do you get even the first hint that consciousness has any relation to "biological complexity"? Such a connection can't be found empirically, wherein biological complexity looks no different to technological complexity, and technological complexity doesn't empirically differ to anything else at all, like water or fire or so on. These are equal empirically, yet you somehow found consciousness to be within the former group only? How do you know it's in there? Where is it seen?

Congratulations on your "theory influencing the world", just like many now-defunct theories have once influenced the world. Old scientific theories are replaced by new ones, and you should consider whether your present one might end up falling into that category.

>> No.12678402

>>12678391
It's not an aim it's random happenstance, something favored by an environment.
If you could possibly make yourself think coherently for a second, tell me a second.

>> No.12678408

From God. It says it in the Bible. Duh

>> No.12678419

>>12678400
No narcissism here? Cmon. You know you're a narc. Go look in a mirror.
Technological complexity is far less so than biological complexity.
I didn't just say "influencing the world," I'm saying the proof is in the application of the theory, which consistently yields results, as opposed to your way of thinking which is useless to anyone who actually needs to accomplish something beyond emotional masturbation.

>> No.12678420

>>12676035
well how the fuck did you know about that? why consciousness of course

>> No.12678421

>>12678366
You're the only one bringing up notions of "significance", the rest of us are trying to find coherent answers to the questions in this thread. You lack the comprehension to see how incoherent your own materialist narratives are, and then imply everyone else to be "snowflakes" seeking "specialness" when they don't allow your sophistry to pass by them so easily. Explain to me where consciousness is empirically located within biological elements, or don't even speak further on the subject. You have no answers, you're just here to spew incoherent drivel that has come down to you from academia.

>> No.12678427

>>12678394
You're a tech cultist enabler and your armchair psychoanalysis of those with a problem with you is unscientific speculation.

>> No.12678428

>>12676022
All life is one consciousness. It possess bodies which then have senses that allow them to survive. The material in the world around you is only an icon that allows you to survive. Your mind and body are not who you are you only posses and use them as tools. The consciousness that says 'I am' is not the consciousness that thinks. Think of consciousness as a signal and the body as a phone. If the body and mind are damaged that doesn't affect how the consciousness work, it just affects what the body and mind can express. As for material objects, they are only a representation. It's as if it's an icon on a desktop. Only depicting what is helpful to the observer and omitting the non useful information. Otherwise it would be impossible to differentiate between objects since they are made up of atoms and molecules. Living things appear as separate objects only within the setting of time. Once a living thing dies it's only the body (and mind if it happens to have one) that dies. The consciousness is unchanged because it's only a temporary arrangement of a portion of the one consciousness within a body. Consciousness is an ocean of infinite awareness that we are a part of even when we are alive. The fact that we are currently in bodies makes us forget that we are one and we believe we are seperate beings but the only thing seperating us is time and these bodies.

>> No.12678438

>>12676035
BASED

>> No.12678439

>>12678419
>perpetually evades the question
why is it so difficult for you to see what the problem is? it couldn't be more spelled out.

>> No.12678441

>>12676528
You're actually asking people to stay entrenched in their views no matter what new information might turn up?

>> No.12678442

>>12678419
Great personal attacks, bur we're discussing reality here. Where did you find consciousness within biological complexity, that you simultaneously claim is not found within my computer? How do you know synapses are conscious, and my phone is not? You're not addressing this question, merely attacking me.

>> No.12678447

>>12676516
They're simplifying it and giving it human attributes to make it understandable by brainlets'

Evolution does not "attempt" to outsmart predators. It just happens. Do you even understand the concept?

>> No.12678456

>>12678442
>Consciousness is emergent from complexity
>Some systems are more complex than others
ie biological nervous structures are more complex/nuanced than technology
>You ask me why technology isn't conscious
>>12678439
really because you haven't pointed anything specific out, just thrown out vague problems.
>>12678421
wow, you're an actual retard.

Over this. You guys win. This is the type of self reinforcing dipshittery that I come to 4chan for so I can't really complain.

>> No.12678462

>>12678441
I'm disappointed in people that don't exercise their own intelligence and do nothing besides regurgitate narratives given to them by the dominating institutions of their day. You and all the other materialists in this thread have all the means before you to understand consciousness through yourselves - scientists don't have a special window into reality that the rest of us cannot access. You are conscious, you have vision, you have a mind, you can contemplate all of this for yourself. You can ask yourself the simple questions that have been mentioned here, such as where you empirically "find" consciousness within biological components, which cannot be found anywhere else? Sure, change your views as "new information" comes out. But are you capable of forming your own views in the first place, or merely to wait until "new information" has come down to you, which you accept as unthinkingly as you did the first?

>> No.12678475

“Hey guys or pronouns of 2019. . Umm. . God made consciousness.” -basedgod

>> No.12678478

>>12678456
These discussions always go the same way and it's certain there's something wrong with specimens of your ilk. What that is exactly I'm not entirely sure of yet. Ironically its an area in desperate need of hard research.

>> No.12678481

>>12678456
Last response to you, since you really seem willfully incapable of grasping a question being asked to you. People empty of answers resort to personal attacks like you've done here.

The question was: where do you empirically find consciousness, such that you knew it to be within biologically complex structures, while not being anywhere else? I can grasp an object in my hand, and see the object. I can't see consciousness, however, and therefore can't see whether the object has consciousness to it. How, then, do you know which ones "are" and which "are not"? If you can't understand such a basic question, I really can't help you further.

>> No.12678482

>>12678402
>It's just random
That is non empirical answer. Might as well say it's God.

>> No.12678487
File: 262 KB, 680x661, C_Data_Users_Dylan_AppData_Local_Microsoft_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_4Chan_Pepe_Smug11 - Copy.jpg.png.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12678487

>>12676035
"what the universe has already decided it wanted to do?" decided? wanted? what, is the universe conscious?

>> No.12678511

>>12678462
>narratives given to them by the dominating institutions of their day.
Why do YOU think these views are the ones that are in vogue? Institutions are made up of people. Do you think a shadowy council sits somewhere, tapping their fingertips together and deciding what the masses should believe today?

Science has advanced, and so has our views of the universe and ourselves. If the materialist view is correct (which I do not claim to be sure it is, no matter how much you accuse me of being a materialist) how would anyone from 200 years ago even be able to hold that view?

>accept as unthinkingly as you did the first?
Do you know how science functions, or are you just against it for some reason?
If a scientist claims something, they will need to show proof. Their claim will be tested, doubted, reviewed by others with access to the same world as him.
A core concept is that everyone has access to the same physical world to run experiments on. There is no exclusivity, no clergy that can say "nuh-uh, God only talks to us, you can't see for yourself".

>> No.12678512

>>12678478
Based qualiafag

>> No.12678570

>>12678511
I think these views are in vogue because they were presented a very long time ago, and have remained here until the present day wherein a combination of public pressure and internal discord caused the narratives of materialism to be heavily critiqued and demanded to be re-examined.

I have nothing against science, when performed properly. "Science" is not some kind of magical modern field we have today which no previous century of humans had, rhat gives us insights into the universe unreachable before. It isn't the case. Nothing has changed from now to thousands of years ago, or any period before. The difference between today's humans and past ones is that we have more sophisticated physical instruments in front of us. That's it, literally. Everything else is identical. Consciousness, the nature of the human mind and the nature and limits of its comprehension, our bodies, the external world. Scientists are just humans with physical instruments in front of them. The "method" by which they can work is capped at consciousness, which is and has always been the limitations of knowledge. Past generations understood this, and future generations will still be subordinate to this reality. The point is that "science" is not some special and unique field which we can trust all answers to come to us through, it's merely another branch of philosophy, and the epistomological limitations of it are unchanged for all of our past history. How does one investigate the ground allowing for investigation? How does one observe the act of observation? Measure the immeasurable space in which all measurements are made?

>> No.12678589

my pet theory with absolutely zero supporting evidence (just like any other): consciousness is an omnipresent field (or aether if you like), permeating all matter. it is thus a conjunction of panpsychism and open individualism (since all minds come from a single source).
it "explains" why brain states and mental states are so tightly correlated - because the brain is little more than sophisticated antenna.

people call it dualistic or even mystic, but I think Hempel's dilemma proves neutral monism to be the only coherent ontology

>> No.12678615

>>12678589
>what is it?
>it's uh... everywhere
this doesn't solve shit

>> No.12678651

>>12678615
>what is it?
immaterial, irreducible, necessarily existing substance, obviously

>> No.12678660

>>12678651
You sound like a fantasy writer

>> No.12678664

>>12678589
>with absolutely zero supporting evidence (just like any other)
based

>> No.12678666

>>12678321
That's not what he said at all. He explained where it comes from:

>interactions of our body and brain, various parts of the brain with themselves, skills like memories, language, and organizational problem solving.

This isn't mere gobbledygook. Pick up a fucking book on biology for once in your life.

You consciousness idiots think you can weasel back in your classic metaphysics with the argument "but you don't REALLY know." Except we DO REALLY KNOW, we just don't have ALL the minute data laid out yet. Knowledge does not require all minute data for formulation. The processes behind the phenomenon of "consciousness" are already quite clear. Plus, the entire problem of consciousness was already dealt with on the metaphysical level by one particular philosopher, the very level that you idiots strive to resurrect.

>> No.12678677

>>12678666
he really didn't answer and neither did you, I've probably read some variation of this post dozens of different times on this board

>> No.12678680

>>12678399
Would our consciousness not affect our actions at all though? Presumably we wouldn't feel bad about killing if we weren't aware we were doing it.
Our consciousness is part of the series of chemical reactions which determine what we do. To not have consciousness, you would need to make physical changes to the machinery (our brains) which would necessarily change how we behave.

>> No.12678683

>>12678651
when will metaphysics move beyond buzzwords like these?

>> No.12678702

>>12678683
>emergent property
>process
>illusion
>evolutionary advantage
when will physicalism move beyond buzzwords like these?

>> No.12678706

>>12678677
It's been answered but you're an idiot who doesn't understand basic biology and psychology. Have parts of your brain removed by a surgeon and see how much of your consciousness is left over; or, eat horrible food in excess for a long time and see how it affects your state of consciousness. The idea that our consciousness is separate from our biology is unfounded and worse, makes no sense in regards to the universe we're in.

>> No.12678707

>>12678702

got em

>> No.12678717

>>12678660
extremely pleb + NPC flesh robot post

>> No.12678720

>>12678666
No we know where consciousness happens, we know some necessary conditions for it, and how to modulate it to an extent but that's it. You confuse this with a true explanation and claim there's no mystery only details which is just patently false on the most basic level. It's THE mystery. Who gives a fuck about quantum gravity when there's consciousness?

>> No.12678724

>>12676429
>Brain lesions destroy consciousness.
>Drug that affect the brain alter consciousness.
Case closed.

>> No.12678723

>>12678707
redpill/ELI5 me on this spicy new reddit meme

>> No.12678727

>>12678706
No one's claiming it's separable from biology you disingenuous moron.

>> No.12678744

>>12678706
you're equating mental functions with the awareness of those functions. a memory is not the awareness of a memory, it is the content of that awareness.

again, you don't understand the question, and so can't answer it.

>> No.12678783
File: 121 KB, 1462x2046, TSTBaQ7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12678783

>>12678724
>they've been saying it's a ghost that has nothing to do with the brain
You're just some idiot, but some actual scientists think like you do and that's the appalling thing.

>> No.12678793

>>12678706
>have parts of your brain removed by a surgeon
Have you literally never heard of out-of-body experiences? You know there are scientific papers on the phenomena, right? Also, being connected to biology does not mean it's dependent on biology.

>> No.12678802

>>12678783
Nice arguments there, pal. I know you can't just accept the reality of materialism and you're desperate to prove it wrong through sophistry.

>> No.12678828

>>12678724
It can be related, yet not originating from nor dependant on. Is that so difficult to grasp? Did any of us here deny the existence of the brain, or it having an effect on consciousness? Yet does that mean that consciousness = brain? Do you know what the mind-body problem is? Or do you see a brain in front of you and think "ah yes, there is no such thing as mind, just matter". We're trying to figure out the full nature of these entities, and not reduce them to one or the other party like you've done here with consciousness being equated to the brain.

>> No.12678836

>>12678802
You have no reading comprehension, you'll argue in circles and evade forever. It's boring. I'm only interested in what depravity drives you to be this way.

>> No.12678839

>>12678196
The reason we survived isn't because we could sweat and deer can't, dude. It was beneficial for us but let's be clear: we aren't strong, fast, or agile. Especially not in relation to how intelligent we are. If you think you're clever because you saw a History Channel doc where they talked about how we used to chase deer through the woods, you're not. Please actually read books about the topic.

>> No.12678840

>>12678727
>No one's claiming it's separable from biology
OP basically did with his "philosophical stance" remark. Anyone regarding consciousness as a philosophical problem is separating it from biology. It's a scientific problem.

>>12678744
Awareness is just a "mental function."

>>12678793
>out-of-body experiences
lol

>> No.12678846

>>12678702
the words you listed actually have meaning lmao

>> No.12678854

>>12678840
>Awareness is just a "mental function."

No, it is what performs and cognizes these functions.

>> No.12678883

>>12678840
>OP basically did with his "philosophical stance" remark. Anyone regarding consciousness as a philosophical problem is separating it from biology. It's a scientific problem.
Gibberish.

>> No.12678917

>>12678854
>it
There's no "it," where are you getting this from? Awareness is one of the functions of your brain, hence why it stops when the brain stops functioning. It's just you, another thing you're capable of.

>>12678883
What's gibberish is acting like consciousness is still a philosophical problem, as if there is any mystery left over regarding the fabled "thing-in-itself" bullshit from classic metaphysics.

>> No.12678922

>>12678839
I'm not arguing the reason we survived you humongous retard, I simply replied to the retarded claim that there's nothing special about us aside from our intelligence

>> No.12678940

>>12678917
No, you're the definition of a pseudo-intellectual. Pontificating on that which you know nothing about, and further to that a pseudoscientist, as your eliminativism and claiming everything else is a cope isn't science.

>> No.12678991

>>12678940
>you don't know what you're talking about!!!
>but I do because I read retarded bullshit by 20th century philosotards, New Age morons and Chinese goofballs who continue to push their uneducated nonsense onto the reading public
The forms / things-in-themselves were put to rest as the falsehood that they were in the 19th century and your delusional cries for a resurrection of Platonic metaphysics are pointless. Stop shitting up the world with your inability to grasp philosophy and science past the 19th century.

>> No.12678995

>>12678940
Reals>feels

>> No.12679008

>>12678991
>two-worlds Platonism

you really don't know what you're talking about

>> No.12679020

>>12679008
Says the imbecile who doesn't even understand Heraclitus.

>> No.12679022

>>12678991
You're just throwing any old shit at the wall now. You haven't and can't ever resolve the hard problem because you're a mental defective congenitally unable to understand it.

>> No.12679028

>>12678995
Epic meme my friend xD

>> No.12679042

>>12679020
I'm positive anti-consciousness fags are just less sapient

I agree with this guy >>12679022 and the other anon who mentioned we seriously need some research into this dilemma

>> No.12679074

>>12678995
without feels, there are no reals
what's the difference between a) something mute, untouchable, odorless, tasteless, colorless and b) something inexistent?

>> No.12679118

>>12678991
Why is /sci/ is arrogant?

>> No.12679128

>>12679022
And what is "the hard problem" to you? The only problem I see is figuring out the rest of the neurobiological schemata of the human brain that creates the network which allows what we call the feeling of "awareness," essentially field research. Treating any part of the network as though it were beyond the network is an error in judgment; likewise, treating the feeling of "awareness" as though it were connecting us to something outside the network is also an error in judgment — feelings do not demonstrate anything besides that you can feel. The idea that we are capable of connecting to anything outside of the level of the neurobiological network is unfounded and a remnant of classic metaphysics which failed to properly grasp the meaning of relativity i.e. spacetime and its bearing on psychology, leading to erroneous beliefs like "truth", "God", the "I", the "thing-in-itself", "consciousness-in-itself", "properties-in-themselves", etc. If you really think I'm going to believe the thread was about discussing the field research still required for mapping out the neural network in our bodies, when OP starts off with "philosophical stance" on the matter... just no.

>>12679042
Pro "consciousness-in-itself" fags hate reality and want to feel themselves above it and outside its influence. Too bad for them the reality itself has already influenced them to feel this way about it.

>> No.12679157

>>12679074
>what's the difference between a) something mute, untouchable, odorless, tasteless, colorless and b) something inexistent?
A has influence on what it has contact with and therefore exists.

>> No.12679167

>>12679128
>Pro "consciousness-in-itself" fags hate reality and want to feel themselves above it and outside its influence. Too bad for them the reality itself has already influenced them to feel this way about it.

dumb armchair psychologizing, your arguments are superficial and paper-thin to anyone whose had even a cursory background in esoterics. your reduction of awareness to the network is unfounded

>> No.12679175

>>12679128
>The idea that we are capable of connecting to anything outside of the level of the neurobiological network is unfounded and a remnant of classic metaphysics which failed to properly grasp the meaning of relativity i.e. spacetime and its bearing on psychology, leading to erroneous beliefs like "truth", "God", the "I", the "thing-in-itself", "consciousness-in-itself", "properties-in-themselves", etc.


instead of ontologizing consciousness, ontologize physics instead

I can't wait til we hang every one of you cultists from the fucking rafters

>> No.12679212

>>12679167
You don't actually fucking think your mind is outside the influence of reality, do you?

>reduction
This word practically proves that I'm spot on in my assessment. How is it a "reduction" at all? What do you think you are losing under my explanation? Right there — you admit that you have a stake in this, and want to feel yourself above it. You're more dishonest than me, and that's why you're less right than I am.

>>12679175
All thought ontologizes; that's why thought never touches upon anything real. Quit blowing smoke up your own ass.

>> No.12679224

>>12679128
It's a philosophical and a scientific problem right now, that is the now as in the present. It may be all fixed and good in the future but you're writing scifi as it stands. The two are strands of thought are properly inseparable anyway and this making it about some petty inter-disciplinary squabble, and also your baffling tirade against a random assortment of terms you find distasteful from "classical metaphysics" further tips your hand as a brainlet hiding under a thin veneer of scientific respectability.

>> No.12679232

>>12678828
>It can be related, yet not originating from nor dependant on. Is that so difficult to grasp?
Show me any proof of that beyond sophistry.
>>12678836
>what depravity drives you to be this way.
Being an adult and accepting reality as far as we can understand it.

>> No.12679243

itt: retarded scientism-ists thinking "consciousness" means "brain activity" instead of "subjectivity"

>> No.12679247

>>12679224
>a random assortment of terms
It's not random at all. All those things stem from the same person, Plato. His philosophy was a polemic against reality.

>> No.12679268

>>12679243
well what is subjectivity but reactions of the brain to stimuli?

>> No.12679272

>>12679128
All these words, and you still can't tell me what makes neurochemical networks conscious yet my left hand, trees or rain to not be. You can't point out the consciousness-ness in the one substance you claim to be the only substance which has it, and then you go on tirades again the rest of us who will not swallow your sophistry. I'll ask one final time, before I leave this thread for good:

Where is consciousness seen empirically? How do you know which substances have it, and which do not?

>> No.12679283

>>12679268
good heavens you're doing it again

>> No.12679290

>>12679128
>erroneous beliefs like Truth
lol, so this isn't true then either

>> No.12679295

>>12679268
category error. first-person awareness is not its material ground, or else it'd be its material ground.

>> No.12679297

>>12679232
You don't accept the reality of consciousness though, which is primary evidence, the most basic empirical data there is. And its seeming incommensurability with anything else known in spacetime is the profound riddle of our existence par excellence to me. I know that all means nothing to you and it's sad and truly disheartening really. And I assure you this has nothing to do with your self reported maturity.

>> No.12679304

>>12679272
>what makes neurochemical networks conscious yet my left hand, trees or rain to not be
you make the faulty assumption that somethings structure has nothing to do with its "consciousness".. you cant have awareness without sensors.

>> No.12679305

>>12679283
You expect too much from them, anon. We have to wait until there's a paradigm shift in science, nothing else will change these people.

>> No.12679311

>>12679272
>my left hand
Doesn't have the organic structure necessary for it.

>trees or rain
These things don't have the same organic structure as humans so they won't have anything resembling a human consciousness. We don't know that they lack a consciousness entirely.

>You can't point out the consciousness-ness in the one substance you claim to be the only substance which has it
Where did I claim only one "substance" has it?

>Where is consciousness seen empirically?
We have plenty of tests showing differences in awareness levels. You can in fact conduct one of these tests yourself by leaving your room occasionally and going somewhere where other people are, and talking to multiple of them. Or spend some time with non-human animals and pay attention to the differences in awareness.

>How do you know which substances have it, and which do not?
It's not a 1 or 0 thing. It's relative.

>> No.12679315

>>12679247
>All those things stem from the same person, Plato.
get yourself together and hit the books man, this is just atrocious.

>> No.12679337

>>12679304
You're dodging the question, nor did I even state any assumptions there. You did, claiming awareness to require sensors. You continue to evade the basic query, which is where you can find consciousness empirically. Where? Pointing at a network of cells, or a handful of pomegranate-arils, where within the former lies consciousness? Point the property of consciousness out to me, empirically.

>> No.12679340
File: 122 KB, 749x605, logical_positivists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12679340

>>12679297
>>12679305
It's quite sad, really, science has a little bit of success in helping us tame the natural world and suddenly they think it can solve all problems, physical and metaphysical; Hume's problem of induction reappears in them, but worse.

>> No.12679346

>>12679315
They stem from him either directly or indirectly as off-shoots of his philosophy which invented the forms and elevated them to moral supremacy.

>> No.12679349

>>12679295
what do you mean? define to me first person awareness then?

>>12679297
but why is it incommensurable? we dont even have access to the physical world other than through consciousness. and all of our understanding is through concepts and words. people act like we have some direct access to the physical world when it is merely concepts and math. the intrinsic (mind independent) nature of the physical world is just as " "problematic" as qualia but no one sees this.

>> No.12679354

>>12679337
>Point the property of consciousness out to me, empirically.
Just put two humans in a room, and a chess board in front of them. One has ample experience with chess while the other only knows the basic rules. You'll have your empirical evidence rather quickly.

>> No.12679369

>>12679337
The empirical evidence of consciousness is the whole world itself, object/subject divisions are a delusion.

>> No.12679388

>>12679337
anything thats aware of something needs to be able to sense something... its in the definition..

consciousness can be found in us and animals.. desu you talk as if consciousness is this category thing. human consciousness or whatever you feel is one token thing. i dont see how you could generalise that to anything else. even if you could say a raindrop had qualia whatever that means, it would have none of the properties we do so much so you would say its not really conscious.

>> No.12679393

>>12679346
Plato's fucking based if this one dude twisted up everyone's heads that hard for 2500 years.

>> No.12679398

>>12679393
I wouldn't call him based but he did essentially do that.

>> No.12679417

I don't believe anyone but I have consciousness and nobody can prove me wrong

>> No.12679420

>>12679398
Pretty smart guy then, even if he's Satan according to you.

>> No.12679444

Both sides have a grain of truth. Materialists are right that consciousness is material somehow. Consciousnessfags are right that we don't know what it is exactly. My suspicion is that it's an electrical field.

>> No.12679457

>>12679420
Clever, not necessarily smart.

>even if he's Satan according to you.
Now this is just you projecting. I'm not saying it was his intention to have the influence that he did or that he himself had anything to really do with it, or that Platonism is even absolutely evil or bad for the world. The world simply ran with his philosophy because it fulfilled the desires of many living in it. The Christian Bible was essentially a conglomeration of the Hebrew Bible and Plato, and the rest is history.

>> No.12679483

>>12679340
I don't think science is the supreme method to acquire knowledge, I love history for example, and it is not science; but in this matter I can't close my eyes to the obvious evidence.

>> No.12679484

>>12679457
He wrote some dialogues that happened to attune to the deepest needs of a vast swarth of humanity ravishing the hearts of men for millennia. I'd call that intelligence.

>> No.12679493

>>12679417
no ones saying you dont. its just not an ontological problem. theres no dualism. but the problem is nothing can be viewed objectively.

>> No.12679495

>>12679484
I think he was smart, just not for the reason previously suggested. You don't have to be smart to influence people, you just have to be clever.

>> No.12679505

>>12679444
how does electric fields help necessarily?

>> No.12679512

>>12676429
https://youtu.be/0Q_1KW0Q-10
Conversely, this young man said the exact same thing as you in half as many words.

>> No.12679535

>>12679483
The evidence is clear that the mind inheres on the brain. What you can't grasp though is the profundity of the mystery of what consciousness actually is, nor can you admit that all the cutting edge science is completely silent on this fundamental question to date. Everything you've said about neural circuitry, lesions, drugs, levels of awareness and so on doesn't change this fact. The science isn't there yet, it may be close and there's a revolutionary breakthrough coming soon, or there is the possibility it may actually never find out. In the mean time we're working overtime on increasingly intrusive neural technology and it frankly scares the shit out of me that there's so many of you out there, even working on this stuff.

>> No.12679539

>>12679483
You are closing your eyes to the fact that there is no evidence, you can't experiment on subjectivity, you can't tell if another body is experiencing subjectivity. You're imagining evidence, it's your article of faith. What experiment can you perform to refute the soul? If you can't refute by testing even in principle then you must concede that science ought to remain quiet on the issue.

>> No.12679599

>>12679535
>profundity of the mystery of what consciousness actually is
dont you think though at some point you get things that cant be defined adequately.

in my opinion there probably isnt anything to find out. the problem is with our explanations. explanation has limit no?

>> No.12679628

>>12679535
But we know what consciousness is: it's a feeling that arises when in contact with something that has less of it. We coined the term when we observed this difference. And we know what feelings are.

>> No.12679631

>>12679599
Explanatory or linguistic limits is a cop out. Why should it be harder than Mochizuki or string theory? We have abstractions on abstractions for absolutely everything else and it all works beautifully. Surely the best mathematical physicists in the world could do it. But they can't.

>> No.12679632

>>12679539
it doesnt have to be refuted. we can make a judgement that the soul is an unnecessary concept compared to what else is in science

>> No.12679645

>>12679628
Yeah you'll just run in this circle forever. But for the last time, we don't know what phenomenal experience aka subjective feelings are. Cognition =/= consciousness.

>> No.12679653

>>12679311
>organic structure
That's the "substance" you're claiming to be pre-requisite/ground for consciousness. And how do you know these are conscious, once again? Do I have to repeat myself for the sixth time, now? Where within an organic structure can consciousness be found empirically, that is not found within anything else I could point to? I'm not going to repeat myself again, I really don't think your faction even understands the nature of the problem being studied.

Differences in awareness levels, again, don't mean that consciousness is "created" by any material element, but have correlation to it.

>it's relative
So you literally just disagreed with all your previous points, since you're avknowledging now that trees and rain and so on can't simply be "empty" of consciousness, but must have at least some, since it's not a binary. Therefore "organic structures" aren't relevant, if consciousness were not a binary. Unless you tell me it's a spectrum for biological materia but binary when comparing biological to unbiological materia, then I'd simply repeat the above question, which is where you located consciousness in the former and did not in the latter.

>>12679354
This is the part where your camp continues to conflate "consciousness" with "higher rational processing". Can you please try and learn what we're actually speaking about, before speaking about it? How do you know the chess pieces are not conscious?

>>12679369
If this is a support for panpsychism, I agree with it.

>>12679388
>It can be found within humans and animals
Where can it be found, exactly? If I open up a human, what separates them from the surrounding environment? Both of them are equally material.

>> No.12679672

>>12679632
So you admit you're making uncritical leaps of faith in the realm of metaphysics. Thanks for being honest.

>> No.12679676

>>12679645
>we don't know what phenomenal experience aka subjective feelings are.
Maybe YOU don't, because you read morons who use phrases like "phenomenal experience" and "subjective feelings." The fuck is a non-phenomenal experience or an objective feeling? The fuck is a subject or an object in relativity? The "I" and the "you" are just simplifications your brain manufactures in order to survive in the moment.

>Cognition =/= consciousness.
Consciousness = fantasy then. The consciousness you have now is not the same as it was a moment ago or the moment before that one, etc.

>> No.12679680

>>12679631
you cant automatically say its a cop out. youve clearly not looked at the problem enough if you think its only a physical problem. we have to see that our explanations are contextualised in our language and psychology too. they arent just mirrors of the world.

consider my talk about the intrinsic nature of matter being a similar problem.

>> No.12679687

>>12679676
>you use terms I don't like so you're wrong!!!

>> No.12679696

>>12679653
Consciousness is in the brain as a whole, in it's histological microarchitecture. It's like you asking me where is "toxic depurationess", it's in the liver as a whole in it's microarchitecture of hepatocytes and other cells.

>> No.12679710

>>12679676
>Maybe YOU don't, because you read morons who use phrases like "phenomenal experience" and "subjective feelings."
No, you don't either. No one does. Phenomenal experience and subjective feelings are both single terms just using two words each.
>The fuck is a subject or an object in relativity?
What relevance is relativity?
>The "I" and the "you" are just simplifications your brain manufactures in order to survive in the moment.
Unfounded claim.
>Consciousness = fantasy then.
You still don't get it.
>The consciousness you have now is not the same as it was a moment ago or the moment before that one, etc.
Even if it's not unified over time it doesn't solve shit. You probably identify colour as a wavelength. I'm done with you now, please take some DMT or something.

>> No.12679724

>>12679653
>And how do you know these are conscious, once again?
By comparison to less conscious things. When are you going to understand what relativity means for "things"?

>Where within an organic structure can consciousness be found empirically
Within the intranet of parts of the brain.

>So you literally just disagreed with all your previous points, since you're avknowledging now that trees and rain and so on can't simply be "empty" of consciousness, but must have at least some, since it's not a binary. Therefore "organic structures" aren't relevant, if consciousness were not a binary.
I don't think you're smart enough to follow this conversation. At no point did I disagree with all my previous points, and how the fuck does consciousness not being binary make organic structures irrelevant? There's no two exact same organic structures out there.

>> No.12679730

>>12679672
the judgement in my text is a critical one. my point is science works more how i say than you. e.g. there are 3 - 5 competing theories to einsteins GR. None of them have been refuted. science is more complicated than refuting. neither was luminious aether refuted but we dont use it anymore as a concept.

>> No.12679736

>>12676429
>the clergy of the current

love this

>> No.12679739

>>12676490
> only thinking in words
Cringe

>> No.12679745

>>12679739
do dogs think in smells?

>> No.12679747

>>12679653
if a stone were to be conscious, what properties would make it so?

>> No.12679761

>>12679687
You use terms that make no fucking sense.

>>12679710
>What relevance is relativity?
Relativity means:

1. Time is a property of space, which means Object X in Moment X ONLY EXISTS in Moment X and not in any other moment in time.

2. Object X has Property X only while in contact with Object Not X, which has Property Not X.

Consciousness here is an object. Wrap your head around that first before responding further.

>> No.12679763
File: 55 KB, 460x596, 1521067802065.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12679763

>>12676035
kek. you dont know shitt

>> No.12679788

>>12679505
if we identify the material origin of consciousness, then we've solved the problem?

>> No.12679789
File: 1.76 MB, 1521x2560, A1Kp5zDCapL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12679789

>>12679761
So you've now made up your own little metaphysics here that's unrelated to what's usually considered relativity? Interdasting. Maybe read this, and a lot more philosophy if you think it's all muh Plato. Thanks for making your side look retarded!

>> No.12679795
File: 35 KB, 850x400, 70e015d86207fda7d4b0b863601ca86e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12679795

>>12676035
Yes, it's only the Christfags who find materialism deficient

>> No.12679800

>>12679789
You are such a brainlet. If I didn't understand myself, I'd of course be making myself look stupid by promoting the idea that what I'm proposing is a kind of indisputable metaphysics even though in the proposal it disputes the reality of an indisputable metaphysics. But I'm not promoting the idea as an indisputable metaphysics; I'm promoting the idea as one that has more validity than yours, not absolute validity. I understand the idea, you continue not to at all. I said don't respond until you wrap your head around it. Try again.

>> No.12679815

>>12679747
That's the very nature of the question being asked...

>> No.12679821

>>12676035
>Materialism is correct
>brain chemicals and muscle fibres doing what the universe has already decided it wanted to do
>universe... decided it wanted to do
You people have nothing but fucking mincemeat between your ears

>> No.12679828

>>12679747
The property of unconsciousness in another organic structure from the perspective of the stone.

>> No.12679843

>>12679730
First, the ether was refuted by Michelson-Morley, so get your science right.
Second, all I'm saying is that the domain of science is empirical, that which can be tested and experimented and observed. Subjective experience cannot be experimented on nor independently verified, so it's out of scope for the scientific method. Accordingly, it's not a necessary concept for the use of science, I agree with you there, scientific papers don't need to deal with it. But not all knowledge is scientific; you use the example of history as nonscientific knowledge. In nonscientific fields surely we should not be judging concepts by their utility in science, no?
>>12679761
You're an idiot. "Phenomenal experience" isn't being discussed as opposed to "non-phenomenal experience," "phenomenal" is functionally redundant but simply used for clarity. These aren't difficult terms and they do make sense, so I understand the issue is on your end.

>> No.12679851

>>12679788
but it doesnt explain what its like.

my problem with most consciousness fags is you cant define it or even differentiate functional and "phenomenal" aspects.

im with the material fags but take it from a sollipsistic perspective.

>> No.12679862

>>12676022
I porpose that Consciousness-that is to say the intelligent deliberate motion of animated life to conceptual reality-thus begins at the point of ejaculation, where upon release from the urethral hole and inserted into a that wonderous wombful world that is both the cosmic and literal egg, animated sperm, itself conscience and driven with purpose to seek the gnosis that is the egg is thus the origin of consciousness. As, even at its onset, the sperm is acutely, nay, instinctively aware of its own inevitable demise. "Find the egg or perish!", thus monologues the sperm to its own internal voice. The tragedy, of course, is the near endless death of his brothers at the hand of that so scorned and selective lover--the tyrannical egg, who relishes in its ability to lay low the thousands of brothers who now claw and kick and cry at its walls--only to allow one single brother even the slightest chance at what must seem like immortality. Consciousness, thus, can be defined as merely violence.

>> No.12679865

>>12679843
>"phenomenal" is functionally redundant but simply used for clarity.
Well, it fails, because it does the opposite: it obscures via arbitrary wordiness. If experience and feeling was all that was meant, don't add phenomenal or objective before them.

>> No.12679870

>>12678456
Dunning-Kruger effect: the post

>> No.12679880

>>12679851
it's like color. we know that it's some quantum fuckery in our eyes and we can literally make machines to change the colors that you see. it's literally explaining what it's like. the problem with consciousnessfags is that they are too retarded to understand that we actually do know that much.

>> No.12679895

>>12676022
I am le epic nihilist, so i see the idea of consciousness as the following:
The reasons humans have been able to tame the world and become the apex species is because of our consciousness and our intelligence, but i believe it to be more of a burden nowadays, there used to exist a species of deer that had antlers so large it almost dragged its head in the ground, i see our consciousness as the same, huge, brimming, arguably majestic, but a burden nonetheless.

>> No.12679903
File: 76 KB, 500x632, 7af2fd8cb5d494bb18a0cc89f2c6be02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12679903

People continue to be confused by language. They fail to understand that all language pertaining to the self and its so-called properties begin as:

>I am this, because you aren't. I now need a word for this, so I can communicate with others like me.

>> No.12679937

>>12679815
but the poiny im trying to make is consciousness in a stone is nonsensical when it doesnt have the physical functional complexity like a brain to be aware of anything.

>>12679828
yup this guy gets me. ludicris.

>>12679843
there were theories afterwards that used the aether concept by amending the theory. even competing relativistic theories so by einsteins special relativity aether was actually still a very prominent idea in the scientific community so get your history right.
i wold agree with you if you said all explanation. no one can explain or descibe how it feels in consciousness.

>> No.12679971

>>12679843
also you syaing im using history as an example which is nonscientific. youre over assuming what science is. science is just critical thinking. me using history is no different. and thats why i said include all explanation not just science because science is just a type of explanation not too different from the rest except perhaps its abit more critical or cleaner

>> No.12680074

>>12676022
Science can only deal with manifested phenomena, so it can't tell us much about that which the phenomena is manifested in - namely consciousness. This tool (science) just simply isn't suited to explain this question. So my best bet for realizing the nature of consciousness is Buddhism, but i could be wrong - it's just the most sensible tool in my eyes.

>> No.12680202

>>12680074
i agree about the manifest part. ive seen a buddhist say meditation buddhism etc may not be the best way though because its still a biased way of viewing things. people are taught that meditation is often looking deep in your mind when this buddhist psychologist says you could argue it isnt at all. its a specific brain state you put yourself in or practise. its just one type of brainstate just like riding a bike might be another. only youre taugh this certain brainstate of meditation is special. bike enthusiasts might also teach themselves that riding a bike up mount hood is special too.

>> No.12680631

>>12679268
No, there are tons of unconscious reactions to stimuli. By that logic, any cause-effect chain would be sentient.
The chemical chain reactions that are caused by touching a hot stove and cause your hand to pull away are functionally no different from any other chemical cause-effect chain. Why isn't a cake being baked sentient?

>> No.12680772

>>12680631
well i meant that subjectivity is defined by the fact that different brains have different responses to the same stimuli. thats pretty much the biology of it. re: what you say though; its hard to draw the line as to "subjectivity" given brains would have evolved from simple stimulus-response things. maybe only humans have it though.

>> No.12680915

>>12679745
I've always wondered this. I bet they do

>> No.12680932

>>12679862
>Consciousness-that is to say the intelligent deliberate motion of animated life to conceptual reality
Retard. Consciousness is our subjective experience, it has nothing to do with determinism.

>> No.12681044

>>12680915
heres something.. do you ever notice when you smell something (e.g. really good or really bad) that you can only really smell it intermittently when as you breathe in?

>> No.12681893
File: 22 KB, 564x544, images (58).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12681893

>>12676022
Consciousness comes from the brain PERIOD

Fuck idealistfags. You guys are retarded.

>> No.12681911

>>12681893
>Bro watch me deny the basic unit of my experience

>> No.12681925
File: 199 KB, 785x757, 581.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12681925

>>12681911
Get fucking hit on the head and it'll teach you a lesson of where consciousness comes from.

>> No.12681953

>>12676585
Intelligence is an evolutionary quirk that permits evolution within individuals rather than through generations. That is why it is selected for, it's the next step of the process itself and is therefore more effective many times over.

>humans are strong because we can change ourselves

>> No.12682035

>>12681953
youre right anon. modern frameworks such as the free energy principle view the brain as a model that evolves or updates itself over time with the changes in its environment. since the environment evolves in a way that can be described as evoking scale invariannce/self-similarity (patterns of change are nested over different timescales) it makes sense that the brain changes are also partitioned accordingly.
for examplr.
at the slowest scale is obviously changes in genetics over generations. that give us the gross connectional architecture we are born with.
slower than that are long term physical changes in the connections in the brain which are mediated by synaptogenesis or synaptic pruning.
then you get synaptic plasticity which is changes in the sensitivity of synaptic firing. Neuroscientists have divided this into long and short term which can mediate conndctional changes over milliseconds

>> No.12682184

>>12676035
the universe has no consciousness
circumstance is not supernatural
this rhetoric is so fucking gay

>> No.12682290

>>12676035
I actually loudly groaned at this post. I feel bad for people like you, while simultaneously being frustrated and annoyed and how dense you lot are.

>> No.12682531
File: 294 KB, 417x384, 1550605105476.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12682531

Consciousness most definitely comes from the brain. Anyone who thinks otherwise has to be a massive pseud. I mean, how pseud can you get to deny that consciousness comes from your brain? You don't even have any scientific explanation for it. Philosophy is great but you can't simply come up with some bullshit that contradicts science because some philosopher on YouTube made a video lecture and think that because it isn't explained yet we should go on believing some Platonist voodo or something. Come on, get real!

>> No.12682549

>>12682531
I get that this is bait but I sure hate when the word "science" is used this way:
>you can't simply come up with some bullshit that contradicts science
Look goys, it's Science™! You wouldn't disbelieve Science™, would you?

>> No.12682564

>>12682531
The brain is a 5d simulation machine, it produces something like a dream, but the dream get out of control and think is somenthing separated from the dream

>> No.12682660
File: 361 KB, 1437x1004, 1550368370255.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12682660

>>12682531
>You don't even have any scientific explanation for it. Philosophy is great but you can't simply come up with some bullshit that contradicts science

>> No.12682704

>>12682531
>>12681893
>consciousness comes from the brain
Alright, how much of the brain? Like, is one cell of a brain enough to have consciousness? Two cells? Fifty thousand cells? Is there a threshold, a magical number of atoms composed in the brain at which point a previously unthinking brute suddenly becomes aware? I think you my dudes are missing the fact that the claim of consciousness being a product of "the brain" stands to no close scrutiny, and you're ascribing almost divine sort of power to a lump of grey matter.

>> No.12682741

>>12682704
>Alright, how much of the brain? Like, is one cell of a brain enough to have consciousness? Two cells? Fifty thousand cells?
if you turn off a certain number of brain cells consciousness will be lost, therefore a certain number of cells is necessary for it to operate
>and you're ascribing almost divine sort of power to a lump of grey matter.
You're the one doing that, there's nothing special about consciousness at all

>> No.12682798

>>12682741
>There's nothing special about consciousness
How do you know?

>> No.12682830

>>12676035
My only problem with explanations like these is any phenomena that possibly pokes holes in them gets ignored entirely.

>> No.12682842
File: 68 KB, 431x450, 5Kg7Y04.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12682842

>Consciousness comes from whatever my organized education deems is the central processing unit of my existence
>I'm smart and above everyone else

Pick one and only one you fucking psueds

>> No.12682851

>>12682741
>there's nothing special about consciousness at all
Disgusting. What you think is merely "scientific skepticism" is really a perverse anti-human dogma and you're too fucking thick to see it.

>> No.12682861

Anyone else notice how literally ever poster that asserted consciousness comes from the brain blatantly basic terms?

>> No.12682862
File: 38 KB, 506x455, cde20e42bc50a4a8a960824e863a1b7601ff69795979930102b771da0aa8c746.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12682862

195:7.3 The inconsistency of the modern mechanist is: If this were merely a material universe and man only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe. The materialistic dismay and despair of a mechanistic science has failed to recognize the fact of the spirit-indwelt mind of the scientist whose very supermaterial insight formulates these mistaken and self-contradictory concepts of a materialistic universe.
---

195:7.8 The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts. If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit-born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine.

195:7.9 A mechanistic philosophy of life and the universe cannot be scientific because science recognizes and deals only with materials and facts. Philosophy is inevitably superscientific. Man is a material fact of nature, but his life is a phenomenon which transcends the material levels of nature in that it exhibits the control attributes of mind and the creative qualities of spirit.

>> No.12682991

Is any magic real?

>> No.12683509

>>12682991
If it was real, it would be called science.

>> No.12683988

>>12682851
>antihumanism bad
Found the Npc.

>> No.12684006

>>12682991
It is real, because you believe in it. What difference does it make if your brain perceives a tree or a fairy? Objectivity is a meme

>> No.12684011

>>12678922
So you're basically making an irrelevant comment that, besides being wrong, posits absolutely nothing worthwhile into the discussion and you only posted to make yourself feel smart. You're a faggot, kid.

>> No.12684016

>>12676022
Daniel Dennett

>> No.12684026

>>12684011
commenting on the value of consciousness which is itself the principle of valuation is dumb and stupid and tells us how little thought you've actually put into the subject

>> No.12684087

>>12678482

Google 'what causes errors in the replication of DNA'. This is /lit/ not /sci/.

>> No.12684117

>Dude everything is because of pure chance bro

Is this what materialism boils down to?

>> No.12684146
File: 1.43 MB, 360x238, 1548803139811.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12684146

God made us from dust and breathed life into us.

Science accounts for the first part - what about the second?

>> No.12684150

>>12682704
are you stupid its about what they represent and do. you need to be able to represent sensory input, have a body, motor programs etc predict information about the environment. that is consciousness.

>> No.12684159

>>12682830
like what?

>> No.12684164

>>12684117

Not necessarily. There are superior forms (as determined by the logic of the universe) but it takes a lot of chance mutations over a long period of time in the right conditions to level up. But if you're a modernist you see these forms as being based on the beginning/lower principles of physics (the greater deriving from the lesser), rather than the lesser deriving from the greater. Traditionalists see these higher forms as somehow already existing, and we are moving towards them.

I'm extremely tired but right now both positions feel somehow wrong to me. I can understand in an intuitive way the need to add in God for it to make sense.

>> No.12684181

>>12676035
Conciousness is emulated by the brain itself. Nothing to it. Why bring up materialism, that has nothing to do with the "self" and ego

>> No.12684187

>>12684164

Samefagging: I think it is just more comforting and less counter-intuitive to believe there was a God first if you're taking the modernist view.

>> No.12684200

>>12676496
Mad

>> No.12684206

>>12684146
what in allahs name du think science is? some omnipotent magic power. my dude its just scribes writing on papyral sheets looking at their surroundings.

>> No.12684210

>>12676752
Neither is religion but only one of those seek actual truth

>> No.12684214

>>12684006
High iq post

>> No.12684227

>>12677100
Karl Popper, grandfather of modern scientific inquiry

>> No.12684319
File: 30 KB, 780x438, the-prestige-1513793197.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12684319

>no, please, consciousness is special and magical

>> No.12684406

I think, therefore I am

>> No.12684419

>>12684117
why would that surprise you? design is the running meme.

>> No.12684430

>>12682851
You dumb fuck, anthropocentrism is, and always was, most stupid and prevalent dogma in the field. Anthropocentrism is exactly the thing which we should overcome. There is nothing special about consciousness and (You).

>> No.12684438

>>12684159
like mind reading

>> No.12684512

>>12682531
its sad how the ability to detect even this extremely obvious bait is almost non-existent these days

>> No.12684589

>>12684512
No, the sad thing is that the people who took the bait aren't even capable of providing the refutation of it.

>> No.12684674

>>12676035
Hypocrite that you are, for you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you they are chemicals. All knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove.
Will you fight or will you perish like a dog?

>> No.12685148

>>12684438
are... are you serious?

>> No.12685173

>>12684438
huh?

>> No.12685283

>>12684674
you wouldn't even exist to say this bullshit sophistry if it wasn't for the chemistry.

>> No.12685294

>>12685283
you keep saying sophistry like you think it makes you sound smart

>> No.12685317

>>12676429
Absolutely correct. Anyone who disagrees with this is a brainwashed retard.

>>12676480
This is the signature of the indolent brain. Shame that today's educated people can't form their own train of thought and follow it through to the end.

>> No.12685327

Arent most scientists not even completely certain that the fields they sepcialize in and actually know shit about beside just saying buzzwords certain that they can even fully explain reality? Like I can say le physics and chemistry is what makes us but are you really saying anything? Do you actually know these fields well enough?

>> No.12685329

>>12685294
>denies materialism ("chemistry")
>asserts that proving knowledge is impossible
yes, it's true that we can't *PROVE* anything, but materialism is almost certainly true otherwise the machines such as cochlear implant wouldn't work.

>> No.12685335

>>12678399
>What's the difference between the chemicals in your brain interacting according to preset rules and your consciousness actually manifesting?
One in the same and that's the whole point

Source: it came to me in a dream

>> No.12685343

>>12685329
That doesn't deny chemistry you moron. Why can eliminativist NPC's only into strawmen.

>> No.12685349

>>12676596
Indeed, philosophy is a science as logic is contingent upon observed relations.

>> No.12685352

>>12685343
>Hypocrite that you are, for you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you they are chemicals.
what does this imply then?

>> No.12685366

>>12685327
the issue has nothing to do with how well we know the fields. its a conceptual problem.

>> No.12685390

>>12685352
That naive materialism is epistemologically untenable.

>> No.12685416

>>12685390
How so? At worse, I can see that it's a tautology to believe in naive materialism.

>> No.12685426

>>12685390
whats naive materialism

>> No.12685476

>>12685426
There is only matter and nothing else in this reality.

>> No.12685537

>>12685390
but that statement isnt even a valid criticism. if it is then, well maybe you should realise our explanations of the world that are limited by our minds and bodies. If there is no need for them to encompass all of nature then why should a problem with "qualia" be somehow a problem with ontology as opposed to how we explain things?

>> No.12685580

>>12685476
how is that not true?

>> No.12685634

>>12676739
>It would just mean there is a substance other than the physical that exists, everyone would have it, it would be a part of nature.
The problem is physical models of consciousness have more support than a more 'ethereal' non-physical essence model of it. Yes, we haven't 100% figured out how consciousness works, but based on our incomplete evidence we can reasonably conjecture it's physically based.

I'm aware that muscle fibres and bundles of neurons might not individually be conscious, and thus we can't point to something and say "this is it". I'm willing to admit consciousness is likely the result of highly complex interconnected physical systems of neurons etc., but the ultimate origin is physical in my opinion, and thinking otherwise often gives a sorta "fluff" reputation to philosophy in the layman's mind.

>> No.12685837

>>12684210
You are misunderstanding religion. It starts from the truth and it goes from there.

>> No.12685862

>>12685634
It is not nearly so self-evident as all that and ignores the philosophical distinction between property, substance, supervenience, and emergence. A property dualist like myself, for instance, can look at all that incomplete evidence we have and agree with you that there is one substance (the physical) and that mental properties supervene on it without being reducible to it. While someone might be able to call this "physicalist" and get away with it, conceding the existence of irreducible mental properties complicates the narrative at the very least. And there are the aforementioned problems with even defining what constitutes the "physical" in the first place. If non-conscious matter can give rise to consciousness, why should it be limited to the brain? Some kind of Russellian monism and/or panpsychism might actually be a consequence of accepting physicalism. It's just too soon to say. There are good arguments on all sides and I would hope the layman can educate himself on the scientific and philosophical positions needed to have an informed opinion on the topic, without dismissing it all as "fluff".

>> No.12685994

>>12679821
this

>> No.12686122

>>12685862
my problem with property dualists is that they cant even give an adequate definition of a property and how it relates to the outside world.

the definitions of physical is interesting i think
I dont like panpsychism because, ive mentioned before, i think the concept of a conscious stone is ridiculous.

>> No.12686142

>>12685862
At the end of the day though, I think that too many start this problem off from the physical side and how conscipusness doesnt fit into physics, rather than starting from the mental side as idealists. Thats where we need to look at it from.

>> No.12686707

>>12682564
my penis is a four dimensional replication machine superimposed on a three dimensional plane of existence

>> No.12686928
File: 10 KB, 244x206, download.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12686928

>>12686707