/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15904377]

What is consciousness?

[Anonymous No.15904384]

>>15904377
It's when you point next to your eye and the finger disappears once it gets past a certain point. That's where consciousness is seated.

[Anonymous No.15904389]

i don't know

[Anonymous No.15904390]

based chicano

[Anonymous No.15904393]

>>15904377
The theory of everything

[Anonymous No.15904418]

>>15904377

I don't know, but I do know that it seems to be a grey scale, which is really weird. I mean, everyone (except six stupid contrarians) thinks humans are conscious. And no-one (except the six stupid contrarians) thinks an amoeba is conscious. But it doesn't just jump from NOT CONSCIOUS to CONSCIOUS. A cat is surely partly conscious.

All of this suggests it's actually bollocks, and it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.15904432]

the constantly flowing interface between the world of senses/objects and the SOUL

[Anonymous No.15904484]

>>15904377
Consciousness at its simplest is "sentience or awareness of internal or external existence".

[Anonymous No.15904495]

>>15904384
This actually happened to me on LSD

[Anonymous No.15904507]

existential thinking proves consciousness exists

a well-oiled machine that's been debugged through thousands of years of evolution wouldn't hold contradictory thoughts antithetical ot its primary motivation (survival) if we were just flesh golems

[Anonymous No.15904543]

The universe experiencing itslef

[Anonymous No.15904566]

Definitely not physical. Suck it materialists

[Anonymous No.15904621]

an illusion

[Anonymous No.15904635]

>>15904507
It doesn't matter if thoughts are contradictory as long as they don't impede our reproduction.

[Anonymous No.15904696]

>>15904377

[Anonymous No.15904710]

>>15904377

[Anonymous No.15904737]

Definitely not psychic. Suck it spiritualists.

[Anonymous No.15904764]

A name given to the result of neural chemistry, nothing more.

[Anonymous No.15904765]

>>15904621
>implying illusions are self-aware

[Anonymous No.15904771]

>>15904710
Quick rundown on these?

[Anonymous No.15904824]

>>15904621
t. senile Dennett and his 'students'

[jesus No.15904828]

>>15904377
you won't understand.

[Anonymous No.15905011]

>>15904418
Spotted the NPC

[Anonymous No.15905024]

>>15904765
are you conscious for every moment of a minute?
Haw abaut avery mament of a sacond? vvhat if we keep dividing the intervals of time lower and lower? are you sure you are conscious for all 60 nanoseconds? keep in mind that neurons are finite.

[Anonymous No.15905041]

>>15905024
conciousness is an illusion. like the motion of cinema

[Anonymous No.15905047]

>>15904377
You are conscious when you do not understand that how your consciousness developed in 100.000 years by natural selection when dinosaurs did not develop it during 300 million years.

[Anonymous No.15905048]

>>15905041
t. zombie

[Anonymous No.15905053]

>>15904771

[Anonymous No.15905086]

Keep in mind that every conscious experience you've had is intimately related to your linguistic self-reporting faculties. You could not know you've had a conscious experience without the corresponding internal narrative. It makes no epistemological sense to say that a blue dot is in your field of vision when you cannot say "there is a blue dot in my field of vision", or at least have a proto-linguistic equivalent of it.

This suggests that consciousness is intimately connected to, or perhaps identical to, our self-reporting faculties. You are conscious because you can say that you are conscious. There is nothing more to it than that. Anyone who looks for anything more is inventing unnecessary fictions.

[Anonymous No.15905088]

>>15904507
People who don't want to reproduce will get weeded out of the gene pool. I don't see how that's a problem for evolution at all.
Also, consciousness exists by definition because we basically just define consciousness as the actions of the organ that also makes definitions of words.
>>15904377
Consciousness is the action of certain parts of the brain, mostly the parts dealing with awareness, thought, memory, and interpretation of senses.
"Subjectivity" is an illusion that the brain creates when it sends information through the default mode network for too long and develops an idea that everything in the brain is a singularity, and that one is a true individual rather than a collection of interlocking parts.
Now, the ""objective" quality of consciousness is simply the quality of its reality, or the fact that consciousness appears to itself to have a concrete existence. What that really is, is the mind noticing a fundamental aspect of the universe known as "being"; we notice that there is something in our mind, and thus in the world, that persists, is eternal, and is in all things that we say are "real", and another name to call this is God.

tl;dr: brains do not actually experience subjectivity, and objectivity is inherited from God.

[Anonymous No.15905089]

>fall asleep
>consciousness disappears
Non-dualists absolutely BTFO.

[Anonymous No.15905113]

Consciousness is existence.

[Anonymous No.15905178]

>>15905048
Not the guy you replied too but that article is the most retarded sophistry I have read on this subject to date. It is literally empty rhetoric strung together with non sequiturs. It does not only contain no arguments, it doesn't have a sense of direction. Why even bring up Einstein if you aren't going to talk about relativity?
2/10, will automatically assume anybody that brings up the author is retarded

[Anonymous No.15905264]

>>15904771
1: Consciousness is reducible to physical interactions.

2. Consciousness doesn't exist.

3. Consciousness is made of fundamentally different stuff and can causally interact with the physical.

4. Consciousness is made of fundamentally different stuff but doesn't have any effect on the physical.

5. The world is fundamentally made of the same stuff, but it's neither physical or non-physical. What seems like physical and non-physical are just two sides of the same, more fundamental coin.

6. The world is fundamentally made of the same stuff, but it's neither physical or non-physical, instead some neutral matter, that when put together into different ways, emerges into what we perceive as physical or non-physical stuff.

7. Consciousness is too complex for us to ever understand.

[Anonymous No.15905400]

>>15905088
>I don't exist but the world exists
>literally reverse solipsism
>makes as much sense as solipsism doesn't, but it's even more useless to believe
Is this the most cuck philosophy imaginable? How obviously retarded and self-defeating it is also fits well into a state of absolute philosophical cuckoldry. You have achieved cuck-enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.15905434]

>>15905264
Thanks

[Anonymous No.15905449]

>>15904377
Baby don't hurt me

[Anonymous No.15905473]

Here's another question: what is non-consciousness and what is it like? What is left of the world after you strip away your conscious awareness of it? The nature of the noumena?

[Anonymous No.15905494]

>>15905473
The only answers I can think of are:
1. Nothing, because everything is conscious (idealism)
2. You can't ever know (skepticism)
3. The question is unintelligible, as it brings in false assumptions about objectivity and absolute truth (postmodernism)

[Anonymous No.15905509]

>>15905473
If there's nothing to experience then it doesn't exist. All is mind. But God's mind is all-encompassing.

[Anonymous No.15905525]

>>15904635
often times they do though

I believe mental illness, for example, is a consequence of consciousness

[Anonymous No.15905554]

>>15904635
never heard of antinatalism?

[Anonymous No.15905558]

>>15905434
dope

[Anonymous No.15905580]

>>15905264
>4. Consciousness is made of fundamentally different stuff but doesn't have any effect on the physical.
might be made of fundamentally different stuff but not necessarily (at least not in the same meaning as in 3, it doesn't have to be a different substance)
>5. The world is fundamentally made of the same stuff, but it's neither physical or non-physical. What seems like physical and non-physical are just two sides of the same, more fundamental coin.
>6. The world is fundamentally made of the same stuff, but it's neither physical or non-physical, instead some neutral matter, that when put together into different ways, emerges into what we perceive as physical or non-physical stuff.
those 2 are a tangleweb of fuckery, I don't know exactly what they are and how they differ, but it's not nearly as neat as this anon tells you (in fact it's not clear what this anon even means when you parse those statements)
>7. Consciousness is too complex for us to ever understand.
it means that the mystery of consciousness is resistant to the scientific method and broader epistemology, it's not a matter of too much complexity, it's a qualitative obstacle, not a quantitative one

[Anonymous No.15905790]

>The tragedy of a species becoming unfit for life by overevolving one ability is not confined to humankind. Thus it is thought, for instance, that certain deer in paleontological times succumbed as they acquired overly-heavy horns. The mutations must be considered blind, they work, are thrown forth, without any contact of interest with their environment.
>If the giant deer, at suitable intervals, had broken off the outer spears of its antlers, it might have kept going for some while longer. Yet in fever and constant pain, indeed, in betrayal of its central idea, the core of its peculiarity, for it was vocated by creation’s hand to be the horn bearer of wild animals. What it gained in continuance, it would lose in significance, in grandness of life, in other words a continuance without hope, a march not up to affirmation, but forth across its ever recreated ruins, a self-destructive race against the sacred will of blood.
― Peter Wessel Zapffe, The Last Messiah

[Anonymous No.15906755]

God

/thread

[Anonymous No.15906782]

>>15905554
Antinatalism is the most based thing ever, and the most agreeable thing ever. Why would you want to put someone through the pain of this life which is clearly not worth it, maybe it's worth it for the 1% rich people who never have any problems, but for the rest of the world, I am more than sure life isn't worth living. Also, if you're a christian, why would you want to put your children to the risk of burning forever? Natalism just doesn't make sense, no matter how hard you try to argue. The only fun thing in life besides violence is sex, so basically if you think having children is worth it you're nothing but a sex addict lol because you will be thinking oh they will enjoy this

[Anonymous No.15907010]

>>15905400
>I don't exist but the world exists
Good thing that's not what I said.
You didn't get it. Maybe try reading it again idk.

[Anonymous No.15907024]

>>15905473
Noumena is no different than God-vision. But the mind and consciousness exist within the noumena. You can figure the rest out.

[Anonymous No.15907039]

>>15906782
>The only fun thing in life besides violence is sex
I see why you don't enjoy life, but please, please stop projecting your depression onto all humanity and existence. I don't know why you antinatalists insist so absolutely on this projection, but its a bit tiring.

[Anonymous No.15907054]

>>15907010
>"Subjectivity" is an illusion that the brain creates when it sends information through the default mode network for too long and develops an idea that everything in the brain is a singularity, and that one is a true individual rather than a collection of interlocking parts.
saying everything is just God playing le hide and seek game is equal to saying there's no (You)

[Anonymous No.15907055]

>>15904418
You are right -- there are no hard boundaries or rigid categories in nature. Everything is a matter of degree. That's why panpsychism is inescapable. Even the lowly amoeba has the rudiments of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15907076]

>>15904507
>>15905088
Stop using words you don't understand, pseuds.

[Anonymous No.15907078]

>>15907055

The hard AI people would go further and say a thermostat has rudimentary consciousness. It has three beliefs:

a) it's too cold
b) it's too hot
c) it's just right

[Anonymous No.15907091]

>>15907078
You can have beliefs without consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15907125]

>>15907091

Depends how you define "belief". But no, you can't

[Anonymous No.15907173]

>>15907125
A belief can be thought of as an internal representational state. Anything capable of recording information can be said to have beliefs. Of course, 'belief' is just a term from folk psychology. It has no scientific validity.

[Anonymous No.15907250]

>>15907173
Yes, it can be, but that isn't the normal definition. I mean not normal either in everyday use or in philosophy / psychology, etc. You can say "the book "Lolita" belives that the first word of "Lolita" is "Lolita"", if you want to, but most wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.15907278]

>>15907054
>saying everything is just God playing le hide and seek game is equal to saying there's no (You)
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15907290]

>>15907076
Just because you don't understand doesn't mean I don't understand.
>>15907078
A thermostat does not have beliefs. A belief is a neurological function. That doesn't mean that beliefs are magic or that brains are special, just that the brain is an organ that believes.

[Anonymous No.15907320]

>>15907290

But I can construct a grey scale from a human brain to a thermostat.

[Anonymous No.15907361]

>>15907250
Irrelevant. It's a term from folk psychology. I has no objective validity.

[Anonymous No.15907556]

>>15907290

how do you explain a belief by neurological functions?

[Anonymous No.15907577]

>>15907556
Read on the neuroscience of behaviour, they explain it

[Anonymous No.15907587]

>>15907577

already have, but you can describe it in a sentence or two

[Anonymous No.15907604]

>>15907587
I'd have to go through it again to give such a sucint explanation, I haven't studied neuroscience in a while

[Anonymous No.15907616]

some fucking squiggly lines

[Anonymous No.15907624]

>>15904377
How tf can the brain even learn about itself? Somethings fishy bros

[Anonymous No.15907684]

>>15907624
That's not what consciousness is.

[Anonymous No.15907691]

>>15907684
I didnt say it was

[Anonymous No.15907704]

>>15907361

Of course it has validity. Don't be silly.

[Anonymous No.15907730]

>>15907624

It's often sort of assumed that the human brain can never understand itself, but I don't think it's clear-cut either way. Maybe it can and maybe it can't.

Roger Penrose wrote a whole book about this thread called The Emperor's New Mind, and his main argument (so far as I could gather) seems to be:

* Consciousness is weird and wonderful
* Deterministic algorithms can never achieve it
* The brain is a quantum computer
* There's some magic somewhere at a physical level that allows consciousness

However, he doesn't really justify any of this. It seems to me what he feels rather than anything else. On the other hand he is a pretty clever guy (he did something cute with tiling the plane) so maybe he is right.

[Anonymous No.15907731]

What proof do I have of other people consciousness? Everything migth be fruit of my imagination. What proof do I have that something "exists"? Am I god?

[Anonymous No.15907745]

>>15907704
Concepts like "belief" and "desire" are just convenient fictions that help humans navigate the social landscape. They do not exist at the fundamental level of physics or metaphysics. In that way they are resemble social constructs like "nation". The universe doesn't operate in terms of nations, or beliefs and desires. It operates in terms of bosons and fermions.

[Anonymous No.15907760]

>>15907745

"Belief" is a fiction at a certain level, but then "boson" is almost certainly just as much a fiction, simply at a different level.

[Anonymous No.15907824]

>>15907760
No, bosons are quite real.

[Anonymous No.15908117]

>>15904377
A question questioning itself.
>>15904484
>Consciousness at its simplest is "sentience or awareness of internal or external existence".
But what is awareness? It is an apprehension of experience, and this apprehension comes from a request for information: a query. What we are aware of in the immediate present is what is questionable to our experience: what cannot be accounted for by our habitual anticipation of reality. In otherwords we only are aware of what is unexpected to us, something demonstrated by how we quickly "tune out" constant stimulus such as the sound of a fan or the feeling of our clothes on our skin. From the appearance of questionable experiences, questions can emerge that seek to resolve the questionable experience and develop causally effective routines of understanding. A question isn't merely a linguistic object, but a living movement of a questioning organism: a quest. Our quests themselves can be modified by questioning them, which is the faculty of self-awareness, and allows us to mutate our quests from their determined trajectories by the search for alternatives.

Described more fully, consciousness is a process of experiential evolution, with questionability (discovery) being the mutagenic and differential aspect, and understanding (i.e. "reason" or choice) being the selective and habitual aspect. "Freedom of choice" isn't enough to account for human self-creative freedom in itself for the same reason that natural selection cannot account for biological evolution without mutation. For this reason freedom of will is largely considered either to not exist (psychological determinism) or to be magic (contra-causal free will.)

[Anonymous No.15908147]

>>15907745
>Concepts like "belief" and "desire" are just convenient fictions that help humans navigate the social landscape. They do not exist at the fundamental level of physics or metaphysics. In that way they are resemble social constructs like "nation".

Desire is fundamental to the metaphysics of change (process metaphysics) as explored by process philosophers such as William James, Henri Bergson, and Alfred North Whitehead. Just as the mathematical expression of substance metaphysics is the "law" of identity, x=x, something is itself, in itself, independent of its relationships to everything else, the mathematical expression of process metaphysics is found in calculus, the mathematical study of change, as integration and differentiation as inverse operations of the same process. This corresponds to our perception of change itself, which is apprehended in two interdependent reference-frames of change-perception: instantanteous change in an omnipresent experiential moment, and cumulative change over time, what Whitehead describes in his magnum opus Process and Reality as "presentational immedicacy" and "causal efficacy" respectively.

Your statement that "The universe doesn't operate in terms of nations, or beliefs and desires. It operates in terms of bosons and fermions" is derived from the thing-in-itself of substance metaphysics: fundamental particles are considered only as themselves, completely ignoring their relationships with the rest of the universe. Taken to an extreme, this denies the existence of systems as anything other than a useful fiction at best. This includes living systems and the process of biological evolution - after all, if everything is wholly determined by fundamental physical interactions, then the entire schema of biological evolution must be false. As such, your post doesn't reflect scientific evidence, but rather unquestioned metaphysical assumptions that are a relic of Cartesian-Newtonian thought. It would take a few hundred years for the metaphysical implications of calculus to begin to be explored after its discovery, inspired by the overturning of the Newtonian paradigm by evolutionary and relativistic thought. This revolution is still far from complete, a problem compounded by the importance of the Newtonian worldview to modern social, economic, and political structures which require the primacy of "choice" (essentially the selection of items from lists.)

[Anonymous No.15908180]

>>15904377
Who’s asking?

[Anonymous No.15908202]

>>15908147
>if everything is wholly determined by fundamental physical interactions, then the entire schema of biological evolution must be false.
No, biological truth is simply emergent rather than fundamental. Beliefs and desires are not emergent structures -- they are built-in concepts given to us by natural selection to facilitate survival in a social world. They don't represent things that literally exist, even an an emergent level.

[Anonymous No.15909287]

>>15904418
an amoeba is only not conscious because it lacks the perception and aprehansion tools. a cat is fully conscious

[Anonymous No.15910344]

>>15909287

>a cat is fully conscious
As I said, I can grey scale it as much as is needed to show you you're wrong. If a cat is fully conscious, what about a housefly?

[Anonymous No.15910449]

the real truth is that none of us actually exist

[Anonymous No.15910493]

>>15910449
Speak for yourself.

[Anonymous No.15910922]

>>15905086
are you still here? you seem to be misreporting some source that's smarter than you, you might sharing that source?

[Anonymous No.15910928]

>>15910344
i imagine a housefly is also fully conscious. consciousness isnt about intelligence or cognition. its just qualia. its just the first person perspective. you either percieve things or you dont. i changed my mind on the amoeba. if it has a tool for perception, it is conscious. some things percieve more things though and thats a different matter. i believe there is a grey scale for perception.

i dont know what my stance is on non biological perception like robots and stuff btw.

[Anonymous No.15910967]

>>15910928

If consciousness is just about perceiving things that are "not you" and having some internal state that's affected by such perception, then a thermostat qualifies. It can tell if the room is too hot or too cold or just right, and this affects its internal state. It even does something about it!

[Anonymous No.15911013]

>>15907731
>What proof do I have of other people consciousness? Everything migth be fruit of my imagination.
Proof of external consciousnesses would do nothing to do dispel the notion that everything might be being generated by your imagination.

You might also simply be imagining that your imagination is limited to that which you, as an individual, can possibly imagine.
In reality, your meta-imagination might also be imagining consciousness from the perspective of the other in exactly the same way you may imagine consciousness to be uniquely yours; in a way that is not normally accessible to the other imagined imaginations.

[Anonymous No.15911123]

>>15910967
A thermostat is an excellent example of the concept of homeostasis, which is to say non-conscious physiological controls of living systems via negative feedback.
These processes operate automatically without awareness or conscious effort on the part of the organism, e.g. the release of insulin in response to a rise in blood sugar levels.

Behaviour akin to consciousness only becomes apparent when these homeostats are chained together into a vastly more complex system, which are capable of emergence.
As the system becomes more and more complex it will become progressively more unwieldy and unstable until it self-destructs, that is, unless a portion of the system becomes (through the process of natural selection of emergent behaviours) dedicated to regulating the system as a whole.

This self-regulation of the complex system must, by definition, be able to internally reflect upon the system as a whole, as well as somehow observe the external environment, and make plans for the future of the system (even if only for a few seconds ahead).

This subsystem of self-regulation is where consciousness lies; tiers above the lower levels of physiological regulation.

A thermostat is too simple to meet the definition of consciousness by this standard, as it is not complex enough for emergent behaviour, and it cannot internally reflect.

[Anonymous No.15911178]

A system that approximates itself. Consciousness is always intentionality + directionality, so that consciousness is a system's process of objectification, where objects of intention are generated and stored in temporary memory, which the system then analyses in reference to its own stored information. When the system operates this process of objectification on an intentional object that is an approximation of the system itself we can describe that as 'self-awareness'. The unity of consciousness then is not a transcendental unity, but an entity postulated by a system to represent the past and potential processes of the system.

Now, your SOUL on the other hand is a quite different matter...

[Anonymous No.15911196]

>>15911178
>Now, your SOUL on the other hand is a quite different matter...
Would you kindly express yourself in a less cancerous manner? My stomach will thank you.

[Anonymous No.15911216]

>>15911196
Even if you eliminate consciousness you have not eliminated objects. For instance you can eliminate higher level phenomena with materialist explanations, but materialism rests on the unexplained concepts of being and object. For example, atomism cannot itself explain the objecthood of the fundemental particle. Supervenience reduction arguments can never explain the unsupervenient ontological root that is being reduced into.

So the objecthood of the human, the being of the human, the soul of the human, is a totally distinct question to that of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15911233]

>>15911216
That's better, never use capitalization and dot-dot-dot again. The content of your posts is also that of an overeducated cringelord, but it's not so easily fixed.

[Anonymous No.15911239]

>>15911233
Blow it out your ass.

[Anonymous No.15911242]

>>15905089
That's only the objects of conciousness temporarily vanishing, not conciousness itself
>>15905024
yes

[Anonymous No.15911302]

>>15904377

The fact of consciousness is entirely different from everything else. So long as the assemblage of the physical or physiological conditions antecedent to the rise of any cognition, as for instance, the presence of illumination, sense-object contact, etc., is being prepared, there is no knowledge, and it is only at a particular moment that the cognition of an object arises. This cognition is in its nature so much different from each and all the elements constituting the so-called assemblage of conditions, that it cannot in any sense be regarded as the product of any collocation of conditions. Consciousness thus, not being a product of anything and not being further analysable into any constituents, cannot also be regarded as a momentary flashing. Uncaused and unproduced, it is eternal, infinite and unlimited. The main point in which consciousness differs from everything else is the fact of its self-revelation. There is no complexity in consciousness. It is extremely simple, and its only essence or characteristic is pure self-revelation.

The so-called momentary flashing of consciousness is not due to the fact that it is momentary, that it rises into being and is then destroyed the next moment, but to the fact that the objects that are revealed by it are reflected through it from time to time. But the consciousness is always steady and unchangeable in itself. The immediacy of this consciousness is proved by the fact that, though everything else is manifested by coming in touch with it, it itself is never expressed, indicated or manifested by inference or by any other process, but is always self-manifested and self-revealed. All objects become directly revealed to us as soon as they come in touch with it.

Consciousness is one. It is neither identical with its objects nor on the same plane with them as a constituent element in a collocation of them and consciousness. The objects of consciousness or all that is manifested in consciousness come in touch with consciousness and themselves appear as consciousness. This appearance is such that, when they come in touch with consciousness, they themselves flash forth as consciousness, though that operation is nothing but a false appearance of the non-conscious objects and mental states in the light of consciousness, as being identical with it. But the intrinsic difference between consciousness and its objects is that the former is universal and constant, while the latter are particular and alternating. The awarenesses of a book, a table, etc. appear to be different not because these are different flashings of knowledge, but because of the changing association of consciousness with these objects. The objects do not come into being with the flashings of their awareness, but they have their separate existence and spheres of operation.

[Anonymous No.15911307]

>>15911302

Consciousness is one and unchanging; it is only when the objects get associated with it that they appear in consciousness and as identical with it in such a way that the flashing of an object in consciousness appears as the flashing of the consciousness itself. It is through an illusion that the object of consciousness and consciousness appear to be welded together into such an integrated whole, that their mutual difference escapes our notice, and that the object of consciousness, which is only like an extraneous colour applied to consciousness, does not appear different or extraneous to it, but as a specific mode of the consciousness itself. Thus what appear as but different awarenesses, as book-cognition, table-cognition, are not in reality different awarenesses, but one unchangeable consciousness successively associated with ever-changing objects which falsely appear to be integrated with it and give rise to the appearance that qualitatively different kinds of consciousness are flashing forth from moment to moment. Consciousness cannot be regarded as momentary.

For, had it been so, it would have appeared different at every different moment. If it is urged that, though different consciousnesses are arising at each different moment, yet on account of extreme similarity this is not noticed; then it may be replied that, if there is difference between the two consciousnesses of two successive moments, then such difference must be grasped either by a different consciousness or by the same consciousness. In the first alternative the third awareness, which grasps the first two awarenesses and their difference, must either be identical with them, and in that case the difference between the three awarenesses would vanish; or it may be different from them, and in that case, if another awareness be required to comprehend their difference and that requires another and so on, there would be a vicious infinite.

[Anonymous No.15911315]

>>15911307

If the difference be itself said to be identical with the nature of the consciousness, and if there is nothing to apprehend this difference, then the nonappearance of the difference implies the non-appearance of the consciousness itself; for by hypothesis the difference has been held to be identical with the consciousness itself. The non-appearance of difference, implying the non-appearance of consciousness, would mean utter blindness. The difference between the awareness of one moment and another cannot thus either be logically proved, or realized in experience, which always testifies to the unity of awareness through all moments of its appearance.

It may be held that the appearance of unity is erroneous, and that, as such, it presumes that the awarenesses are similar; for without such a similarity there could not have been the erroneous appearance of unity. But, unless the difference of the awarenesses and their similarity be previously proved, there is nothing which can even suggest that the appearance of unity is erroneous. It cannot be urged that, if the existence of difference and similarity between the awarenesses of two different moments can be proved to be false, then only can the appearance of unity be proved to be true; for the appearance of unity is primary and directly proved by experience. Its evidence can be challenged only if the existence of difference between the awarenesses and their similarity be otherwise proved. The unity of awareness is a recognition of the identity of the awarenesses, which is self-evident.

[Anonymous No.15911430]

>>15911302
how do you get a chad bf with strong arm and brain like this?

[Anonymous No.15911439]

>>15904377
It's the world-soul larping as monkeys

[Anonymous No.15911601]

>>15907361
There is no such thing as "folk psychology", Eliminative materialism is false.

[Anonymous No.15911614]

>>15907577
>they explain it
No they don't.
saying "and then this part of the brain LIGHTS UP when this happens!" is worthless. Neuroscience as a whole is completely rudimentary and trying to pull philosophy of the mind from it is pseudo intellectualism indicative of having a low intelligence.

[Anonymous No.15911630]

>>15907824
>No, bosons are quite real.
No, scientific models based on phenomenological experiences of a mind are only real inside the mind, They do not exist as real things in themselves.

[Anonymous No.15912316]

>>15911439
>the anima universalium neatly encapsulated my meat monkey

[Anonymous No.15912477]

>>15904377
Hi, fren.

[Anonymous No.15912486]

>>15904377
hmmmm

[Anonymous No.15912730]

>>15910967
yeah like i said, i dont know if non- biological things can be conscious. i believe they cant but i have no argument for it. when it comes to the thermostat, its not really percieving anything is it? it just gets hot or cold. feeling hot or cold needs a different system. i dont know when qualia arises.

>>15911123
this answers self awerness, not qualia or the hard problem of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15913034]

>>15912730
If the thermostat gets hot or cold, then sends out some sort of reaction in response to that, how is that any different from us?

[Anonymous No.15913385]

>>15910922
Not op Chomsky I think

[Anonymous No.15913477]

>>15905024
t. Zeno

[Anonymous No.15913695]

>>15913034
i honestly dont know

[Anonymous No.15914395]

>>15913385
were Chomsky and Fodor even interested in consciousness?

[Anonymous No.15914457]

consciousness isnt real you are just programmed to think you are special