[ 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: 8 KB, 230x219, 9F3C613B-2AD8-4835-909B-FB80CF970E76.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16393881 No.16393881 [Reply] [Original]

Give me a materialist’s account of consciousness and nobody gets hurt! Note I said account of consciousness not just an account of any biological process or action

>> No.16393896

>>16393881
there's a thread with a dude talking about "Being no One", by Thomas Metzinger. go talk to him.

>> No.16393904
File: 59 KB, 600x465, F8572154-052E-4068-85DC-F21DBE8CA1FA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16393904

It’s made of material. It develops. It remembers. Character grows, flows and forgets as Ypu go along.

Contemplate this stuff
https://youtu.be/wfYbgdo8e-8

>> No.16394014

>>16393904
I see why people here dismiss your posts now.

>> No.16394032

>>16393881
neurons go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

>> No.16394040
File: 63 KB, 705x700, Gustavo-bueno.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16394040

>>16393881
Read Gustavo Bueno

>> No.16394109

>>16393904
moron

>> No.16394132

>>16393881
dualists shouldnt allowed to make threads

>> No.16394151

>>16394014
>>16394109
Can either of you qualify that with anything?
Did you even watch the video?

>> No.16394166

>>16393881
No.

>> No.16394259

>>16394151
Try recommending a book tranny.

>> No.16394370

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S94ETUiMZwQ

>> No.16394409
File: 84 KB, 700x1194, A5FB5165-EDB0-4578-B8A0-93180135A627.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16394409

>>16394259
Firstly, you are obviously a tranny or a closeted one. I am not. I am perfectly at ease with my body and sexuality. Refrain from bringing this up for a debate. It’s just tiresome.
OP didn’t ask for for a book. I’m not posing as an expert of any kind, but giving a materialists account.
This book interests me. Doubt anyones read it, so whatever.

>> No.16394413

>>16394151
>Did you even watch the video?
Not them, but I did and I can't even imagine what kind of logical leap you'd need to make to assume it somehow supports materialism.

>> No.16394418
File: 679 KB, 498x488, tenor.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16394418

>>16393904
Are women confirmed to be hylics bros? I mean what did she mean by this

>> No.16394420

>>16394413
It certainly points to it. Did you understand your brain like this before hearing about these epileptic split brain patients?

>> No.16394426

>>16394420
are you not right now having a first person experience of being?

>> No.16394465

>>16394409
>Character grows, flows and forgets as you go along.

How is this pseduo-mystical nonsense remotely 'materialism'?

>> No.16394498

>>16393881
It seems to me that consciousness in terms of materialism is just the 'synthetic' nervousness of its extant body; it is nervous inasmuch as its given body interacts with the exoteric world.

Where there is more interaction there is more synthesis, thus there is a more complicated consciousness.

Humanity's organism interacts with more of the exoteric, thus our esoteric mind is more sophisticated than say, a mouse.

Sophisticated systems are more prone to error an account of the multitude of variables.

>> No.16394514

>>16394426
How do you mean? I suppose.
But don’t you ever catch yourself thinking, in english, full words, to yourself. And the answers to these words come back in perhaps a page length of detail, in a wordless instant?

>>16394465
>Matters of fact are mystical

>> No.16394515

>>16394418
She's just 90 IQ. It's kind of endearing really.

>> No.16394527

have you told buttrfag to an hero today?
do YOUr work

>> No.16394528

>>16393881
Thomas Metzinger

>> No.16394535

>>16394515
IQ is for children
https://youtu.be/W3oUqKUx2o0

>> No.16394543

>>16394514
no one itt is talking about the mind, consciousness is not the mind, we are talking about Being this world could exist materially without any one being in it having an experience of Being

>> No.16394551

>>16394514
>Matters of fact are mystical
Can you express yourself without vague dogma and circular-logic?

You know they've actually been able to read people's internal monologue, by recording the micro-vibrations that are produced in the vocal-box, meaning that even thought has a physical mechanism. Explain to me what's so magical about that.

You seem to think like the people I used to trip-acid with; airy allusion and poetic theosophy, but totally destitute of substance.

>> No.16394558

>>16394543
>assuming being and body-consciousness aren't the same thing (or at very least codependent)

>> No.16394562
File: 433 KB, 200x156, FC31B6A0-6804-4DD8-850E-F75DFEAFD4E9.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16394562

>>16394543
The mind is whats conscious. Mind and body are both being.
Yes, once the schizos get us all killed trees falling in the woods will make sounds.

Goodnight for now

>> No.16394565

>>16394551
Neat. Not making a case for magic. I’m materialist

>> No.16394579

>>16394551
wait, you are saying there is a way to know the inner monologue of people?. you really believe that?. really?.

>> No.16394585

>>16394551
Wew the acid clearly didn't work on you at all

>> No.16394619

>>16394579
You know I didn't believe it myself at first, I thought the internal monologue was a little more metaphysical; but just look it up, there's compelling evidence.

>> No.16394624

>>16394565
It would seem you're making a case for the mystical, ie. the magical.

Explain your contention, maybe I have mistaken it.

>> No.16394627

>>16394585
What should it have done? What do consider to be its usual effect?

>> No.16394647

>>16394627
I dunno dude, something about not degrading phenomenality.

>> No.16394651

>>16393904
Please don't be so arrogant, though you have a point, you're incredibly dismissive and ignorant of what that point in its fullness actually is.

>> No.16394655

>>16394619
no, i can understand what you said. its like when they say they can see your thoughts with brain maps. i simplye say you are naive if you think that this micro-vibrations are some kind of transcription of an inner monologue. im just a little tired of the exagerations of science and their enthusiasts. but maybe im wrong. to understand it, you are saying there is a way to transcribe inner monologue of people?.

>> No.16394694

>>16394655
My first thoughts were similar to your own; how is the internal monologue even quantifiable? I can't answer that and I suspect, neither can they.

But here is an article that explores some of the aspects of the theory:
https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/mar/HQ_04093_subvocal_speech.html

At first it was thought that subvocalisation only occurs during reading and writing, nowadays they've broadened that definition and some are arguing it is constant.

>> No.16394702

>>16394647
I don't quite get your meaning; are you arguing that I'm diminishing the exceptional, or that i've been exceptionally diminished?

>> No.16394758

>>16394694
well, we go from people are reading inner monologue of people to we dont even know what an inner monologue really is. and that is exactly what i refer. its an interesting theory, but it seems like it end like some kind of cool gadget, with their obvious limits. and theory of mysterious conscience will still be alive and kicking. (and i dont say this in a triumphalist way. its just like it is...)

>> No.16394773

>>16393881
Emergent property of matter. Look up Papineau and C-fibres.

>> No.16394829

>>16394758
> we go from people are reading inner monologue of people to we dont even know what an inner monologue really is
If you are referring to my vacillation, I do hope you understand my posts were obliging OP, and that I am somewhat personally incredulous towards the theory.

But as much as I would like to immediately discredit anything that doesn't fit within my own ethic, I think it's important to earnestly entertain the theories which are contrary to my own.

>> No.16395086

>>16394551
>Explain to me what's so magical about that.
The fact that it exists :)
Thoughts are image-based. Word based thoughts are socially inbued on a person with the accruement of language.

>> No.16395124

>>16395086
>Word based thoughts are socially inbued on a person with the accruement of language
By your very explanation, you've totally demystified the object of your example.

I don't disagree that the mechanism of thought must be predicated by some, a priori sense; but if a person was born blind and thus they could not think in terms of imagery, how would they think?

>> No.16395142

>>16394535
>no mention of the hundreds of studies of IQ links with success in almost everything in life
no wonder the video couldn't even reach 2 minutes

>> No.16395158

Next to jezebel and politics posting, 'flaps is now a certified you*be shitposter

>> No.16395163

>>16394829
>top ernestly entertain the theories which are contrary to my own.
i understand your point in the big picture. and i agree. but to explain the contrary theories you aggrandize them a little, in the end this theories are about sub vocal sppech, not about consciense or internal monologue. you are the one who mixed up the terms. but i understand your point and understand why you mixed up, it really makes sense. but the rabbit hole is too big really.

>> No.16395182

>Transsexual tripfaggot ruins another thread, Part XVI: Return of the Gigantic Faggot

>> No.16395196

>>16395163
But there is clearly a connection between sub-vocalisation and internal monologue; there is also a connection (though intangible) between internal monologue and consciousness. How else can we understand our own consciousness if not through internal monologue?

Even if it's only a phenomena detectable during reading/writing, the fact that it is almost indistinguishable from the usual internal monologue surely means there exists a mutual faculty between internal monologue and subvoc.

>> No.16395199

>>16393904
Fuck butterflies and fuck your opiniom

>> No.16395364

>>16395196
>But there is clearly a connection between sub-vocalisation and internal monologue;
in the article you put they dont say internal monologue in any place. check it out, the word is not there.
the problem with this things is that the concept is elusive in itself, conscience, inner voice, or inner monologue.
look it up in the article how they say
>"We can have the model rover go left or right using silently 'spoken' words,"
think on why they choose "silently spoken words" and not "we can made the model rover go left and right with the mind".
you made the connection and you go with that connection to the end but even the researchers dont have the audacity to make that. although i understand that makes sense the connection i see it too colourful and optimistic. we dont know what is conscience and with tricks like this we dont advance too much really.

>> No.16395391

>>16394655
We can literally use brain imaging devices to see an animals subjective view of things and how their mknd warps stuff due to how they evolved and such. If you watch a video of them doing such an experiment on cats, you can see how a cats brain tries to process a humans face as a cats face, its very interesting.
I have come to realize from reading posts on /lit/ and /sci/ that people who cannot integrate science into their worldview are the true hylics.

>> No.16395418

>>16395364
I am not referencing the information in that article itself, I'm still trying to find the one I had in mind (it draws a firmer conclusion between subvoc and int mon). If you begin to explore the topic of sub-vocalisation on your own time , you will see many arguments that state there is a connection between it and internal monologue.

In reading this reply you are using subvoc, can you totally distinguish between subvoc and your normal thought process? Is the intonation different? If yes, why? if no, why?

>> No.16395424

>>16393881
>Give me a materialist account of computer programs and nobody gets hurt! Note I said account of computer programs not just an account of any electrical process or action
I give up, I can't explain it

>> No.16395514

>>16395391
you are literally saying we solve conscience. that we can see the subjective images of everyone. and i say, that, even if we can (and we cant, at least at the moment we cant) conscience remains as an elusive and subjective concept, and probably will go through science and through whatever big notion of things.

>>16395418
i understand the connection. it makes sense. but it depends still in the muscle and vocal cords for a reason.
you talk about subvocalization but its like what you really want to talk about is thought process?. but not all thought process have words. that is why this theory will probably end in a cool apple gadget but we willl still dont understand a shit of ourselves.

>> No.16395527

>>16393881
Consciousness is assumed, we are simply at the mercy of instinct and forced to endure this elaborate display.

>> No.16395537

>>16394773
Emergence doesn't exist

>> No.16395539

>>16395514
I refer the process of vocalisation in it's entirety to thought-process, because it's the very mechanism by which we can understand human thought to be individual from animal.

That which is different, defines. Therefore through this difference (human/animal) we can begin to understand what makes human thought unique, and thus, what defines human thought per se.

>> No.16395553

>>16393881
Consciousness is a biological process you brainlet frognigger.

>> No.16395563

>>16395539
we are human/animal. not human/human. we are not only what we talk. or are we?.

>> No.16395572

>>16395563
we are not only what we can talk. sorry.

>> No.16395584

>>16393904
god do you ever shut the fuck up

>> No.16395600

>>16395563
We are from animals inasmuch as animals themselves are too from simpler beings.

The evolutionary leap that separates us from animals has produced the faculty that is our defining characteristic.

>> No.16395617

>>16395553
Consciousness might be a result of biological functions but if you think it itself is biological than congratulations on being a gay onion brain brainlet

>> No.16395620

>>16395124
Since blind and deaf people actually exists, I would assume they wouldn't be bereft of the ability to have thoughts. Abstraction would be a better word to use. Blind and deaf people has been documented to think through sensations. So of course thoughts are heavily colored by our senses, however documented accounts of people inability to think with words, it's safe to assume that it can be a separate process from the senses.
I'm not arguing for how "magic" consciousness is, however it is an evolutionary miracle (as life itself is), It's magical in a way that consciousness itself is an inward experience only replicable through a false visage of archived words and sentences. No true consciousness can be replicated unless through biological means. The neurology of consciousness can't provide us with the tools to create consciousness, but just to understand it.

>> No.16395632

>>16395600
>defining characteristic.
still is not what we are. what we are globally, this is why subvocalization will end in an apple gadget and we still live with no idea of what we are. you are proposing that the thought process involving words is the only human thing of ouselves that we should treat as human, but thats stupid. come on.

>> No.16395672

>>16395142
Now lets see a study of just who engineered these hundreds pf studies and see what they think “success” is.

>>16394624
You are mistaken.

>>16394651
Again, this was simply a brief materialists perspective.

>> No.16395681

>>16393904
butterfly... everybody hates you. are you really gonna stick around? is it just one massive larp like kantbot is? are you the trannyfag kantbot of /lit/?

>> No.16395698

>>16393881
Consciousness is just recollection.

>> No.16395722

>>16395632
>you are proposing that the thought process involving words is the only human thing of ourselves that we should treat as human

No, that a misunderstanding. Everything of humanity is human by its very definition, that is axiomatic, i've never disagreed with that reasoning.

However, how can you argue that language (and therefore abstraction) is not our defining evolutionary characteristic in comparison to animals? what else can be shown to define us from animals?

>> No.16395771

>>16395722
I should refine by use of the word language; what I mean is 'written language', as opposed to other, broader forms of interpersonal communication.

>> No.16395775

>>16395722
>in comparison to animals
>to define us from animals
we are animals. i repeat. if you want to understand us you cant only talk about what separate us from animals. i think this is not so hard to get.
im not saying is not our defining charactetistic in comparison to animals, but that knowing only this, only give you a part.
anyway the point is that subvocalization dont get all that other thought process. or you are negating them?.

>> No.16395785

>>16394418
>women

>> No.16395839

>>16395775
>we are animals

I think that's a sophomoric perspective. The term Animal is not simply the definition of every living organism, 'Animal' is a term of the human understanding of 'otherness' from itself.
In recognising the quality of our difference, we have transcended from animals, much like the animals themselves transcended from lower organisms.
This is the process of evolution; if you posit that something may become 'animal', then it must also be able to become something greater than 'animal'.

>anyway the point is that subvocalization dont get all that other thought process. or you are negating them?.

this doesn't make any sense in English, please rephrase it.

>> No.16395858

>>16395839
are you denying that there is other thought process besides language?.
im sorry, i dont even know if this is understendable.

>> No.16395859

>>16395424
If that computer had experience of being and its operation, an account of that would be different to the account of the electrical signals running through its circuit board to produce a particular outcome of electrical signals

>> No.16395893

>>16395858
No, I never denied that. Language may even be the least dominant thought process we have.

>> No.16395942

>>16395893
then we agree and i dont understand this final part of the conversation. i said subvocalization can only transcribe the language part of all the thought processes, (and probably a tiny part of all the involving language processes ) so its handicapped from the beginning if you want to imply you can know conscience from there.
then you say all this thing about animals and that we are only our language part because all the other thoughts process are animalistic or something. but in the end my point is that only can transcribe a part of conscience, you are judging that part is not important, i think it is. (that is what i understand, or misunderstand, of your posts)

>> No.16395992

>>16393904
Watched. This stuff has already been thouroghly investigated and the results are inconclusive. No dual identity or consciousness is determinable in a split brain patient.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170125093823.htm

>> No.16396037

>>16394535
Please don't post this kind of tripe again. I've read a few books on IQ tests and methodology for their applications/reliability of there predictive power. There are a lot of shitty frequently dispelled conclusions brought up in that video, too many to succinctly address, but I'll say this: if you have questions concerning iq testing/current opinions on theories of intelligence, I'll try to answer them in good faith, butterfly.

>> No.16396131

>>16394535
That video is terrible. I took a certified IQ test in high school over 10 years ago and the questions weren't anything like that — they were all abstract, instead focusing on pattern recognition, and they were timed.

>> No.16396149

>>16396131
>>16396037
Do not post about your fucking off topic kindergarteners tests, you imbecile.

>> No.16396157

>>16396149
t. <90 IQ

>> No.16396219

>>16393881
Don't cast your pearls before swine.

>> No.16397212
File: 162 KB, 1022x740, 0f2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16397212

>>16395617
>the illusion FEELS so real
>car's movement might be the result of mechanical functions but if you think it itself is mechanical blah blah blah

>> No.16397303

please learn about the hard problem, actually understand what it means, understand the distinction between thoughts/intelligence/mind and experience/qualia. these discussions are always at their core about this. very few get it for some reason

>>16393904
>>16395672
doesnt answer the hard problem
>>16394543
this. intelligence/mind arent qualia/consciousness
>>16394562
the mind is conscious. the question is, why is it?
a world where it wasnt but it still functioned could be imagined, but we dont live in that world
>>16395553
it still is. why is it? why is there qualia?
>>16395698
why is the recollection experienced? why qualia?

>> No.16397304
File: 80 KB, 540x684, 1488686330111.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16397304

>>16397212
>mechanical functions are not a concept ... its REAL... its PROVED

>> No.16397333

>>16394514
dude Consciousness is not your mind, as OP stated, he is not talking about mental processes, he is talking about Consciousness. You are right here right now. You take it for granted with no reason to do so, you are having a first person experience

>> No.16397360

anyone who claims that their conscious qualia are not real because muh empiricism needs to remember that the only reason he says that is because he had the conscious experience of learning it in the first place. Empiricism doesn't end in physicalism, it ends with idealism

>> No.16397381

>>16394040
Based granujilla (pbuh) poster

>> No.16398427

>>16397303
You seem like an anon understands the right parts of this discussion. What books would you recommend on this topic and what’s your opinion?

>> No.16398920

>>16398427
i dont think a book could be written about the hard problem. its too fundemental. i guess people should look up the wikipedia page for the hard problem and philosophical zombies before they post.

i have no opinion of it. trying to answer it theologically (ie god gave us experience and souls) creates the even harder problem of why god has qualia or values qualia. it just seems unnessecery in any case. and yet it is everything.

another kinda lame solution might be that there are realities where there is no qualia and we just happen to live in one that has it and thats why we are talking about it. the realities that dont have qualia, go unexperienced.

what do you think?

>> No.16398947

give me dreams of solid colour, of substance impenetrable, said no one save the sºy-guzzler

>> No.16399111

>>16398920
Or philosophical zombies are not possible and we're just convinced our information processing system is something more than an information processing system.

>> No.16399145

>>16396149
You need to calm down. You sure sound like a religious zealot for someone who's supposed to be a hyper rational materialist. IQ is a meaningful psychometric. Deal with it.

>> No.16399218

>>16399111
im not saying were not that. the problem is, why do information processing systems produce qualia. the hard problem remains.
>Or philosophical zombies are not possible
if they arent, why arent they? thats the hard problem again. nice trips

>> No.16399330

>>16394409
I read News From Nowhere after you were posting about it and was thoroughly entertained. Hilarious to me that the utopian socialists really believed that shit.

>> No.16399521

>>16399218
>why do information processing systems produce qualia. the hard problem remains.
By qualia do you mean the way we differentiate one color from another, or telling ourselves that we see color?

>> No.16399678

>>16399521
not telling ourselves that we see color. that would still be mind/thought. i mean actually having the 1st person experience of that color

>> No.16399705

>>16399678
No. You see, that's only you pre-linguistically "telling yourself" that there's something extra there in order to feel special when really it's nothing at all. If Science can't seem to explain it right now, it simply isn't real.

>> No.16399710

Don't be so hostile, op.

>> No.16399724

Materialism is for homos! LOL!

>> No.16399760
File: 160 KB, 320x233, iu[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16399760

>>16394535
youre dumb but i luv you all the same buttercunt
leave california, we can live a life of debauchery together

>> No.16399779

>>16393881
>you are the monkey

>> No.16400143

>>16399218
I don't think you'd know what you're looking at if there was no thinking going on, otherwise it'd just be a stream of sensory information with no one to receive it, similar to the way you can look at something but not actually see it while your mind wonders.

>> No.16400232

>>16397303
>intelligence/mind arent qualia/consciousness
Says you. You happen to be wrong.
>Why is it conscious?
Because earth is warm enough to develop the sensory part of the universe.

>>16397333
>he is not talking about mental processes,
OP was wanting to know the materialist perspective.

>>16399145
IQists are the zelots

>>16399330
How they got there and that it would look the way Morris would find most pleasing is beside the point.
Yes, there will be peace when the motivation for life isn’t bloodthirsty competition.

>> No.16400302

>>16393881
>Error. Argument flawed. Incompatible input. Please restructure your query.
Death is the ultimate validation of the consciousness of materialism. And, shucks OP, I can't seem to wrap my organic brain around that concept.

>> No.16400591

>>16395537
>Groups of atoms can present properties that single atoms don't have.
Refuted. Next.

>> No.16400618

look up Dennett's talk about this if you're serious.

i guess the real account would be that consciousness is just a complex illusion. Think about a worm reacting to stimuli. it's a very simple process - it is hurt, and then it reacts. it rains, the worm moves. etc. consciousness is, more or less, the same - except it's a highly evolutionarily advanced form of stimuli-reaction. but it serves the same evolutionary purpose

>> No.16402188

>>16400143
yes but thoughts could still happen as electric interactions between cells and without qualia, no one would experience them. the system would still be the same. the result would still be the same. thinking might be essential to experience, im not arguing that. but experience in that 1st person sense isnt essential to thinking. then, why do we have it?

>>16400232
>Says you. You happen to be wrong.
butterflu, pls educate yourself on the hard problem and what we are discussing here. itll take 5 mins. im the last person to appeal to supernatural stuff. i dont think we are special. if all sensory systems produce qualia, thats okay. but it doesnt answer why there is qualia in the first place. the cgp grey video you shared has to do with an easy problem. there was a hello internet episode where cgp talked about the hard problem. if i can find it, ill share it. but in the meantime, please stop being arrogant and stuck up because you dont understand the discussion.

>>16400618
a system could react to stimuli, very complex stimuli, without any 1st person experience. but it doesnt. at least in out case. there is consciousness. there is qualia. there is someone that experiences the illusion, so its not really an illusion is it?

>>16399705
i cant tell if ure being hanky panky.
>If Science can't seem to explain it right now, it simply isn't real
in reality, science isnt concerned with explaining stuff. only describing it. but science should and certainly could at least acknowledge the fact that our universe has 1st person experience in it.
>feel special
special compared to what? a rock that doesnt have sensory input? yes i suppose i feel vaguely special compared to a rock.

>> No.16402191

>>16400618
But why does there need to be something experiencing this sequence of neurons firing? Why can’t it just be an input - output?

>> No.16402362

>>16402188
>yes but thoughts could still happen as electric interactions between cells and without qualia, no one would experience them. the system would still be the same. the result would still be the same. thinking might be essential to experience, im not arguing that. but experience in that 1st person sense isnt essential to thinking. then, why do we have it?
There are a couple of points there that you might be missing. One is that consciousness must switch from seeing to imagining for imagining to take place and then back to seeing for seeing to happen and for appropriate physical responses to be possible, so consciousness precedes action in many cases. This at least implies that consciousness is necessary for us, precluding the possibility of something exactly like us but without consciousness. You're saying all that could happen without consciousness switching focus from one thing to another. The focus from seeing to thinking would switch automatically. My point is, what if that focus is what we call consciousness? The area that lights up for processing. I'm not saying that consciousness is necessarily a "controller" but that it's tied in to the system of control.

The 1st person feeling can be explained by a process of self-identification, which is necessary for a member of a social group, "me as opposed to others."

>> No.16402470

>>16393904
Prove qualia faggot. Thats right, you can't

>> No.16402754

>>16402362
focus on a certain aspect of thought might be neccesary for thinking and acting but why does focus create qualia then? cant a system focus on a thing without qualia? (if the brain did exactly what it did, and the connections for focusing happened, without qualia happening?)
>The area that lights up for processing
but why doesnt it stay at that? why does qualia arise?

sorry if im repeating myself but it seems everything that we do is possible to imagine being done without the property of qualia. and yet we have qualia. ive switched to using only qualia instead of consciousness because that gets confused with the general mind. sorry again if its annoying.

dont computers focus on one task and do others in the background? does focusing on a task create qualia in them? and even if it does (on a more sophisticated computer thats closer to a brain) why does that brain computer have qualia? i dont see a neccesary connection between functioning sensory information systems and qualia. any attempt feels cyclical. we seem to think it is neccesary because we have it.

an interesting aside:

does a population of people that trade information in a similar fashion to brain cells in a brain, produce qualia? not like a collective intelligence (which is reasonable and around us) but an actual group consciousness with its own qualia and 1st person perspective?

and even if it does... why does THAT have qualia?

>> No.16403178

>>16402754
>but why doesnt it stay at that? why does qualia arise?
How would one know when one's focus is switched without the system experiencing that switch and the qualia that it brings? If the qualia is not being experienced how would the system know where the focus is? A computer doesn't need to know where it's focus is because it's where we tell it to be and it has no stake in survival and improvisation and so on, it's too much of a tool still.

>> No.16403985

>>16403178
>How would one know when one's focus is switched without the system experiencing that switch and the qualia that it brings?
or are you thinking that way because when you change your focus, you experience that change of focus because you have qualia?
>If the qualia is not being experienced how would the system know where the focus is?
well, when you focus on something, certain changes happen in your brain that we can observe. those things would still happen, but without the experience happening.
>survival and improvisation
those things have to do with the specific way of the intelligence. would you then say a computer has 1st person experience, just a different kind of intelligence that works on different tasks? does it have a 1st person experience, just one that is different from ours?

>> No.16404366

>>16402188
>so its not really an illusion is it?

Dennett said it, I believe it, that settles it.

>> No.16404531

>>16403985
>or are you thinking that way because when you change your focus, you experience that change of focus because you have qualia?
You would have to come up with an alternative indicator to the user that attention has switched other than the experience of it switching and an alternative way to quickly and conveniently representing the shape, size, and color of an object in space. If the user did not know that they are perceiving an object there would be no user, as you might have with some animals that can rely mostly on pre-programed instinct to carry them through, unlike humans.
>would you then say a computer has 1st person experience, just a different kind of intelligence that works on different tasks?
I have no reason to say a computer has experience because there is no experiencing structure there, one could say they have low strata intelligence like mosquitos. Computers at the moment are too minimal to be relevant to the discussion of consciousness as humans know it.

>> No.16405084

>>16404531
>other than the experience of it switching
when the experience of it switches, there are physical changes in your brain. if qualia didnt exist, those changes would still happen and lead to the same actions. everything would be the same and there would be no experience. only philosophical zombies
>as you might have with some animals that can rely mostly on pre-programed instinct to carry them through, unlike humans.
there are no degrees of qualia. only degrees of intelligence or sensory input. but you either have qualia or you dont. qualia isnt intelligence.

>> No.16405332

>>16405084
>everything would be the same and there would be no experience.
People as they are now have to become conscious of something, like color, before they can take action which suggest consciousness is a needed step preceding action. Are you saying qualia is separate from consciousness?
>there are no degrees of qualia. only degrees of intelligence or sensory input. but you either have qualia or you dont. qualia isnt intelligence.
I was saying animals don't perceive themselves as a user inside their own skull, not if they perceive qualia.

>> No.16405617

>>16405332
>People as they are now have to become conscious of something, like color, before they can take action
a philosophical zombie can be conscious of something in the sense you are using there. its brain can do all the calculations and the reactions of being "conscious" of something and it would act accordingly but it wouldnt have an internal world percieving it. i think the sense you are using there is still more on the intelligence/thought/mind side and not qualia

>> No.16405664

>>16397303
>why is the recollection experienced? why qualia?
Our bodies have to experience it under the right conditions. As for why they're designed that way, that's a question regarding the motivation behind evolution. What are we evolving towards, and why? My thoughts on it are the same as Nietzsche's: will to power guides the process, but it's blind and all over the place, with all kinds of "strains" of organism appearing and disappearing.

>> No.16405680

>>16395681
for every (you) she gets, she COOMs

>> No.16405866

>>16405664
none of this has to do with the hard problem. kinda cringed at the neitche ngl

>> No.16405896

>>16405617
So if it saw a branch would it automatically qualify it as a branch? Would it also automatically perceive it's height, size, shape, color, distance from self? If so what is a better way of doing that other than the visual stimulus we are already receiving? Would they get all that information but not know they are getting it? In other words they would not see the seeing? Isn't that called metacognition and is useful to humans?

>> No.16405953

>>16405896
>metacognition
that has to do with self awereness which has to do with intelligence.
>Would they get all that information but not know they are getting it?
no they would get all the information like we do, and know they are getting it, but there is no one inside getting the information, and there is no one inside knowing that they are getting it.

i know it sounds wierd but it only sounds wierd because a brain with qualia is the only kind of brain we know. just imagine a brain without one. we aren't that. why? thats the hard question

>> No.16406015

>>16405866
The question I answered wasn't really aiming at the hard problem. If you want my full response to the hard problem of consciousness look at this chain of posts in the other thread starting here >>16398964

>> No.16406062
File: 249 KB, 550x449, fag.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16406062

>>16393881
There is none, op. Experience is superfluous to materialism. All speech, movement, and material phenomena are described by objective equations -- even if they are hard to solve or indeterministic. An objective quantity exists for everything we see. There is no reason for an experiencing subject to exist. For example, when you watch another person, a complete description of everything they do can be given by material laws. There's no hole in the material laws that makes it necessary for the other person to be conscious. In other words, materialism is complete without consciousness and accordingly can provide no account of consciousness. Any counter argument presupposes the necessity of consciousness and abuses the definition of material.

>> No.16406108

>>16406015
>but as multiple processes combined to form a means to communicate their interpolation
xra tier

>>16406062
yeah this

>> No.16406258

>>16400232
I just got into this thread and read this far before coming to the realization that there has never been a single enlightening or intellectually challenging opinion I have ever seen you post.
I’m not even referencing this thread specifically. I am referencing any post I have read from you. You only seem to talk about your love of Epicurus (without ever detailing his philosophy or if you even taken steps in your own personal life to follow his philosophy) and your Democritus-styled world view, ally he while giving snarky one word response to anyone who dares goes against the zeitgeist. Wow, how revolutionary of you to post YouTube video links, I’ve never seen such pedagogy.

It’s possible anons would be more receptive to your opinions if you didn’t come off as so insulting and full of your own hubris. In a way I think this is why I cringe so much by your posts. You really do remind me of a point in my life when I was extremely insecure of my own self. You’re sort of this projection of an 17-19 year old me in which I thought I knew exactly how the word worked and dismissed any metaphysical phenomenon as ‘muh feel good thought’. It sucked tho, I was really lonely and I never understood why I was so lonely then.

Anyhow, just needed to get that off my chest because I usually just ignore your posts.

>> No.16406423

>>16405953
>and know they are getting it
>and there is no one inside knowing that they are getting it.
So it is a "someone" that they are lacking. If there is no one inside them they must lack an established self-identity separate from others. But no because that's part of the intellectual realm and you want strongly for it not to be.

>> No.16406494

>>16406423
>So it is a "someone" that they are lacking
no. its hard with words. really, its impossible to describe. do you know what i mean when i say qualia? do you have qualia?
>If there is no one inside them they must lack an established self-identity separate from others
they dont lack a self identity. they lack a self, not a meta awerness of the self, but a self at all. a self that experiences stuff

>> No.16406563
File: 22 KB, 500x607, 3ws7rc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16406563

>>16406494
>do you have qualia?
No man, I'm starting to think I don't.

>> No.16406789
File: 30 KB, 500x460, DyIquvwX0AA3dHW.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16406789

>>16406563
heh-he heh... uhh...