How does experience arise from atoms?

File: 59 KB, 500x500, dennet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

How does experience arise from atoms? Anonymous Sat Sep 19 09:27:15 2020 No.16395523 [Reply] [Original]

Take a single atom of any element. It has no ability to subjectively experience anything. Take two atoms and have them form an atomic bond to form a molecule. Still no ability to experience anything arises. Take any arbitrary amount of atoms and organize them into any arrangement possible - Still no ability to experience anything arises.

Whether or not the experience is an "illusion" or not makes no difference - experiencing an illusion is still an experience. In any case we consider, no collection of atoms organized into any arrangement can produce the ability to experience anything.

Yet humans and animals have experiences all the time. There is more empirical evidence for the fact that you have experiences than there is for anything else that exists, so denying the existence of experience is falsified and not to be considered. So something must be wrong with the original hypothesis.

If we assume assume the solution is in emergence, then we must look for where in the combinations of atoms additional emergent properties arise. But these do not exist. No combination of atoms violates any energy equivalencies, it doesn't violate any form of causal closure, it is completely in line with its hamiltonian and its associated schrodinger equation. Emergence does not exist so this does not work.

If we look at the atom itself and conclude that every atom actually does have an in built ability to experience, then we find a solution to the problem, but this is a property dualist position, which implies that everything, from rocks to pillows to whatever, has some form of subjective experience as well, which seems unlikely - although it may be true.

What the heck is going on here, /lit/? I asked this yesterday but needed to go somewhere so I wasn't able to participate in the thread. Reading the archives, there was no answer to this question that wasn't simply dumb retards attempting to salvage the emergence explanation despite the fact that emergence is falsified.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 09:29:31 2020 No.16395533 File: 557 KB, 1024x1024, justpeg.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16395523 I want a Dennett dome chalice

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 09:31:52 2020 No.16395544 File: 87 KB, 640x859, 7a2b214.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Experience and subjectivity is a myth. Your emotions aren't real. Consciousness isn't real. Your beliefs aren't real - you don't actually believe in anything. "You" aren't real.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 09:33:28 2020 No.16395554 >>16395544 False. If I were to peel your skin off with a potato peeler, the sensation of pain that you would feel is real. Denying this is not an argument and is not to be taken seriously. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 09:35:22 2020 No.16395564 Atoms don’t exist you kike retard. Kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 09:38:39 2020 No.16395574 >>16395564 >Atoms don't exist What the fuck? Fuck off /pol/fag

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 09:39:14 2020 No.16395577 >>16395523 >Take a single atom of any element. It has no ability to subjectively experience anything Prove it

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 09:40:02 2020 No.16395585 >>16395577 That's the point, if we assume that then we answer the question but we're left with a property dualist position which seems like it can not be true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 09:44:42 2020 No.16395605 >>16395523 >Emergence if falsified that's a big claim

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 09:46:17 2020 No.16395614 >>16395574 Nice refutation faggot. Give a definition of atom.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 09:48:04 2020 No.16395622 >>16395523 > Take any arbitrary amount of atoms and organize them into any arrangement possible - Still no ability to experience anything arises. Sure you can falsify emergence if you just assume it can’t occur lol

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 09:50:02 2020 No.16395630

>>16395622
There is literally not a single example of emergence happening ianywhere, ever.
Everything is just the exact sum of it's constituent parts, It's just when you get a lot of parts together it becomes difficult to be reductionist given the limits of our human mind so we make broader categories in order to track larger systems and call it "emergence". But emergence still does not exist, ever, and denying this is false and cope.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 09:53:32 2020 No.16395647 >>16395585 >we're left with a property dualist position How do you figure?

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 09:58:46 2020 No.16395677

>>16395523
>If we assume assume the solution is in emergence, then we must look for where in the combinations of atoms additional emergent properties arise.
>There is literally not a single example of emergence happening anywhere, ever.
If there were zero that would be one. If there were zero and one, then there would be two, if not many more. The reason why you are not finding any violated energy equivalencies and so on is because that these aren't the properties you ought to be looking at in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 10:45:13 2020 No.16395908 >>16395554 Insects react as if they experience the same as in your scenario, do they also have emotions and consciousness?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 10:45:45 2020 No.16395910 >>16395908 Yes

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 10:47:22 2020 No.16395919 >Take a single atom of any element. It has no ability to subjectively experience anything. How do you know?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 10:48:13 2020 No.16395924 >>16395919 I don't know.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 10:49:00 2020 No.16395927 >>16395544 Speak for yourself

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 11:07:34 2020 No.16396012 >>16395523 it doesn't.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 11:08:46 2020 No.16396022

Science doesn't have an explanation about the origins of consciousness, and it probably never will, because the existence (or non-exist of consciousness is ultimately UNPROVABLE.
Google: p-zombie
Maybe your own consciousness is obvious to you, but it's literally impossible to prove to the outside world whether you possess it or don't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 11:45:26 2020 No.16396220 >>16395910 Now what?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 11:50:33 2020 No.16396254 >>16395523 >In any case we consider, no collection of atoms organized into any arrangement can produce the ability to experience anything. What is your brain then retard. Clearly evolutionary pressure has accomplished said arrangement.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:05:33 2020 No.16396338

>>16396022
It's better if you assume everyone else has consciousness as despite not being able to prove it, others can still talk about consciousness and what its like to them. Consciousness seems to be a universal experience (if you dont have severe brain damage)

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:09:05 2020 No.16396354 >>16396254 >"i-it's evolution, you see!" clutch everytime

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:11:10 2020 No.16396364

>>16395523

To analyze is to break into parts. Further, the domain of validity of an atomist description is confined to obervational probes of more or less Compton wavelength. Not only that, but reductionism is not the be-all and end-all, we know many situations where dual descriptions are possible, say, point charges becoming magnetic monopoles (global objects) under Montoen-Olive duality.

If you try to argue "everything is explained by atomic physics", not only do you demonstrate a very boring intellect, but you are also fundamentally wrong.

"Emergence" is quite far from an explanation, begging many questions, and is ultimately a cop-out which wants to undo the process of scientific analysis.

t. physicist

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:14:36 2020 No.16396387 >>16395523 >>16395630 Welcome boys and girls to another Obscurantist OP is talking out of his ass thread Don't you just love these? Not a complete waste of time at all

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:17:05 2020 No.16396402 >>16396354 Makes sense intuitively. Science just needs to catch up to it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:20:13 2020 No.16396420 >>16396402 >muh science of the gaps everytime

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:21:41 2020 No.16396427 >>16395523 You have it backwards, though. It's experience of the world that gives rise to atomic theories of physics; atoms are in fact grounded in experience, not the other way around. This should lead you to be skeptical of atoms, not of experience.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:22:28 2020 No.16396433 >>16396364 This is not true t. physicist

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:29:15 2020 No.16396469

>>16395523
You are taking a bottom-up view when a top-down is more appropriate. It's a simple matter that dates back at least to Aristotle. "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts."
>Emergence does not exist so this does not work.
This is patently absurd and you clearly don't understand the concept. Where does the wetness of water come from when individual H2O molecules aren't wet? A single transistor in a compute circuit has very limited capabilities. Add a sufficient number of them in the right configuration, and they can compute anything. This is emergence, because the properties of the elements when combined display new properties as a system.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:34:54 2020 No.16396500 File: 103 KB, 858x649, dennet youre not conscious.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:42:10 2020 No.16396531 >>16396427 >This should lead you to be skeptical of atoms, not of experience I can see where you're coming from, but how can you think this when you can observe people losing their consciousness when their brain is damaged?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:43:01 2020 No.16396536 >>16396420 >it's not real until the numbers say it is I understand this mentality, but I'm not a mathematician, so I don't need to follow it to form judgements on things around me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:43:12 2020 No.16396537 >>16396500 Every time

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:45:33 2020 No.16396547 File: 2.39 MB, 480x360, See Peg Paint.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16395523 how do atoms arise?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:51:00 2020 No.16396572 >>16396500 Fuckin saved

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:52:20 2020 No.16396579 >>16396500 strawman

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:53:07 2020 No.16396586 >>16396579 No.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:55:31 2020 No.16396599 >>16396586 he's not saying you aren't "conscious" per your definition of the word

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:58:12 2020 No.16396610

>>16396531
I'm not denying that we are our bodies. I'm saying that your understanding of physical phenomena is grounded in your experience, and by extension, in your body. Your belief in atoms is a consequence of the interplay between the world and your perceptions, in which we perceive a world of discrete objects, start counting them, and reify counting as fundamental metaphysics. So then we build machines to amplify our capacity for counting, and bring that prejudice into ever more specialized accounts of the world.
This is what this thread is really about, and little surprise that this approach to the world generates massive contradictions. Self-denial is certainly one way to go from here, but not the one I'd recommended.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 12:59:16 2020 No.16396617 >>16396610 So basically Kant?

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 13:05:41 2020 No.16396653

>>16395523
>If we assume assume the solution is in emergence, then we must look for where in the combinations of atoms additional emergent properties arise. But these do not exist. No combination of atoms violates any energy equivalencies, it doesn't violate any form of causal closure, it is completely in line with its hamiltonian and its associated schrodinger equation. Emergence does not exist so this does not work.
what is supposed to be the argument here learn to write intelligibly

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 13:37:49 2020 No.16396830 >>16396531 When you destroy a radio reciever, the music stops playing. Can we thus infer that the radio reciever was creating music?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 13:41:45 2020 No.16396859 >>16396830 >radio receiver Why not refer to the instrument?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 14:45:49 2020 No.16397288 >>16396859 My point was: Damaging the radio stops the music, but music doesn't originate from the radio. Conversely, damaging the brain reduces consciousness, but that necessarily mean that consciousness originates from the brain.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 15:01:36 2020 No.16397386

>>16397288
I understood that. My point was, why is the brain likened to a radio receiver and not to an instrument?

Of course, you could then say that an instrument doesn't create music, because the musician creates it with the instrument. However, the question simply changes to: why isn't the brain likened to the instrument, and cells / genes / what-have-you likened to the musician?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 15:03:14 2020 No.16397392 >>16397386 you'd be saying that your body creates Consciousness ad nihilum

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 15:06:46 2020 No.16397408 >>16397386 To show that, hypotetically, the physical brain could be the reciever (an antenna) for a consciousness/soul that is immaterial

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 15:16:29 2020 No.16397451 >>16397408 How can something physical interact with something immaterial?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 15:27:51 2020 No.16397501 >>16397451 I don't know. My entire point was to show that the common argument: >brain damage reduces consciousness, THEREFORE consciousness must be a product of the brain is an invalid inference.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 15:53:37 2020 No.16397644 >>16397392 >your body creates Consciousness Well yes, that's the implication of emergence theory. Consciousness is a synergistic effect, like "a car in motion" produced by the interaction of its parts along with a driver.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 16:25:20 2020 No.16397842

>>16396469
This is mainly right but philosophers have used misleading language when they imply that emergence means something is added to the system; "the whole is more than its parts". Emergence is actually based on the fact that reducing the degrees of freedom yields a better understanding of the system: the whole is better described when fewer parts are taken into account. Or more accurately, when the effect of the parts is integrated into a simpler whole.

If you want to understand emergence, you should ask a physicist about it and not a philosopher. Or take a look at the formal definition of emergence in physics yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 17:32:18 2020 No.16398281 >>16397501 How about this: measurable brain activity = consciousness No measurable brain activity = no consciousness

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 17:38:55 2020 No.16398330

>>16398281
But why?
The hypothetical p-zombie (a being physically and behaviorally indistinguishable from a human, but not posessing the subjective experience of consciousness) would also have brain activity.
You're presuming that consciousness "happens" in the brain, and thus brain activity is proof of consciousness. It's circular logic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 17:48:11 2020 No.16398399 >>16398330 >p-zombie Doesn't exist. It's just a term used by faggots so they can feel superior.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 17:50:32 2020 No.16398415 >>16398399 >what does hypothetical mean?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 17:51:44 2020 No.16398421 >>16398415 It's not even a hypothetical, it's just a faggot brain fart.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 17:51:53 2020 No.16398422 >>16398330 When you say consciousness you are talking about the experience of one's own personality or individuality?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 17:58:42 2020 No.16398470 >>16398422 There's no one unified definition of consciousness, but let's say I mean the SUBJECTIVE experience of having thoughts and awareness of one's own existence >>16398421 This entire board is just a faggot brain fart

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:00:03 2020 No.16398480 >>16398470 >This entire board is just a faggot brain fart No argument there. In fact, change "board" to "website" to increase accuracy.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:06:00 2020 No.16398519
File: 23 KB, 403x448, blet2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16395523
A single atom isn't a car either. it doesn't have the ability to display porn either. guess there's a fundamental car-property of every single atom and a fundamental "display porn" property of them too.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:08:08 2020 No.16398541
File: 154 KB, 512x546, planetaria.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Materialists are just actual autists who need everything in the known universe ordered like clockwork. It's the same reason they'll make alphabeticalized lists of everything.

>>16398281
Much of your brain isn't conscious though and there's still activity when you're unconscious. Why even enter the discussion if you haven't thought it through for 20 seconds?

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:09:39 2020 No.16398552

>>16395523
The only thing we can say for sure, is that if laws govern everything in the universe, then laws surely govern things like consciousness, and just because we can't figure out exactly what is happening does not mean that it is not happening. Experiences, feelings, and emotions are real, which means that the laws that makes them come into existence are real. Your question has no answer and you're definitely not going to find anything here. The question of "why" can never fully be answered, it just repeats into the an ultimate question. You are never truly going to answer your question until you start trying to answer ultimate questions, because even if we could understand the laws of consciousness it would still not answer the ultimate questions which put those laws into place.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:11:44 2020 No.16398569

>>16395523
>No combination of atoms violates any energy equivalencies, it doesn't violate any form of causal closure, it is completely in line with its hamiltonian and its associated schrodinger equation.
Why would you assume consciousness "violates" the laws of physics? Are you clinically retarded? What's going on?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:11:47 2020 No.16398570 >>16395585 Property dualism isn't true because......

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:12:28 2020 No.16398575 >>16398470 >no one unified definition >SUBJECTIVE So pretty much "I want room so I can intercalate the meaning of the words I'm saying"

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:13:12 2020 No.16398582 >>16398575 You're a bit of a retard, no?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:15:00 2020 No.16398594 >>16398575 Consciousness is clearly a subjective experience. It has nothing to do with vague definitions LMAO

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:18:54 2020 No.16398624 >>16395908 to their ability.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:20:49 2020 No.16398634

>>16398519
There's no ontological leap from atoms to a car. All the new "properties" in every case of emergence are just higher level descriptions of aggregate patterns and behaviour, but consciousness is nothing like a pattern or behaviour.

>>16398569
How come so many lemmings on this site deny the hard problem? You have to be seriously malfunctional if you can't see what the issue is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:21:58 2020 No.16398639 >>16398634 The only "issue" is in your mind, retard. Go back to /x/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:22:37 2020 No.16398646 >>16398634 Based >>16398639 Cringe Or was it the other way around?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:23:41 2020 No.16398652 All atoms are conscious. All parts of the brain are conscious. All organs are conscious. All inanimate objects are conscious. To be conscious simply means you have a perspective.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:24:14 2020 No.16398659 File: 4 KB, 250x250, images (13).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16398639 Congratulations on beating superstition in a demon haunted world anon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:27:06 2020 No.16398677 >>16398594 Consciousness is clearly an objective experience within a certain range. Even though It has nothing to do with definitions it can be well explained LMAO

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:29:56 2020 No.16398692 >>16398677 >Consciousness is clearly an objective experience within a certain range. Elaborate please

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:30:20 2020 No.16398695 >>16398677 You people can't be reasoned with. Everyone who can see what's at stake has to realize it's no longer a debate, it's war.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:30:28 2020 No.16398696 >>16398659 np, have a good one

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:31:36 2020 No.16398705 >>16398692 Consciousness at its simplest is "sentience or awareness of internal or external existence".

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:34:21 2020 No.16398722 >>16398695 Sounds like your alleged "consciousness" didn't meet the cutoff for the objective range, and now you're bitching about it. Go change your tampon, loser.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:34:53 2020 No.16398727 >>16398705 OK, and such awareness is a subjective experience (in simpler words: only Thomas can experience Thomas's consciousness)

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:35:50 2020 No.16398732 >>16398677 How does a subject have an objective experience?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:37:58 2020 No.16398754 >>16398722 One of these days dead on the inside Reddit scientism will be stomped into oblivion by actual humans.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:38:08 2020 No.16398755 >>16398634 no reason to say consciousness is different. it's just information processing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:39:42 2020 No.16398769 >>16398755 No it isn't. Show me where in the configuration of any info there's qualia.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:40:11 2020 No.16398770

>>16395523
>It has no ability to subjectively experience anything.
How can one ever prove or disprove this assertion in the first place, especially when no one really can agree on a simple definition of consciousness in the first place? What if conscious is inherent to all matter? What if there is no cut off between the consciousness of a human, a fly, a plant, a rock, and an atom? What if it's something more like an infinite gradient of increasingly sophisticated awareness, where each perceived "level" of consciousness or awareness builds upon lower or simpler levels? That's more or less what I lean towards, though I realize it doesn't really answer your question.

Anyway, the question you're trying to answer is essentially the oldest and greatest question any man has ever tried to answer. Many lifetimes have been spent trying to find an answer and so far no one has succeeded in finding one that satisfies everyone. I'm not sure it's even possible for anyone alive to fully comprehend, and if it were, it l doubt it could be expressed in words, and doubt even more that anyone here could do so. Good luck though. It may be impossible to answer, but the very act of trying to answer this question may very well the purpose of life itself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:40:37 2020 No.16398775 >>16398755 >consciousness is just information processing Wrong

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:52:47 2020 No.16398866

What compels someone to strive so hard to deprive the other of their perspective? Imagine looking at ants and thinking, "these creatures are not sentient, they don't have a perspective of their own." Some form of pathological disorder is in effect there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 18:55:29 2020 No.16398883 >>16398727 Only Thomas can experience Thomas's consciousness doesn't mean awareness is a subjective experience. Thomas is a human so any human with a regular brain can experience awareness just like Thomas does.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:00:20 2020 No.16398905 >>16398866 Why do you people conflate consciousness with perception as if there's not so much more going on. It's telling you relate to an insect though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:01:50 2020 No.16398918 >>16395523 >emergence is falsified just go one level lower than atoms, bro

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:02:16 2020 No.16398921 >>16398883 Yes. The phenomenon of consciousness exists objectively, but each individual consciousness is entirely subjective.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:02:53 2020 No.16398926 >>16398769 >show me where in the electrical signals going through integrated circuits there's letters and numbers

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:05:58 2020 No.16398945 File: 584 KB, 862x2428, s_b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:07:34 2020 No.16398959 >>16398926 >turning binary to ASCII is equivalent to the hard problem

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:08:09 2020 No.16398964

>>16398905
Perception =/= a perspective. A perspective entails both perception and conception, and it's wholly produced by the body possessing it. It's a concept that doesn't exist in its own right but as multiple processes combined to form a means to communicate their interpolation (which is what all good concepts are).

Now read my post again with this knowledge of what a perspective is. Everything, even the atom, has a perspective.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:11:00 2020 No.16398983 >>16398964 How does an atom perceive and conceive exactly? Panpsychism leads to the notion that even in unconsciousness the brain is still conscious somehow, just in a way that exactly resembles the lack of consciousness to all known observers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:12:44 2020 No.16398999 >>16398634 Higher level entities can have entirely different behaviours though. Think physics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:15:50 2020 No.16399013 >>16398999 Yes, entirely different behaviours. Qualia isn't a behaviour.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:18:10 2020 No.16399021

>>16398983
>How does an atom perceive and conceive exactly?
Not in any way that a human could sympathize with, but it nonetheless does, being that it has a body of its own.

>Panpsychism leads to the notion that even in unconsciousness the brain is still conscious somehow, just in a way that exactly resembles the lack of consciousness to all known observers.
This is pretty close to how I see it. What has to be understood is that what "brain" refers to is something that's made up of many more things. At the level of the smallest bodies making up "brain" there is consciousness. When you wipe away all our conceptions like this and start to examine each thing individually, what you should find is that there is only consciousness throughout, and what "unconscious" means is simply a body of consciousness we do not have a connection with.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:20:07 2020 No.16399034 >>16399021 Imagine being a panpsychist unironically Are you going to tell us about horoscopes, veganism and coffee enemas next?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:25:00 2020 No.16399062 >>16399034 >strawman, ad hominem, and avoiding the issue, all in one go Wonderful.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:25:53 2020 No.16399071

>>16399021
But plenty of your brain isn't conscious either. And you could have red and green swapped and never know the difference, so the idea that color qualia is in some way related to the wavelength like an atom might see it is a big problem for you guys. Panpsychism would end up needing extra ingredients like memory, connectedness, complexity and so on to reproduce human consciousness and even then it doesn't really work because there's more to consciousness than perception anyway. It's more of a cope than a viable theory.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:26:27 2020 No.16399077 >>16399062 I'm just kidding geeez

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:33:16 2020 No.16399106

>>16399071
>But plenty of your brain isn't conscious either.
It's not conscious to "you," as in the parts of your body that have constructed your notion of "you." For those individual parts, they are conscious. This is what I meant by "unconscious" meaning a body of consciousness we do not have a connection with.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:38:45 2020 No.16399136

>>16395523
>If we look at the atom itself and conclude that every atom actually does have an in built ability to experience, then we find a solution to the problem, but this is a property dualist position, which implies that everything, from rocks to pillows to whatever, has some form of subjective experience as well, which seems unlikely - although it may be true.
Unlikely. There would be even more confusion trying to explain how individual particles form a conscious unity. Is my experience experienced by each atom on my brain?

A more acceptable solution is that soul already exists and that the arrangement of atoms allows a connection between body and soul. But that's retarded, different natures can't interact.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:42:22 2020 No.16399152 >>16398945 Dualism is small brain. Far worse than materialism.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:43:59 2020 No.16399166

>>16399106
So somehow the consciousness is additive and can be combined and glued together as well? You didn't address my other issues. What a horrifying picture of reality that there are all these silent, hidden pockets of bizarre experiences we can't even possibly empathize with. You may think it's enchanting i say it's a total nightmare.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:45:36 2020 No.16399178 >>16399136 >different natures can't interact. Elaborate please

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:48:03 2020 No.16399191 >>16399166 Consciousness isn't like your favorite porno mag with its pages "glued" together, loser. Reality does care about your fee-fees.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:49:20 2020 No.16399198 >>16399191 I'm just trying to understand your retarded ontology, no need to get snippy.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:53:56 2020 No.16399229

>>16398921
You are basically saying each individual sentient organism experiments diferent perseptions of reality because environmental circumstances are different to everyone. Again, "this entirely subjective" is not entirely subjetive, this is working within a range inside our brains.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 19:55:20 2020 No.16399235

>>16399198
>>16399191 wasn't me lol

>>16399166
I wouldn't say consciousness is "additive" because it's not really a thing in its own right. It's like... the qualia for a perspective in its totality. It's like the color red after all the processes of the eye, nerves, brain, and so on, come together to produce it. It's an effect, but not one that is only detected by the eye, like the color red, but instead detected by the very self.

Also I assume it doesn't need to be said but I'm really just spitballing here based on what philosophy I've read over the years

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 20:02:40 2020 No.16399267

>>16397842
It's not worth it to get hung up on the word "emergence." It's just a way to refer to the fact that properties of elements different from combined ensembles of those elements.

OP is essentially stating that because a part lacks the properties of a whole, the whole cannot have those properties. This is clearly absurd. Can a transistor do everything a CPU can? A CPU is just an organized set of many transistors. Analogously, retroactively attributing a system property to its minimal element is wrong. An atom cannot do everything a brain can. Consciousness is a property of brains, and perhaps something else.
Put this way it's quite clear why OP is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 20:03:08 2020 No.16399269 >>16399229 Different perceptions is subjectivity. It doesn't matter everyone has a brain, all experience is subjective.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 20:10:37 2020 No.16399307

>>16399229
No. I'm not saying that everybody experiences different events, because that is obvious.
I'm saying that it is impossible to prove that a certain being posesses consciousness.
I know that I am conscious, but how do I know that you are? I can just take your word for it. A sufficiently AI would be able to hold a conversation like this without experiencing any subjective feeling of awareness.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 20:11:06 2020 No.16399310

>>16399235
But if perspectives are truly fundamental on a (sub-)atomic level, how does the brain produce one big one we call the self, if not binding together an extra something? It seems consciousness is conscious of a representation, as far as we can experience there isn't anything like direct perception so this micro-consciousness you propose is so radically unlike our own yet somehow organizes into ours? And qualia is more than just of the perceptual type. Is there any books you can point me to on panpsychism, because on its face it's riddled with issues.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 20:12:58 2020 No.16399317 >>16399310 Panpsychism is just "spiritual" bullshit for the same kind of people that believe in balancing your chakra vibrations and shit. Trying to discuss with them is a waste of keyboard-hours

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 20:21:17 2020 No.16399369 >>16399317 They're better than eliminative materialists who are a real noxious weed to be uprooted for the good of us all.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 20:29:19 2020 No.16399409

>>16399310
You're overgeneralizing. The important question to ask is, what is the minimum definition of consciousness? It is not necessarily a sense of self. A self is a much more complex representation than the smallest possible unit of consciousness.
The minimal definition of consciousness is awareness. Not necessarily awareness of a self, but of a presence that is separate from its surroundings.
You don't need to have a self to have a conscious state. For instance, I am willing to bet that a cockroach has minimal conscious states. It does not have an self aware identity per se, but there is somewhere in its brain where its sensory signals register and integrate all that information.
The cockroach doesn't think of itself as "Steve, the cockroach, with a wife and kids." It doesn't think at all. It lacks the power of self-reflection. But it has some elementary awareness that its body exists in space and that the frog trying to eat it is an object to be avoided. Perhaps the cockroach can survive on reflex alone, but reflexes are constrained by genetic information. How does it know to avoid any fast moving object coming toward it in a certain manner? Perhaps that rule can be minimally encoded in the genes and the cockroach has no awareness. But insects share with humans and higher animals the midbrain structures that encode memories and therefore persist information about the past and allow them to perform computations and act on them.

The self is a much more structured and complex entity, involving many more assumptions than minimal conscious awareness. It involves the neocortex, language, complex sociality and so on.

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 20:39:02 2020 No.16399455

>>16399409
You're not answering my questions. Where does the palette of experience come from, do atoms have some minimal ground state of horniness? If not, why not? Are some atoms horny and not others? Do all experiences inhere in every atom? Sure, atoms can absorb photons, but smell is from complex molecules, so in what sense do they smell?

Anonymous Sat Sep 19 20:55:35 2020 No.16399544

>>16399455
>Where does the palette of experience come from
Not him, but from the body in question. That's what I was getting at here >>16399235. When an eye detects the color red, it isn't receiving anything from the outside; it's experiencing the effect of itself on the environment. And this doesn't apply just to the color red, but to all of a thing's properties.

>Sure, atoms can absorb photons, but smell is from complex molecules, so in what sense do they smell?
Unless they have what we would consider to be a nose, then it doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 21:02:23 2020 No.16399575 >>16399544 So the qualia atoms experience is radically different to ours because they lack perceptual apparatus, but this wholly other minimal qualia somehow combines into the basic, seemingly irreducible, qualia that we're familiar with?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 19 23:12:59 2020 No.16400134 >>16399021 you might enjoy reading Shankara if you haven't already

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 05:26:30 2020 No.16401730

>>16395523
There's a couple assumptions to unravel and you're playing language games.
First you need to define 'illusion', 'consciousness' and 'experience'.
You can describe complex systems by describing the parts that constitute them in a fine-grained and detailed manner, or you could use heuristics or statistics, make (sweeping) generalizations and employ categories, models and systems that explain 'a bigger picture'.
A traffic jam could thus be described as the detailed arrangement of the cars stuck in it down to the last atom, including drivers and roadwork. From a human perspective other factors may be more interesting and illuminating: size and shape of the road, response times and organization of helpers, psychology of driving, laws that influence behaviour and so on. To really understand a regular congestion though, you would do fine to explain it using concepts like rush hour and (poor) infrastructure. Are these concepts metaphysical in nature? Yes, but you could argue they're just human language categories employed to systematize human experiences. Are they 'real'? Yes, but again, they're not special. They could just be named any other way and they are inherently arbitrary - why do we name these concepts but not others? Because they are subjectively important enough for us to make labeling them worthwhile. But in essense there's no higher purpose to a 'traffic jam'; this concept doesn't have more 'weight' to it than a 'non-traffic jam', an uncongested, free road.
I think it's the same deal with consciousness. What we perceive isn't anything spectacular from an outside perspective. It's the same as atoms bonding, just more complex. So 'experience' obviously does 'exist', but this is the point of view of the thinking-machine describing its process of thinking. It would be ludicrous for molecules to celebrate their reactions, but in essence the same underlying principles apply to both. That's the human illusion of perceived self-importance.
This reply itself is a language game and ultimately doesn't reach any worthwhile conclusions. None are to be gained from discussing free will and consciousness.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 05:52:18 2020 No.16401807
File: 68 KB, 500x500, tenned.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

How does life arise from atoms?

Take a single atom of any element. It has no ability to live and reproduce and any other things characteristic to organic life. Take two atoms and have them form an atomic bond to form a molecule. Still no ability to live arises. Take any arbitrary amount of atoms and organize them into any arrangement possible - Still no ability to live arises.

Whether or not the life is an "illusion" or not makes no difference - living an illusion is still a life. In any case we consider, no collection of atoms organized into any arrangement can produce the ability to live.

Yet humans and animals have lives all the time. There is more empirical evidence for the fact that you have lives than there is for anything else that exists, so denying the existence of life is falsified and not to be considered. So something must be wrong with the original hypothesis.

If we assume assume the solution is in emergence, then we must look for where in the combinations of atoms additional emergent properties arise. But these do not exist. No combination of atoms violates any energy equivalencies, it doesn't violate any form of causal closure, it is completely in line with its hamiltonian and its associated schrodinger equation. Emergence does not exist so this does not work.

If we look at the atom itself and conclude that every atom actually does have an in built ability to life, then we find a solution to the problem, but this is a property dualist position, which implies that everything, from rocks to pillows to whatever, has some form of life as well, which seems unlikely - although it may be true.

What the heck is going on here, /lit/? I asked this yesterday but needed to go somewhere so I wasn't able to participate in the thread. Reading the archives, there was no answer to this question that wasn't simply dumb retards attempting to salvage the emergence explanation despite the fact that emergence is falsified.

(OP if it's not clear I think you're dumb as a door, I might type a serious answer but it's gonna be one of those threads isn't it)

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 06:08:49 2020 No.16401860

>>16395523

Fuck it, here we go, a serious reply:

>Take a single atom of any element. It has no ability to subjectively experience anything.
I like this premise. Let's start by assuming this is true.
>Take two atoms and have them form an atomic bond to form a molecule. Still no ability to experience anything arises.
So far so good.
>Take any arbitrary amount of atoms and organize them into any arrangement possible - Still no ability to experience anything arises.
Wait, really? What if I organize the atoms to form a living creature with a complex brain? What if I organize the atoms to form a perfect clone of you.
>Whether or not the experience is an "illusion" or not makes no difference - experiencing an illusion is still an experience. In any case we consider, no collection of atoms organized into any arrangement can produce the ability to experience anything.
Again, just imagine I organize them into the same arrangement that currently is you. Even if you believe in some weird spooky shit from some other realm interacting with your atoms, you surely must agree that your physical body is made of atoms. So just imagine I make a perfect physical replica of you. It seems you're just choosing to believe that replica can't have experiences?
>Yet humans and animals have experiences all the time.
That's my point! And they're made of atoms.
>There is more empirical evidence for the fact that you have experiences than there is for anything else that exists, so denying the existence of experience is falsified and not to be considered.
This is not that trivial. I also don't like when Dennet denies the existence of experience or consciousness, but I can somewhat understand what he might be meaning there. Imagine you grab a stick and it's easy to break. Now you grab a bundle of sticks and it's hard to break. There's something clearly different happening with the bundle, but if you give it some special name for this non breaking property (like "bundleness") someone could probably argue that doesn't actually exist as a separate thing. But I'm really not sure if this is what he means, and it's not relevant to the fact that consciousness and experience could arise from atoms, which is the central point here.
(continues)

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 06:16:37 2020 No.16401884 >>16398959 >it's hard and mysterious because it's hard and mysterious bro >nooo your explanation isn't hard and mysterious enough, it's unsolvable! science and materialism btfo!

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 06:18:48 2020 No.16401888

>>16401860

>So something must be wrong with the original hypothesis.
Well, seeing the above, no.
>If we assume assume the solution is in emergence, then we must look for where in the combinations of atoms additional emergent properties arise. But these do not exist.
You say this, but gotta demonstrate that. One atom by itself doesn't present crystal properties, but arranging many of them they do. One carbon atom doesn't present graphene properties, but multiple combined in a specific arrangement do. Change the arrangement and it becomes graphite, diamonds ,etc.
>No combination of atoms violates any energy equivalencies, it doesn't violate any form of causal closure, it is completely in line with its hamiltonian and its associated schrodinger equation.
This might scare the average /lit/izen but anyone with an undegrad level of physics knows this word salad didn't mean anything. If you actually were trying to say something here I suggest you try and explain it again. What does any of this have to do with emergence? You sound like Lacan trying to talk about math and coming across as dumb.
>Emergence does not exist so this does not work.
This doesn't seem to be demonstrated so far.
>If we look at the atom itself and conclude that every atom actually does have an in built ability to experience, then we find a solution to the problem, but this is a property dualist position, which implies that everything, from rocks to pillows to whatever, has some form of subjective experience as well, which seems unlikely - although it may be true.
That's Galen's position, and it was refuted by Papineau in 2006 if I'm not mistaken.

>What the heck is going on here, /lit/?
You're either trolling or slightly out of your depth.
>I asked this yesterday but needed to go somewhere so I wasn't able to participate in the thread. Reading the archives, there was no answer to this question that wasn't simply dumb retards attempting to salvage the emergence explanation despite the fact that emergence is falsified.
I'm gonna be very disappointed if you just pretend I didn't post and don't respond.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 06:29:28 2020 No.16401926
File: 659 KB, 1250x1057, neural network.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This is an example that maybe is not ideal for this board, but just imagine an AI, a neural network like pic related. Each of the circles is called a "neuron", and it basically receives a number and decides if it's gonna pass along a number or not. These things are remarkably good at learning to do a few things, let's say classify images of dogs.

What this means is that, after trained, a neural network receives the image of the dog as inputs, the values of the colors in each pixel being the input, and those numbers go into the first column of circles there. Then each circle decides if it passes along the information or not, etc etc, until on the last neuron you get a single number that tells you if the image is a dog or not.
Let's say this neural network never makes mistakes. I could give you all the values of all the variables involved here. All the lines in pic related, all the weights on the connections between circles, everything. You would have a bunch of numbers in front of you. And then I'd say "show me where the dog classification knowledge is" and you'd be stumped. Science hasn't figured this out yet. We are just only starting to learn how to probe this bunch of numbers to retrieve useful knowledge for humans, but the fact is, in just a bunch of fucking circles connected you can somehow store relevant information for processing dog images into correct classifications.

If I used the same arguments as a lot of people in this thread we'd end up accepting that there must non physical properties aiding the decision process of the AI, since we humans can't look at the bunch of numbers of the individual components and understand how the decision was made. This is of course ridiculously stupid. It's similarly stupid for the human brain case.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 07:40:43 2020 No.16402150 >>16396433 What in particular did I write that was wrong. What's your field?

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 08:10:25 2020 No.16402254

>>16401926
>there must non physical properties aiding the decision process of the AI

yes. you already admitted of logic and mathematics. time, space, property and identity. And what you're saying here doesn't prove that the computer is having an experience of identifying pictures of dogs, just that it can do it.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 08:56:34 2020 No.16402413

>>16396469
"wetness" doesn't exist. Molecules of water form slight bonds because the angle of the covalent bond lends a slightly more negative charge on the oxygen side of the molecule which causes it to "stick" to other objects. This is not "emergence" this is an EXACT sum of the bonds of the parts of hydrogen and oxygen into water.
The exact same holds for the transistors etc. There is no "emergence" in any of these systems.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 09:05:51 2020 No.16402455 >>16399267 > ignore every nuance proposed in OP > skate past the intellectually rigorous step of providing a rationale for why those nuances don't matter > "you see? if you accept my axioms, it's clear that everyone else is mistaken!"

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 09:09:43 2020 No.16402465 >>16401807 I'm far smarter than you.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 09:23:03 2020 No.16402521

>>16402150
>To analyze is to break into parts. Further, the domain of validity of an atomist description is confined to obervational probes of more or less Compton wavelength. Not only that, but reductionism is not the be-all and end-all, we know many situations where dual descriptions are possible, say, point charges becoming magnetic monopoles (global objects) under Montoen-Olive duality.
I'm not a physicist, just intellectually honest with a basic grasp of science and all of this is either wrong or not relevant. you're retarded and pretentious.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 09:24:55 2020 No.16402525 >>16402465 nope, you're clearly a deluded moron. an intelligent person would never write the OP. not even the guy you're responding to.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 09:58:07 2020 No.16402693 >>16396364 nobody gives a fuck what you do. its an anonymous imageboard, trying to get clout as an authority just makes you less credible since you are obviously more at home on reddit. fuck off t. hang yourself niggerlover

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 10:00:11 2020 No.16402701 >>16395523 This is exactly what's been baffling me the past months, how could feelings and senses be created by anything other than God?

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 11:03:10 2020 No.16403088

>>16399575
>the qualia atoms experience is radically different to ours because they lack perceptual apparatus
Yes

>this wholly other minimal qualia somehow combines into the basic, seemingly irreducible, qualia that we're familiar with
No. There's no higher/lower qualia or higher/lower consciousness like this. Consciousness isn't built up on top of smaller consciousness.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 11:49:48 2020 No.16403337
File: 1.87 MB, 365x365, emergence.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16402413
You're wrong, think harder. Interactions between simple things lead to more sophisticated arrangements that 'behave' in ways the constituents alone cannot. Any -system- (the existence of which you seem to accept) is an emergent thing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 12:46:13 2020 No.16403595 >>16402701 What do you mean by God?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 15:29:14 2020 No.16404469 >>16399013 >Qualia isn't a behaviour. They are. We are talking about qualia, therefore the affect our behavior.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 15:35:34 2020 No.16404504 File: 31 KB, 1127x955, sould body.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16395523 >How does experience arise from atoms? It does not.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 15:53:53 2020 No.16404629 >>16402455 You don't have to deal with "nuances" if the core of the argument is false.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 16:28:36 2020 No.16404826 >>16402465 I knew you, fucking coward, weren't gonna reply to my fucking posts dismantling your initial post. Fucking midwit piece of shit. Answer to these or fucking delete this thread already, you baiting motherfucker. >>16401860 >>16401888

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 16:44:49 2020 No.16404939

>>16395523
>Take a single atom of any element. It has no ability to bark. Take two atoms and have them form an atomic bond to form a molecule. Still no ability to bark. Take any arbitrary amount of atoms and organize them into any arrangement possible - Still no ability to bark arises.
>What the heck is going on here, /lit/? How are dogs possible?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 16:46:39 2020 No.16404950 >>16404939 I find it hard to believe OP isn't a subtle troll, but at least the thread ignited some discussion.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 16:54:02 2020 No.16404997

>>16395523
>Take a single atom of any element. It has no ability to subjectively experience anything.
Error: you have no abiliity to know if that is certain, and in fact if a human is nothing but a set of quanta, then experience proves to the contrary what you are saying here. Not only are those who believe in that statement ignorant that they might be wrong, they have evidence to the contrary of what they are saying. I can then deduce that either:
a) they have not progressed intellectually to the point of considering experience as linked to the body, or
b) they are purposely lying about what they believe because they want to have an argument and overcome the hardships and attacks present therein against them, thereby making them a better thinker.
So such ignorant or disingenuous people can be ignored for the time being, unless they provide evidence to the contrary of those two deductions.
>If we look at the atom itself and conclude that every atom actually does have an in built ability to experience, then we find a solution to the problem, but this is a property dualist position, which implies that everything, from rocks to pillows to whatever, has some form of subjective experience as well, which seems unlikely - although it may be true.
Error: the existence of both mind and body does not necessitate dualism if you take each as an aspect of substance. Then such dualism is eliminated, as it is clear that any mode of substance is necessarily a mode of thought and a mode of body. As such, the two are not dual, they are different expressions of one and the same substance.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 16:55:23 2020 No.16405008 >>16396547 I make them

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 17:25:31 2020 No.16405226

>>16401888
>That's Galen's position, and it was refuted by Papineau in 2006 if I'm not mistaken.
When people say an idea was refuted, and then do not mention the refutation itself, and only use such conversations as a quick appeal to authority to discredit a position, then it can be inferred that a midwit pseudointellectual is the typer of the "argument".

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 18:03:34 2020 No.16405538

>>16405226
>SUMMARIZE 35 PAGES OF DISCUSSION FOR ME RIGHT NOW OR YOU'RE A PSEUD
Here we go, baby. Don't worry, mommy is gonna spoon feed this to you. Here's the main takeaway from Papineau (formatting is a bit fucked up from copy pasting, but you can still read it):

>It might seem as if straightforward physicalism still owes some further explanation that can’t be given in straightforwardly physical terms.Why is it like something to have a brain state that is active in a global workspace, say? Why are just those brain states conscious, and others not? Surely this is just the same mystery as motivates Strawson; and surely it cannot be answered simply by showing how global workspace activity can be realized by some complicated arrangement of non-experiential physical simples. However, the demand for further explanation depends on the intuition that conscious mind and physical brain are distinct. If we did not have this intuition, we would not feel there was anything more to explain. Perhaps the point is easiest to see with some specific phenomenal category, like pain, say. Suppose, for the sake of the argument,that pain is identified with C-fibre firings. Do we still need to explain why C-fibre firings ‘give rise to’ pain? I say not. If C-fibre firings are pains, then there is no remaining question of why pains are found where C-fibres are firing.
Given that’s what C-fibre firings are, there’s no possibility of their being otherwise. To ask for further explanation illegitimately presupposes that the pain is distinct from the brain state. Sometimes people accept this point for pains and other specific phenomenal categories but resist it for the general category of consciousness as such. Why should it be just that range of physical states,and not some other, that ‘gives rise to’ feelings? But the straightforward physicalist should simply say the same thing again. If activity in a global works pace is consciousness, there’s no issue of explaining why it is — it couldn’t have been otherwise. The request for explanation arises only as long as we remain in the grip of the intuition that being conscious must be extra to any straightforward physical property.So I see nothing wrong with explaining the ‘emergence’ of consciousness from non-experiential physical simples. If the property of being conscious is identical to some straightforward physical prop-erty, there can be no barrier to such an explanation. We are only driven towards panpsychism if we posit a radical divide between the experiential and non-experiential realms. Straightforward physicalism rejects any such divide. Those who listen to argument, and ignore brute intuition, can thus steer clear of panpsychism.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 18:24:24 2020 No.16405673

>>16405538
Absolutely retarded. C fibre firing is nothing like pain. That's the problem.
>>16403088
This doesn't solve the problem at all then. If there's no pixels of qualia then where does ours come from and how do you know this?
>>16404469
>affecting our behaviour == behaviour
No.

How can this board be well read and still be lousy with rank physicalists ludicrously proclaiming there's nothing weird at all? Are these /sci/ tourists?

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 18:33:55 2020 No.16405738

>>16405673
>Absolutely retarded. C fibre firing is nothing like pain. That's the problem.
C-fibre firing IS pain. You don't need anything else to explain it. You are just choosing to add variables to something that is already explainable as it is. Occam says BAD!

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 18:36:52 2020 No.16405761 >>16405738 You're like an alien to me, you freakish scientism shills need forced reeducation at minimum.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 18:44:57 2020 No.16405806 >>16405761 Maybe thinking isn't for you. If you think this particular problem is the most counter-intuitive nature can get you'd be surprised.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 18:52:39 2020 No.16405871 >>16405806 Quantum and relativistic weirdness has nothing on consciousness. If you're so deeply dissociated from what it's like to be human, can you even be called one?

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 18:54:10 2020 No.16405881
File: 25 KB, 600x600, a6029-decisive.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16395523
>“All that is outside, also is inside,” we could say with Goethe. But this “inside,” which modern rationalism is so eager to derive from “outside,” has an a priori structure of its own that antedates all conscious experience. It is quite impossible to conceive how “experience” in the widest sense, or, for that matter, anything psychic, could originate exclusively in the outside world. The psyche is part of the inmost mystery of life, and it has its own peculiar structure and form like every other organism. Whether this psychic structure and its elements, the archetypes, ever “originated” at all is a metaphysical question and therefore unanswerable. The structure is something given, the precondition that is found to be present in every case. And this is the mother, the matrix—the form into which all experience is poured.

Plato said the same thing in the Timaeus.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 19:10:51 2020 No.16405980

>>16405871
>Quantum and relativistic weirdness has nothing on consciousness.
Meaningless statement. Also, you called me a pseud for "appealing to authority" (when I was just citing sources), and I gave you the full explanation. Your response was:
>Absolutely retarded. C fibre firing is nothing like pain. That's the problem.
Are you gonna give an actual answer or fuck off already? The guy who took your position had to write a 20 something page paper to at least try to defend it (he still failed anyway). You're playing way out of your depth here. Go back to some youtube philosophy videos or something.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 19:15:06 2020 No.16406013

>>16405980
Explaining the hard problem to you people is like teaching a dog calculus. It can't be done, because there's something defective inside you. I'm uninterested in changing your mind, which is impossible anyway, but rather in alerting lurkers to the real danger your ilk poses given the gravity of the situation.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 19:18:41 2020 No.16406036

>>16406013
>Explaining the hard problem to you people is like teaching a dog calculus
Again, meaningless. The paper I cited is from ~2010s, so this is a very active discussion. You have no argument, you have nothing. People who are more knowledgeable than you are discussing this at length in academic papers, I read both and found Papineau more convincing, you're literally a sperg writing shit thinking you're smarter than everyone involved. I hope you at least realize how embarrassingly oblivious you are.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 19:26:51 2020 No.16406096

>>16405673
>If there's no pixels of qualia then where does ours come from and how do you know this?
>no pixels of qualia
I don't know what you mean by this. When did I say there's no qualia? Also, I feel like I've answered this question already... consciousness is not a thing one possesses but a label referring to an effect produced through the combination of biological processes (labeled "organism") imprinting itself on the environment (labeled "perspective"). It doesn't make any sense to treat consciousness as a property in itself, especially given Kant's argument that time, space, and causality are subjective (as in they are conditioned by the subject), leaving what's unconditioned by the subject to be... virtually nothing at all.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 19:31:20 2020 No.16406123 >>16406096 It's useless arguing with that guy. He'll just keep insisting we are stupid p-zombies, and that he has an amazing argument to destroy us, but he'll never present it.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 19:34:40 2020 No.16406149

>>16406036
My argument is what pain feels like, which is nowhere to be found in the most complete description of C fibres we have. It's self explanatory and couldn't be simpler. Phenomenality of experience is primary data and so no real empiricist can disregard it. This is well known and I shouldn't have to reiterate it. You called qualia a "variable" and invoked parsimony to excise it, and you have the temerity to call others muddled thinkers. Besides, it isn't about you personally, you don't matter at all, but it's more the fact that actual research is potentially being guided by eliminativist attitudes now that is the worry to anyone not completely mentally ruined by dogmatic metaphysical naturalism as you are.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 19:46:22 2020 No.16406227

>>16406096
You're side stepping the issue, whether it's a property or effect doesn't matter. I'm asking how the brain generates the specific qualia familiar to us if it doesn't draw from a pre-existing "palette" in nature. If there's just a what it's like to be a certain brain process as a brute fact then why is panpsychism necessary as an explanation at all?

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 19:51:23 2020 No.16406252

>>16406227
> I'm asking how the brain generates the specific qualia familiar to us if it doesn't draw from a pre-existing "palette" in nature.
But it DOES draw from a "palette": the nervous system and various other shit. Go read some books on neuroscience, anatomy, genetics etc. if you're so interested.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 19:54:46 2020 No.16406266 >>16406123 Seems like that's the case

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 19:55:04 2020 No.16406272 >>16406252 You don't understand the question. You're talking about systems supporting the cognition of consciousness, I'm talking about atoms of experience. I have read neuroscience and nowhere in it is there any remotely good explanation for qualia.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 19:56:25 2020 No.16406280 >>16406272 >the cognition of consciousness This is gibberish. You're acting like consciousness is a thing onto itself that we grasp, when it's actually the "grasping" action itself, nothing more.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 20:07:38 2020 No.16406343 >>16406280 Even if it isn't a metaphysical substance you still haven't weasled out of the problems I raised.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 20:11:53 2020 No.16406373 >>16406343 There's no problem. You say you've read books on neuroscience, but it doesn't seem like you understood them. We get closer and closer to having the full biological process mapped out, and there's no stopping us on this path in sight.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 20:15:24 2020 No.16406402
File: 391 KB, 572x613, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16395523

>Take two atoms and have them form an atomic bond to form a molecule. Still no ability to experience anything arises.

The atom experiencing the other atom doesn't count because ... ???

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 20:15:51 2020 No.16406404 >>16406373 Yes I know all about thalamocortical oscillations and that doesn't help at all. What specific text justifies your claims, especially panpsychism?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 20:17:02 2020 No.16406413 >>16405881 Based daddy Jung /thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 20:24:58 2020 No.16406477 >>16406404 There aren't specific texts, dude, and there's no helping you on this, clearly.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 20:25:47 2020 No.16406487

>>16406149
>My argument is what pain feels like
And my argument is that when certain neurons fire (or C-fibres, or whatever other biological component of you nervous system) your brain state changes to situation that makes you go "this is what it is like to feel pain".
>so no real empiricist can disregard it. This is well known and I shouldn't have to reiterate it.
You sound exactly as disgustingly dishonest as Galen does on his paper. Makes me wonder if you are him. You keep stating things as obvious just to shield yourself, when that kills the entire premise of you having to demonstrate. Empiricists don't have to deny you have consciousness or experience to claim that those are tied to your biological structures. I'm not denying you have a consciousness, I'm not denying you have experiences, all I'm saying is these names you're giving are to things that happen when certain parts of your body do certain things, like firing electrinc signals. I don't even have to "deny qualia". You are just so adamantly opposed to the idea that qualia could be explained by physical primitives, because of a FEELING/INTUITION you have (and it's absolutely, literally just this, you just "feel" there's no way it's physical, it just feels different), that you must disregard any option which doesn't follow this line.
And then you have the audacity to claim shit about research when research by excellence is and will likely always be designed and promulgated by people like me because we actually make testable claims about physical things that can be searched for. What type of research do you propose for measuring your "micro-qualia" (another idea also present in Galen's work), which are necessarily not physical in your framework?
Fuck off, you are massive fucking embarrassment. To think that there are people like you that might waste time and effort and resources looking for "magic" to explain how the brain work makes me sick.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 20:27:11 2020 No.16406493 What does it mean to "experience" something?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 20:27:36 2020 No.16406496 File: 113 KB, 900x750, Carl Jung.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16406413 Come to papa.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 20:33:59 2020 No.16406549

>>16406487
Not that guy, but you are really embarrassing yourself with your second-rate knowledge of medicine. I doubt you're even moderately educated when it comes to that topic.
Let's say that the C-fibres (not the only neurons which have a role in the sensation of pain, by the way) are activated and the action potentials start firing. The depolarization of the neurons will keep going until it comes to a specific region in the brain, after which we will feel pain. The question is - how do the action potentials get converted to pain? You can't conflate the action potentials with the pain (or any other experience) itself. They are what makes us experience pain (in this specific example).

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 20:45:32 2020 No.16406611

>>16406487
You're saying it's just a cognition like an internal narrative but that doesn't come close to exhausting the phenomena. I don't object to a physical explanation, it's just that *seems* impossible now but I'm open to it, what I object to is "people" like you who are so cavalier as to act like the deepest mystery in the known universe is already solved. The research is in part being propelled by people like you and that's risky for us as a species because everything that matters to us as human beings happens within our consciousness. It's the astonishing arrogance of your dismissiveness in the face of this that's so alarming.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 20:49:26 2020 No.16406642

>>16405538
You do realize this is an argument against Cartesian dualism using a less intelligent proof of attribute parallelism and thus demonstrates the very idea you said it claimed to refute? Moreover, if such an attribute parallelism is to be regarded as "physicalist", it would be just as correct to regard it as "idealist", since in such a non-dual linkage of mind and body, it is obvious that mind is a property of body just as much as body is a property of mind.
>We are only driven towards panpsychism if we posit a radical divide between the experiential and non-experiential realms. Straightforward physicalism rejects any such divide.
Error: pure panpsychism, or idealism, is just as much critiqued in his argument as physicalism, or pure materialism. Moreover, he does not "refute" panpsychic materialism, he instead shows that material is not necessarily panpsychic since he can think of an interpretation to the contrary, which is again another failure in your own reasoning as to the power of his argument. It is not a refutation, it is simply a restatement of your opinion.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 20:53:57 2020 No.16406669

>>1640664
Continued, because I forgot to make an important point.
>We are only driven towards panpsychism if we posit a radical divide between the experiential and non-experiential realms. Straightforward physicalism rejects any such divide
Panpsychism does not necessitate cartesian dualism, and I don't know where this idiot got the idea that it did.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 20:56:26 2020 No.16406679 >>16406642 Below is me: >>16406669

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 20:58:28 2020 No.16406702

>>16395523
The organ that sees is not sight.
The organ that tastes is not taste.
The organ that feels is not feeling.
The organ that hears is not hearing.
The organ that smells is not smell.
The brain that produces an image of an apple in my mind is not the image of the apple.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 20:58:45 2020 No.16406706 >>16406373 >We get closer and closer to having the full biological process mapped out This is not true, we are no closer than we were in like 1970

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:01:09 2020 No.16406719 >>16406702 The organ that sees can have the property of sight, though. And, vice versa, sight can have as a property the organ that sees.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:01:27 2020 No.16406721

>>16406706
>we're no closer 50 years ago
Pray tell what number of years does Little Lord Fauntleroy consider to be the threshold for significant progress? Also, you're full of shit anyway, I mean HGP wrapped up in 2003 for example and research is ongoing.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:02:42 2020 No.16406732

>>16406642
The work he is responding to was a 20 page paper "proving" physicalism necessarily implies panpsychism, which incidentally is something OP and the other moron (which I'm not sure if it's also OP) are trying to push here as well. As you noted:
>he instead shows that material is not necessarily panpsychic
Which is a successful refutation of the claim that physicalism entails panpsychism. My claim is that you do not need panpsychism to explain this, and that physicalism can be enough. What you just said doesn't seem to go against that either.
>it is obvious that mind is a property of body just as much as body is a property of mind.
That's just a naming convention by that point, and I don't care either way. We could then change the name of Physics Laws to "Mind-sics Laws" or "Monism-sics Laws". It's irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:03:01 2020 No.16406733 >>16406721 >and research is ongoing. And progress is not being made

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:03:07 2020 No.16406736 >>16406719 and notice with this clear description we are led yet again into property parallelism. It truly is inescapable. Dualists must be shaking in their boots.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:04:05 2020 No.16406744 >>16406732 Both me (who is the op) and the other guy you're calling a moron, are far smarter than you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:04:54 2020 No.16406750 >>16406733 You're part of all of the research teams? And you didn't answer my question.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:05:03 2020 No.16406752

>>16406732
>The work he is responding to was a 20 page paper "proving" physicalism necessarily implies panpsychism, which incidentally is something OP and the other moron (which I'm not sure if it's also OP) are trying to push here as well.
Oh, then I am on his (and your) side, and I am completely disgusted by OP and the enemy of that essay.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:05:49 2020 No.16406761 >>16406750 >You're part of all of the research teams? No, just one >And you didn't answer my question. You're an idiot

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:08:42 2020 No.16406782 >>16406487 Why haven't you responded to >>16406549 and >>16406611

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:09:52 2020 No.16406788 File: 237 KB, 1024x723, ayahuasqueros-healing-1024x723.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] How to fix physicalists bros? Could psychedelics reattach their cognitions to the qualia or are they stuck as bugmen for life?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:13:11 2020 No.16406809 >>16406761 >You're an idiot Says the ADHD retard claiming there's no progress being made because there's no gigantic breakthroughs happening every arbitrary unit of time that suits your autistic fancy.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:25:03 2020 No.16406889

>>16406788
Can't fix what isn't broken.
>>16406549
>I doubt you're even moderately educated when it comes to that topic.
You'd be surprised.
>how do the action potentials get converted to pain?
By triggering action potentials and responses in the related set of neurons that cause all of the events you describe as pain. For the sake of an example, let's imagine there's 500 neurons in your brain that must be activated at any given point in time for you to feel pain in your right knee at a given point in time. You hit your knee on a table, a sequence of biological signal are sent from your knee to your brain and back, after a short time all those 500 neurons are in a given activation state, at this point your cognition goes "I am feeling pain". Of course we don't have this fully mapped out to the utmost details yet, but nothing besides a reasoning in these lines seems to be necessary to explain the situation.
>>16406611
>deepest mystery in the known universe is already solved
Everyone is gonna say that of their favorite mystery of the universe. Whether it's the beginning of time, the end of time, time, space, mind. The special place you put mind in is because you started considering it non physical, and you still do to a large degree, with physicalism seemingly plausible but most likely impossible.
>everything that matters to us as human beings happens within our consciousness. It's the astonishing arrogance of your dismissiveness in the face of this that's so alarming.
I don't understand what drives this panic. I never denied consciousness, and I think even when Dennet denies consciousness he is not saying what you think he is saying. We are not trying to deny you experience special things. We are not trying to deny the feeling of a first kiss with your loved one is special. Or that the smell of a perfume or the experience of listening to a half diminished chord or seeing a painting by Bocelli are special. Saying these things are physical, or can be traced to physical primitives does NOT devalue them. The fact I come across as cavalier is because defending my position at all in this echochamber reuslts in being called "bugman", "p-zombie", etc etc, as happened several times in my thread, so it requires me to answer in a more forward stance as well. I'm sure you're not bothered by the teenage level of argumentation of calling someone a "bugman" "oh no bros how do we fix physicalists" "you don't have a consciousness!!!111!11".
Why such a blatant double standard?

Why would consciousness being physical mean it's not special anymore? When for the first time we showed life can plausibly come from inanimate matter, does this mean life is not special anymore? Does it hurt so much to have your perspective changed, that all of the sudden all is lost?

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:25:28 2020 No.16406891
File: 31 KB, 640x480, 1582679850438.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Take a single atom of any poo. It has no ability to subjectively experience anything. Take two poo atoms and have them form an poo atomic bond to form a poo molecule. Still no ability to experience anything like poo arises. Take any arbitrary amount of poo atoms and organize them into any poo arrangement possible - Still no ability to poo anything arises.

Whether or not the poo is an "illusion" or not makes no difference - experiencing an illusion of poo is still to poo. In any case we consider, no collection of poo atoms organized into any poo arrangement can produce the poo ability to poo anything.

Yet bipedal pooers and and poopies have experiences of poo all the time. There is more empooical evidence for the fact that you have poo than there is for anything else than poo that exists, so denying the existence of poo is falsified and not to be conpood. So something must be poorong with the original hypoothesis.

If we poo poo the solution is in emergency, then we must look for where in the combinations of poo additional emergent pooperties arise. But these do not exist. No combination of poo violates any energy poovalencies, it doesn't vipoo any form of causal closure, it is compoo in line with its excrementonian and its associated schrodinger epooption. Poo emergency does not exist so this does not work.

If we look at the poo itself and conclude that every poo actually does have an in built ability to poo, then we find a solution to the pooblem, but this is a pooperty dualist poosition, which implies that everything, from poo to poopies to shitever, has some form of shitty expoorience as well, which seems unlikely - although it may be shit.

What the heck is going on here, /shit/? I pooped this yesterday but needed to go somewhere so I wasn't able to participate in the thread. Reading the archives, there was no answer to this question that wasn't simply dumb retards attempting to salvage the emergency expoonation despite the fact that shitigence is falsified.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:30:10 2020 No.16406920 >>16395523 mental masturbation, how does it work?

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:30:20 2020 No.16406922

>>16406889
>For the sake of an example, let's imagine there's 500 neurons in your brain that must be activated at any given point in time for you to feel pain in your right knee at a given point in time. You hit your knee on a table, a sequence of biological signal are sent from your knee to your brain and back, after a short time all those 500 neurons are in a given activation state, at this point your cognition goes "I am feeling pain". Of course we don't have this fully mapped out to the utmost details yet, but nothing besides a reasoning in these lines seems to be necessary to explain the situation.
It's tragic to see someone missing the point this much. You described how the process of feeling pain starts (the action potentials which start firing from specific neurons), not how we experience pain itself.
>after a short time all those 500 neurons are in a given activation state, at this point your cognition goes "I am feeling pain"
It's impossible that you fail to see that at this very spot you went from an "action potentials are firing" to "we feel pain" without anything to explain this change.
X ---> ? ---> Y
X = action potentials
Y = pain

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:35:01 2020 No.16406955

>>16406922
>not how we experience pain itself.
You need to be willing to step out of your usual way of looking at this to try to see my argument. You might not agree with me, but you must do that to at least understand what I am saying.
What you call "we", and what you call "I" or "you" or "experience", in my example, are indistinguishable from a certain set of neurons being activated. Now because we know our body still works even when we are asleep, it seems that there are many sets of neurons that can be activated without influencing what we understand as "conscioussness", or "we", or "I".
But there seems to be a set of neurons that does indeed influence what we call "consciousness" or "we" or "I". The neurons that do subconscious stuff and the neurons that do conscious stuff seem to communicate (there are plenty of experiments in lab, and also we can feel this on a daily basis).

What I am trying to say is that at some point, when 500 neurons in that example are active, the right set of subconscious and conscious parts of your brain are at the point where "you" "experience" "pain". Does that make more sense?

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:41:26 2020 No.16406987

>>16406889
When people call you a p zombie it's because it's almost impossible to empathize with someone like you, someone who thinks for example that identification of where/when consciousness arises says anything about how it does. It's mind bending that you exist, really. One can only speculate that it's a basic difference in our cognitive architecture, whether your dogmatism is responsible or even some kind of focal lesions, who knows? It's not that consciousness is special in the sense that all those other things you listed are, as if we're just chasing mystery for the sake of some romantic sentimentalism or quaint attachment to an élan vital, it's that consciousness is the sum total of all those experiences and every other one. It's vitally important, and couldn't really be much more important. Which is why I suggest principled agnosticism is the only responsible way to go.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:43:42 2020 No.16407003

>>16406955
>You need to be willing to step out of your usual way of looking at this to try to see my argument. You might not agree with me, but you must do that to at least understand what I am saying.
>"you need to conform to the system that I set up, then you will see that I am correct"
The absolute state of this bugman
>What you call "we", and what you call "I" or "you" or "experience", in my example, are indistinguishable from a certain set of neurons being activated.
Wrong.
>Now because we know our body still works even when we are asleep, it seems that there are many sets of neurons that can be activated without influencing what we understand as "conscioussness", or "we", or "I"
"consciousness" is defined as "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings". Just because we aren't conscious while asleep doesn't negate the existence of the consciousness. This would be like saying that the workings of the computer don't exist because we can turn off the computer.
"we" has nothing to do with this unless we're discussing people who have multiple personalities.
"I" is a more complex question but still related to the consciousness which I already elaborated on above.
>The neurons that do subconscious stuff and the neurons that do conscious stuff seem to communicate (there are plenty of experiments in lab, and also we can feel this on a daily basis).
How does this work in your favour? Also, how about giving a few examples of this communcation between the subconsciousness and consciousness?
>What I am trying to say is that at some point, when 500 neurons in that example are active, the right set of subconscious and conscious parts of your brain are at the point where "you" "experience" "pain". Does this make more sense?
No, it outs you as a definite pseud and sophist. The former because of your alleged knowledge of this topic and a personal theory which is outside of the major scientific circles (conscious and subconscious parts of the brain have a right set which is what is needed alongside the firing of the neurons for experiencing pain) and the latter because you define words so that they fit your story, use irrelevant conclusions and presuppose things which you are arguing for (which is apparent because of your "I'm a free thinker" and "science of the gaps" (the opposite of the "god of the gaps") persona).

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:51:06 2020 No.16407049

>>16406987
>One can only speculate that it's a basic difference in our cognitive architecture, whether your dogmatism is responsible or even some kind of focal lesions, who knows
It's really mind boggling to read someone sounding so pretentious and up their ass about something like this. It's like you think I was never a child or something and had many ideas about my soul or my mind or whatever, and then with time had experiences and learned things and the collection of all of those could possibly ever result in something different to you, without having some kind of defect involved. You are no different from hardcore scientists that think that religious or spiritual experiences MUST be some variety of schizophrenia, or that left/right wing behaviors MUST be traceable to specific mental conditions or cognitive impairments or whatever. It's really sickening. Under this guise of being so rational and methodical you're being beyond biased in ways that are not even possible to believe for the average person.

You still didn't tell me what fundamental thing would be destroyed, should I turn out to be right in this. Or what was destroyed the first time some experiment supporting a different explanation for the origin of life was successfully ran. What is this fear? Also, why do you have to "empathize" with me? We're talking about a rational discussion, not about relating to each others feelings. To give you an example I've always personally disliked the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and hidden variables are much more in line with my personal feelings and what'd make me feel good about the universe, but does that matter when I look at the results of a Bell Inequality test? Of course not!
>>16407003
You're just trolling at this point, it's useless to discuss things with you. I feel sorry for whatever supervisor you're working under (if you're really working in a research team like you claimed).

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 21:58:15 2020 No.16407091
File: 29 KB, 720x724, 1592775107950.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16407003
>talks assuredly of the properties of consciousness in the thread
>"what the hell bro, it's like you're one of those hardcore scientists and those who undertake the guise of a rational and methodical being (which totally doesn't apply to me btw), how can't you comprehend that i could have had experiences which could result in something different to you (although ignore this relativism when looking at my arguments for the properties of consciousness)"
Can't make this shit up
>"We're talking about a rational discussion, not about relating to each others feelings"
>"What is this fear you're having?"
Stop it, my sides are almost gone.
You are certainly an entertaining self-contradicting pseud who has much to work on when it comes to developing consistent arguments, but you have to go back

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 22:03:56 2020 No.16407121

>>16407091
Luckily I can employ your same argumentative strategies. Namely:
Wrong.
You're a pseud.
*frog picture*

I will leave you a little bit of a brain teaser though, since you said conscious and unconscious parts of the brain cannot communicate or exist:

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.520.2204

This is a paper that, and this is a direct quote:
There has been a long controversy as to whether subjectively ‘free ’ decisions are determined by brain activity ahead of time. We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness.

Have fun explaining this with frog pictures and zoomer meme words. I'm sure it'll impress the scientific community.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 22:06:40 2020 No.16407144

>>16407049
I brought up empathy because it's about "raw feels" (which are not just "mere" feelings) and their relationship to discursive thought, it's about how there can be this massive disconnect that lets you be satisfied with the type of non-explanation you've given. It's like I can follow most arguments, even erroneous ones but I can't see where you're coming from at all. Maybe I have been rude, so sorry for that anon, this topic makes me cranky, but I don't think it's pretentious to demand a real explanation on this and to try highlight what's at stake and why it's critical to take this stuff seriously.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 22:10:49 2020 No.16407174
File: 959 KB, 1329x1429, 1600606396313.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16407121
>ignoring the contradictions asserted in greentext
>not naming examples of conscious and unconscious parts of the brain communicating
>strawmanning ("since you said conscious and unconscious parts of the brain cannot communicate or exist", when I never implied they can't or don't exist)
>"We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness"
This is a one-sided connection, the implication being that unconsciousness is the main thing, since when we are aware of a decision it is a decision that has been "put in" by the unconsciousness. This also still doesn't explain how any action potential can be converted into any experience, so you're still holding on to irrelevant conclusions.
>Have fun explaining this with frog pictures and zoomer meme words. I'm sure it'll impress the scientific community.
Have fun with your pseud posturing ("look at me, i'm so rational and intelligent") and logical fallacies. Here's another frog for you, by the way.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 22:23:58 2020 No.16407252
File: 24 KB, 612x402, frog picture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16407174
>>16407174
>This is a one-sided connection
Wrong.
>not naming examples of conscious and unconscious parts of the brain communicating
You're just outing yourself as a pseud ("look at me, i'm so rational and intelligent") with your logical fallacies.

Let's try this again. This is a paper that shows a part of your brain, activated without you being aware of it, seemingly does things that your consciousness then experiences 10 seconds later.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.520.2204

Have you never had the experience of making a decision? Damn. Are you a p-zombie?

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 22:26:03 2020 No.16407268

>>16407252
Falling back on the unconscious is pointless since it's (at least currently) as unable to be empirically tested as e.g. metaphysical claims. With this logic you can make claims for or against anything. For example, you can tell me that I'm gay and that I just don't know it, i.e. that I unconsciously am gay.
Even if the connection was 100% proven, we can only examine our conscious thoughts, since the unconscious isn't available to us for examination.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 22:35:06 2020 No.16407324

>>16407144
I also don't hold anything against you, but at the same time.
>I don't think it's pretentious to demand a real explanation on this and to try highlight what's at stake and why it's critical to take this stuff seriously.
I really don't understand why my explanation doesn't seem serious, or even worse, why it doesn't seem like an explanation. But this could just me be coming short on my terminology, which is why I'd recommend reading stuff like Galen and Papineau, because they go at a much greater length and detail in each of their positions. If after reading Papineau's paper you still feel like there is no argument ad we're just trying to sneak past you by giving non-answers, I think maybe it's just a hopeless topic to discuss, but maybe it'll make it clear that it's not just me trying to fool anyone or something of the sort.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 22:37:15 2020 No.16407335
File: 27 KB, 624x506, frog picture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16407268
>For example, you can tell me that I'm gay and that I just don't know it
Ok. You are gay, and you just don't know it.
>Falling back on the unconscious is pointless since it's (at least currently) as unable to be empirically tested
Wrong.
>conscious thoughts, since the unconscious isn't available to us for examination.
Just click and read the god damn paper dude, it's not so hard.

Anonymous Sun Sep 20 22:43:55 2020 No.16407364

>>16407335
>making a joke which doesn't contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way ("Ok. You are gay, and you just don't know it")
>"Wrong." without any elaboration as to why
>"Just read the paper bro, everything is there", yet again irrelevant conclusions
I hope you were baiting all this time and that you aren't this much of a brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 20 22:45:42 2020 No.16407372 File: 152 KB, 2000x1333, frog picture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16407364 >I hope you were baiting all this time and that you aren't this much of a brainlet.

Anonymous Mon Sep 21 05:50:25 2020 No.16409020

>>16395523

Take 1 brick. It's not a house. 2 bricks. 3 bricks. Toss in some wood, some pipes and some cement into a heap on the ground. Still not a house.

Houses have to conform to a certain set of specification: walls, roof, inclosed internal space. Brains perform the same function for subjective experience. There has to be a certain layout of neurons, blood, glucose, nerves and data encoded within for it to happen. Other systems might also have consciousness but we can't be sure.

Otherwise how do you explain sleep and unconsciousness? It's a software thing, just like turning off a computer. The only thing that changes is the data and processing being off. Death is when you break the flow, just like how you can blow up a house with a bomb. It could theoretically be repaired if you had the right materials and know-how.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 21 07:22:31 2020 No.16409312 >>16395908 cogito ergo sum, retard

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature