Decades of neuroscience research

[Anonymous No.19578686]

And science still answers nothing about consciousness, what it is, how it's created, how does it have identity, how does it have continuity even though the atoms in our brain aren't continuous, how it even exists, why can't it be understood by a non-conscious being

Yet redditors and Reddit philosophers are adamant that science explains consciousness, what retarded shit is this? What the fuck is their reasoning?

[Anonymous No.19578713]

>>19578686
Emergence, bro.

[Anonymous No.19578717]

>>19578686
you're just a bunch of molecules moving through space

[Anonymous No.19578726]

They assume that their views are the "default," "reasonable" ones that win out automatically if alternatives can't be proven. This assumption is so deeply ingrained that they don't know that they have it, because all their conscious thought are downstream of it. The only way to fight back is to yank on Dennett's beard and slap his bald head and say "O thou bald-head! O thou bald-head!"

[Anonymous No.19578733]

>I don't now how X works
Well obviously God did it

[Anonymous No.19578740]

>>19578717
no I am just a bunch of principal particles moving through prinicap space!

[Anonymous No.19578745]

>>19578726
Cope

[Anonymous No.19578747]

>>19578740
one sneeze and you're dissolved

[Anonymous No.19578749]

>>19578686
They know far more than they let on. For example, that natural telepathy is real.

[Anonymous No.19578751]

I prefer that scientists admit they don't know the answer to something rather than just making shit up
>redditors and Reddit philosophers are adamant that science explains consciousness
You got an example? I don't go on reddit

[Anonymous No.19578753]

>>19578747
You villain!

[Anonymous No.19578776]

>>19578686
There are no signs of consciousness without brain. I think whole theory origin of consciousness is retarded.

Humanity will never be able to solve this problem. Your preferred """explanations""" are no better than materialism.

[Anonymous No.19578794]

>>19578776
Consciousness is contagious and jump-started by other consciousnesses; domesticated animals, especially dogs, dogs have evolved by millennia-long exposure to human consciousness and are indeed telepathic.

[Anonymous No.19578797]

>>19578686
Read Metzinger and ignore sci brainlets.

[Anonymous No.19578805]

>>19578751
Dennett is adamant that we already understand consciousness, that it's merely an "illusion" (nevermind that who the fuck could it be illuding other than another consciousness). And he's widely regarded and cited by other nu-academics as if he "solved" anything

Go on any and say something like "science doesn't explain consciousness", and you'll get swarmed with stock answers along the lines of "consciousness is an evolutionary mechanism to process information" (which is fucking retarded too because even ATOMS "process information", yet panpsychism is treated as if it's schizo) and "consciousness is just an emergent property of complex systems" (even though "complexity" is subjective, and depends entirely on the scale it's observed at, as a shifting mass of liquid can be considered even more "complex" than the human brain at a micro level)

[Anonymous No.19578814]

>>19578749
>>19578794
An autistic person would think that being able to see and understand a person's emotional state is telepathy lol

[Anonymous No.19578826]

>>19578794
The dogs have took too much human cum and cum is surely the transmitter of consciousness so they have also received little pieces of cake from their high functioning masters.

[Anonymous No.19578829]

sattva, goodness

[Anonymous No.19578839]

>>19578814
They don't see it, they sense it from a distance of various streets, through walls and other solid barriers.

[Anonymous No.19578840]

Another question can be asked: how does particle know where other particle is so it can move in its direction or away from it? Consciousness?

[Anonymous No.19578846]

>>19578826
Exactly, but the point is to ridicule things that constitute invaluable secret research at this point in time.

[Anonymous No.19578850]

>>19578686
Who cares what p-zombies think? Oh wait they dont even think lmfao.

[Anonymous No.19578944]

>>19578686
>how does it have continuity
It literally doesn't, is formed in discrete chunks of around 80ms

[Anonymous No.19578978]

>>19578944
I find that hard to believe

[Anonymous No.19579280]

>>19578686
PPM give a fairly good account.
Don't expect philosophers to know about the latest advances in cog sciences. You still have teachers telling you color vision cant by principle be normalized when we have had have color correction lenses on the market for over a decade.
> what it is
A specific form of relationship established between an agent and an object, based on the umwelt of that agent and the apertures provided by the object.
> how is it created
Life
> how does it have continuity even though the atoms in our brain aren't continuous,
Our consciousness is not really continuous...?
> how does it have identity
Logically, as every object, from its potential point-of-views would constitute an individual.
> why can't it be understood by a non-conscious being
There are no non-conscious beings, at least as of yet.

[Anonymous No.19579435]

>>19578686
That's because science is stuck to a false metaphysical doctrine of materialism, which science itself, via quantum mechanics, discredits.

In actuality the theory that consciousness is the primary ontological ground and basis for being should be taken seriously.There is no object without a subject, And the subject's existence is far more substantial than any object. The subject can always be assumed in any metaphysical description of reality whereas a purely objective description is indefinable.

>The world is a dream, dreamed by a single dreamer, in which all the dream characters also dream."
-Art Schope

[Anonymous No.19579448]

>>19579280
bait

[Anonymous No.19579450]

The subject cannot be subtracted from any metaphysical description, because the principle of sufficient reason--rationality itself--presumes the subject of knowlege. Whereas a universe without any subjects, consisting of pure material, is indescribable. Therefore it is more economical to describe the universe as itself one Pure Subject, rather than as a Pure Object in which subjective consciousness is an anomaly.

[Anonymous No.19579466]

>>19578944
>tfw my ping is better than my consciousness
no wonder I'm so bad at tf2

[Anonymous No.19579485]

>>19579448
Idiot

[Anonymous No.19579500]

the reasoning is that they are literally p-zombies. daniel dennet is a literal p-zombie. which is why he denies consciousness/qualia. he literally has none. he's like an automaton writing his retarded books being baffled he's not privy to non-npc human existence. he's also a faggot.

also theres a severe reddit I LOVE SCIENCE mentality going on, where people can't just say or accept "we have no fucking clue. it's a mystery. life is fucking bizzare and incomprehensible." everything must be explained. if it can't be explained, just deny it exists. everything is known, the world is solved.

[Anonymous No.19579509]

Is anything real that is unknowable? Knowlege cements reality. Thus knowability is the ultimate criterion of ontological proof. A universe without a subject to perceive it is literally nonsensical. It might as well be nothing. Indeed it IS nothing.

Consciousness is anything but epiphenomenal. It is not some excretion of the brain. The structure and objectivity of the brain is the outward form of consciousness, the material housing of it, like a mollusk that excretes its own shell. You might ask how time and space might have existed for billions of years before the first eye, the World-Eye, opened. But time and space is only a relation to a subject according to the principle of sufficient reason in which the categories of reason prefigure and format all perception. Time and space without a subject is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.19579511]

>>19579280
what is ppm

[Anonymous No.19579524]

>>19579500
He has qualia. He just mistakes his accepted maps for the territory.

[Anonymous No.19579536]

>>19579509
Most of what is real is unknowable, and of course determines the knowable, which in many regards is mere illusion. The most real things in the universe are the most unknowable.

[Anonymous No.19579552]

>>19579511
Predictive processing model.
Or "the general aim of you nervous system is to predict as accurately as possible what will be the next input it receives, based on those it has already recieved. The object of outputs is to reduce prediction discrepancies to a minimum. "

[Anonymous No.19579563]

You do realize all science is predicated on agreeing on semantic axioms first, and only then does the process of following internal logic actually matter. Right?
In other words, "science can't prove X" actually just translates to "nobody can agree on a strict definition of X" 99% of the time. Its in basic scientific method; you need a hypothesis BEFORE you begin testing for evidence.

[Anonymous No.19579578]

>>19579536
Yet wouldn't you have to have some knowlege of these real things to know they are unknowable? By knowable I mean knowable in principle, according to some maximally intelligent subject. Even one which outpaces human cognitive abilities.
Anything that is recognized as real is knowable.

[Anonymous No.19579601]

>>19579563
Science doesn't prove anything. It merely postulates thee least unsupported hypothesis, subject to disproof given further evidence. Conjecture and refutation.
The underlying reason for this fact is that not all truths are empirically provable. The subject is an inviolable and final aspect of reality which transcends all empirical verification. Kant endeavored mightily to reconcile the notion that empiricism and rationalism are not opposed but two pieces of the same whole.

[Anonymous No.19579604]

>>19579578
There are of course degrees of knowability, and the ultimate degree of knowability, certainly as far as humans are concerned, is unknowability. The mind does and is by doing, but the mind hardly knows itself.

[Anonymous No.19579615]

Just embrace "super"determinism (bro). Counterfactuals are an illusion, just a useful softly emergent heuristic for training energy efficient (functionally) stochastic neural nets.
https://youtu.be/wotOTuJI5CE

[Anonymous No.19579637]

>>19578794
can testify that domesticated animals have distinct personalities and are very perceptive empaths towards people.
picrel i love this horse

[Anonymous No.19579643]

>>19579604
Not really. The first and foremost datum of any subject, as demonstrated by Descartes method of doubt, is self-recognition. I think therefore I am. What cannot be doubted is that the doubter doubts. Even if such a subject does not understand its own fundamental nature and constitution, it knows that it IS. In a fundamental, inviolable, total sense. The basic fact the mind can know about itself is that MINDS are a fundamental fact of reality. We can know minds exist with far more certainty than we can know even the basic constitution of material inanimate existence. Thus mental existence is the basis of all ontological descriptions and definitions. It is much harder for a mental entity to describe the world in non-mental terms and it is literally nonsensical for a purely objective description to define the mental world in atomic terms. Thus, it is metaphysically more concise to advocate for panpsychism.

As David Chalmers put it, to paraphrase, "The more you think about consciousness, the more you go from being a materialist, to a dualist, to an idealist."

[Anonymous No.19579664]

>>19579637
>can testify that domesticated animals have distinct personalities
Anyone who raised more than a single pet should know this. I mean, I know the personalities of the stray alley cats that hang around my house.
One of them, a big tuxedo tom, is genuinely the brightest cat I've ever seen. He doesn't beg for food, he thanks you. He'll sit next to you as you handle the treats and won't move. When you deposit the food in front of him he'll do a small "brrriiiiii" every single time.
He likes coming into my house to warm himself off, and understands when I'm about to take him back out, so then he'll just run under a table or somewhere hard to reach and won't move from there. The other stray cats who come into my house will just run out the second I shake the treat bag and then get mad once I close the door on them, but he's figured it out and just remains hidden.

[Anonymous No.19579678]

>>19578717
but particles are just energy clumped together. And energy is only a thing when manifested... in particles? (show me a jar of energy)
and space is relative right? because for a photon there is no time. And in order for there to be space there needs to be time?
I am not familiar with these subjects

[Anonymous No.19579681]

>>19578686
This is your own stupid fault for browsing Reddit

[Anonymous No.19579707]

>>19578745
Your episteme is showing, troon

[Anonymous No.19579718]

>>19578978
You can try it yourself, get someone to walk backwards from you as they clap, at first you'll see the clap and hear the sound at he same time but there will be a point when suddenly they desync instead of happening slowly, this point is when the difference in the speed of sound an light makes them reach you with a difference of over 80ms
There are other experiments that show the same, as it turns out, your brain collects all the input from an 80ms chunk of time and process it as the same instant of conscious time

[Anonymous No.19579730]

>>19578686
Science has finally achieved the basics of Buddhism: not explaining consciousness. Give it a few hundred years and it’ll devolve into private school in joke banter. Just like Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.19579753]

>>19579678
Energy is not really a thing, is just a quantity that is conserved in time symmetrical interactions
Particles are just an effective theory, the underlying reality (as far as we can tell) is just the vibrations in the quantum fields described by the wave function
on the subject of spacetime you can think of time as a 4th direction of movement, photons experience no time because they don' move in that direction, in any case there's a growing body of evidence that suggest spacetime itself is not fundamental but emerges from some underlying process

[Anonymous No.19579771]

>>19579664
t.

[Anonymous No.19579780]

>>19579643
Right, but panpsychism is like unknowability itself reified. In that regard it is like telepathy, which, if it were to exist, would depend on its very unknowability to exist, otherwise, when it becomes predictable and scientifically defined its nature changes altogether and retires further into concealment than ever before. For what is telepathy, if not its undefinability and what is the mind if not the same, and if one assumes panpsychism than one is assuming something that in order to truly be must be truly and categorically inscrutable to the human mind? If it were to become scrutable then one is no longer speaking about a human, but about what is not one. Yes, awareness of one self is a human, and indeed animal trait, but that awareness conceals far more than it reveals, because it breaks irrevocably from the greater panpsychic state of reality, which is a state where not being conscious is precisely the highest form of consciousness: think of it as a continuous stream of the highest musical beauty that expresses itself by the purest form of intuition: it is pure creativity without the slightest conscious awareness of itself beyond the continuous movemental act of its own creation and creativity. It is itself ever creating itself anew by the purest and most highly developed creative and, dare I say, artistic instinct; but it knows not itself, because thereby lies the fall into what it is not if it is to be and be and be ad infinitum.

[Anonymous No.19579787]

>>19579637
Exactly.

[Centuries of philosophical inq(...) No.19579799]

And philosophy still answers nothing about consciousness, what it is, how it's created, how does it have identity, how does it have continuity even though the atoms in our brain aren't continuous, how it even exists, why can't it be understood by a non-conscious being

Yet redditors and Reddit philosophers are adamant that philosophy explains consciousness, what retarded shit is this? What the fuck is their reasoning?

[Anonymous No.19579806]

>>19578978
Seethe

[Anonymous No.19579819]

>>19578686
There is absolutely no reason to invoke anything other than physical processes when explaining consciousness. Consciousness is a loop of self-reference that grows in complexity the longer a brain refers to past brain states which referred to past brain states. The "I" you refer to is just the implication of unity. It has continuity because of entrenched neural habits. What the hell are you even talking about when you say "The atoms in our brain aren't continuous"?

Find and measure for me the part in the brain where physical events happen for non-physical reasons, then we can talk about how consciousness is magic and the "Hard problem" is anything other than trying to preserve the last traces of the soul.

[Anonymous No.19579827]

>>19579819
Mechanically I'm sure you can explain consciousness. But at what point does a complex mechanism become a complex mechanism accompanied by consciousness? A stone isn't conscious. No matter how elaborate you make a computer or a clock it isn't going to experience like we do.

[Anonymous No.19579833]

>>19579771
"Hear our humble prayer, O God,
for our friends the animals, your creatures.
We pray especially for all that are suffering in any way:
for the overworked and underfed,
the hunted, lost, or hungry;
for all in captivity or ill-treated,
and for those that must be put to death.
For those who deal with them,
we ask a gentle heart of compassion,
gentle hands, and kindly words.
Make us all true friends to animals
and worthy followers of our merciful Savior, Jesus Christ.
Amen."

[Anonymous No.19579835]

>>19579827
>No matter how elaborate you make a computer or a clock it isn't going to experience like we do.
That's a pretty bold statement, do you have any evidence to support it?

[Anonymous No.19579839]

>>19579827
>>19579819
How about the point where it requires of us to acknowledge the other's consciousness, and for us to cultivate an openness toward what might constitute this consciousness or this requirement?

[Anonymous No.19579849]

>>19578805
Science is interested in definitions and verifiability. Pansychists are not.

The self is an illusion, not consciousness.

Complexity may be subjective but the capacity of brainstates to refer to past brainstates is not.

A shifting mass of liquid cannot process sensory information.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it magic.

>>19578814
This.

>>19578840
Properties of particles. Gravitation, magnetism. If anything, if there were some panpsychic principle, what you are referring to would be awareness. Not consciousness, which is awareness of awareness. If awareness were some property of matter, it does not mean that a particle has an apparatus of self-referencing, sensory information processing, or proprioceptive equipment to orient itself in space.

>>19578944
Arguably this. OP would know this if he had actually read the fucking book. It talks about multiple drafts theory pretty early.

>>19578978
Science doesn't give a fuck what you believe.

>>19579435
Quantum mechanics does not discredit material determinism, it just adds another layer we have yet to understand. Not understanding something does not make it magic. There are just extra dimensions at play.

>>19579730
Funny jokes, but "I don't understand and I'm gonna stop trying because it upsets me" is not a discovery or profound insight. It's a cope.

You people are idiots.

[Anonymous No.19579855]

>>19579827
Give the rock some sensory processing equipment, proprioceptive tools to orient itself in space, tactile nerves and equipment to navigate its environment, evolutionary means of refining these traits into the most successful kind, a lot of reproductive success, the social environment in which to identify a "self" in others, incentive to cultivate more novel relationships with these others, and the world around it by building new strategies on old ones, free time to reflect, and yes it damn well becomes conscious.

[Anonymous No.19579860]

What psyop bullshit did I stumble upon?

[Anonymous No.19579872]

>>19579827
You are hung up on this word "complexity" and it's the wrong kind of thinking.

Computer software is conscious because it can form internal models of itself. The reason AI isn't taking over yet is because that computer software doesn't have the priorities, mindset, intentions, emotions, experiences, or general frame of reference that anything in the animal kindom has. It doesn't have billions of years of survival instincts telling it to seek a vantage point and have control of the world around it, lock down a mate, capture the resources, and eliminate the threats. It has only what it has been programmed to do. But if a processing system forms an internal model of itself forming an internal model of itself, it is for all intents and purposes, conscious.

[Anonymous No.19579873]

>>19578944
I did a quick google and all I found was that the brain has 80ms of latency, not that it processes things in 80ms chunks. The claim doesn't even pass the sniff test, if modern neuroscience is correct in thinking of the brain as a bunch of 'dumb' independent subunits then some brain processes would naturally be faster than others as the units they need to interact with are closer.

[Anonymous No.19579876]

>>19579835
Simple simple. I bang two rocks together: they aren't conscious. Therefore if I bang a million rocks together every second in a really complicated way they won't be conscious.
>>19579839
Frankly most people are far too open to things we know for a fact to be conscious (ie niggers, spics, chinks. trannies, jannies), let alone complicated systems that might simply resemble consciousness. Liberals are going to love AI because computers will have a 100% wrongthink avoidance record. Chudslaves will be made to run on treadmills to run electrons through inanimate rocks because said rocks sometimes lisp: "y'all queen slay", "trans women are women", "black lives matter", "humanity is life" and other inane meaningless bugspeak.
In the future when it comes to "the other" (aliens or AI) we're going to need to totally disregard liberalism entirely and become extremely competitive; back to survival of the fittest, predator and prey. Genetic proximity and the comfort of empathy via similarity of manifestation. No "human rights" only privileges assigned to ethnic tribes.
Imagine the alternative: Joe alien lands on Earth, declares "I am an enlightened liberal and merely wish to live among you, sharing your rights as a conscious being" and then he starts multiplying rapidly. All of a sudden we've got 20 billion alien bugs and won't they want the right to vote? All of a sudden we'll be a small majority and the aliens will start making the rules. "oh we know best humans and we've voted that it's mandatory for you to take this vaccine that makes you sterile woops" or they'll start friendly and do what Caesar did in Gaul you know? Because once you take up arms to expel them that only justifies that they take up arms and "defend" themselves. Honestly insidious.

[Anonymous No.19579877]

>>19578686
The matter of consciousness is essential to the matter of transference and the matter of transference essential to the matter of consciousness. Solve transference and you solve consciousness. But then the two are the the same under different names.

[Anonymous No.19579888]

>>19579876
>small majority
I meant small minority
>>19579855
You're basing this off of a posteriori observation, but you don't explain the actual manifestation of experiencing consciousness.
>>19579872
>computer software is conscious
bro

[Anonymous No.19579892]

>>19578686
Consciousness is more so a state of unawareness than it is of awareness, the awareness state of consciousness is actually false awareness, and an illusion of what is actually going on and what it actually means to be conscious.

[Anonymous No.19579897]

>>19579873
Is not that the brain processes things in 80ms chunks, is that consciousness does, the brain gathers all the inputs within that window and produces your conscious experience of them as if they're simultaneous, your consciousness has a limited frame rate and is not continuous

[Anonymous No.19579899]

>>19579888
>>19579888
>You don't explain the actual manifestation of experiencing
You've assumed there is something to explain. Descartes had assumed the truth of what he set out to prove with the first word "I"

As was said here>>19579849
The self is an illusion, not consciousness.

[Anonymous No.19579903]

>>19579860
Consciousness is stored in the balls.

[Anonymous No.19579905]

>>19579899
You can ignore that I am conscious right now but you'll never convince me otherwise by playing dumb. You going to start a cult for people who ignore what's right in front of them?

[Anonymous No.19579912]

>>19579872
>Computer software is conscious because it can form internal models of itself.
Making internal models isn't sufficient. Consciousness is at the very least some very specific form of organization. You hinted at it yourself in that something that cannot experience anything cannot be said to have a consciousness.
Obviously, those are all incredibly fuzzy terms, but still, there is a limit.
>>19579876
> That rant
The pills you forgot to take are proof your consciousness has a material foundation.

[Anonymous No.19579926]

>>19579912
>The pills you forgot to take are proof your consciousness has a material foundation
Not an argument. When people start talking about
>acknowledg(ing) the other's consciousness
>cultivat(ing) an openness toward what might constitute this consciousness
how is it unreasonable for me to pick up the old torch of evolution and the tribe?

[Anonymous No.19579927]

>>19579905
Nobody tried to convince you you weren't conscious, only that the word "you" has no actual meaning because there is no central locus of consciousness. Only multiple drafts of brainstates referencing brainstates.

>>19579912
You are assuming the truth of what you've set out to prove, that the experiencing subjective "self" is an actual thing that acts and behaves and effects and has substance. You are incorrect about this, or there would be a place in the brain where physical events happen for nonphysical reasons. Or a central HQ in the brain into which all input went and out of which all output came.

No such thing exists. You are the one invoking magic here, you go start your own dipshit cult of people who think if they don't understand something it's magic.

[Anonymous No.19579947]

>>19579927
>or there would be a place in the brain where physical events happen for nonphysical reasons.
Broca's area.

[Anonymous No.19579956]

>>19579947
I'll bite. Find me evidence of newton's laws breaking down in broca's area.

[Anonymous No.19579959]

>>19579927
>"you" has no actual meaning
Language has meaning, and as far as I'm aware every language has the word "I" and "you" or something to that effect.
>Nobody tried to convince you you weren't conscious
When you tell me that computer programs are conscious then what you're telling me is that I'm not conscious, as you're lowering the definition of "consciousness" to some trivial mathematical system. Don't play dumb. Fact of the matter is, whether it's made up of "brainstates" or not I am EXPERIENCING, and I don't see why a system of particles, however complicated, need experience.

[Anonymous No.19579966]

>>19579956
Not what you asked.
You asked for a place in the brain where physical events happen for nonphysical reasons. Broca's area control the use of syntactical concepts which have no direct physical objects of reference.

[Anonymous No.19579977]

>>19578686
held back by ethics. with current technology, you'd have to do some fucked up experiments on a lot of humans to really tease out consciousness. trying to figure it out with fmris and surveys is a fucking joke

[Anonymous No.19579980]

>>19579966
Oh jesus. You really are dumb as a bag of shit.
HOW do you envision Broca's area works? Are nerve cells firing due to the interactions of ions? No physical events happen for nonphysical reasons in Broca's area. That would be a breakdown of newton's laws suggesting that consciousness is its own thing apart from the material brain.

>>19579959
Therefore if I can refer to something with a word it exists? Dipshit. Stop being a failure and think critically for a moment. I said that the word "you" has no meaning. Telling me "Well here I am using the word and meaning something" does not mean that the thing you refer to exists, or that assuming the truth of what you've set out to prove is a great way to structure opinions.

You clearly haven't even read the book you're disputing. I'm out, you fucking illiterate. Have fun arguing with the titles of books you haven't read, about concepts for which you have no frame of reference and no ground to stand on.

[Anonymous No.19579996]

>>19579980
>pen for nonphysical reasons in Broca's area. That would be a breakdown of newton's laws suggesting that consciousness is its own thing apart from the material brain.
Your the one making a huge issue out of that, I have no skin in that game. Talking about Newton's laws won't erase the fact that you implied that something can be conscious yet not able to experience. THAT is dumb as a bag of shit.

[Anonymous No.19580002]

>>19578686
you are incorrect
its only religio-normative bros that look at the mystery of the world and say 'aha - i have solved this'

science bros deal with everything else (unless funded by institutions to perform non-utilitatrian tasks that return no profits) and say 'well, yeah, that shits still pretty much a mystery but we have some thoughts because, we ,too, have egos and imaginations

[Anonymous No.19580013]

>>19579980
>if I can refer to something with a word it exists
In order to refer to something there needs to be something to refer to. The word "Yubnonini" doesn't refer to anything. In regards to "you" let's say there are 3 people in a room, and 4 cans of soda on a table. Each of the people in the room has laid claim to 1 can of soda. A fourth person enters that room and wants his own can of soda. He picks up one of the cans and goes person to person asking "does this can of soda belong to you?"; that word "you" is communicating information, and therefore we can reasonably assume that the word "you", and by extension all other semantics which distinguish individual human instances is not meaningless.
>You clearly haven't even read the book you're disputing
I would have assumed that nobody in this thread has read the book in the OP. I'm also not disputing the book but rather the other people here.
>I'm out, you fucking illiterate
lmao, are you mad? Oh I'm sorry I forgot that "you" has no meaning. Is somebody in this thread mad? Don't worry just wait 80ms and you'll be replaced by another "brainstate" which will hopefully be less booty bothered.

[Anonymous No.19580026]

>>19579996
>>19579980
>>19579977
>>19579966
>>19579959
>>19579956
>>19579947
>>19579927
Your stances would be reconciled by treating the experiencing self as a property of matter o energy or the universe or something inherent. The rock experiences because it is aware, but not conscious due to no apparatus for reference. The computer code is conscious because it was already as aware as anything else and also has apparatus of self reference, if nothing else with which to interact or even desire to do so. And the human brain being more novel than either of those is, of course, aware and experiencing because everything is, processing and conscious because it has an apparatus of referencing itself, and interacting only to the extent that the apparatus is without actually requiring action from the root universal awareness which would upset newton's laws by making physical events happen for nonphysical reasons.

[Anonymous No.19580075]

>>19579849
An illusion of what? The real self is holding the illusion of a self? The real consciousness is holding an illusion of consciousness? The real *what* is holding these "illusions"?

[Anonymous No.19580091]

>>19580026
>the experiencing self as a property of matter o energy or the universe or something inherent.
Insanity.
An experience is a specific type of (psychological) object for another specific type of (living) object.
Awareness is a form of relation between the living object and its experience.
There *is* a transcendental Self/Consciousness, and one to which we participate, but it is not a direct one, nor does it prevent the requirement of the incarnation of consciousness into the flesh.

[Anonymous No.19580102]

>>19579897
That sounds less unreasonable but I still find it difficult to believe in lieu of compelling evidence

[Anonymous No.19580343]

>>19580102
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1002433

Not that anon, but this paper talks of processing in discrete chunks of up to 400 ms of unconscious time, followed by an event of about 50 ms of conscious time.
I mean, this is not terribly difficult to accept from the start. Visual percepts at the level of your retina covers about 2-3% of the 'area' of your complete visual field. Obviously there was going to be some form of integration happening, and this integration must take some amount of time.

[Anonymous No.19580356]

>>19580343
Precisely, most mental and even sensory activity is unconscious: our perceptions are cubistic in reality but intuitively, though deceptively, we conceive of them as a continuously, uninterrupted unwinding scroll.

[Anonymous No.19580425]

>>19580356
>intuitively, though deceptively
I wouldn't necessarily speak of deception here. This act of liaison is where we leave cognitive science and enter the grounds of phenomenology proper. I see a point to distinguish between consciousness as a "property" of a certain type of object, which is materially founded, and a consciousness as the essential type which relates in a unique way to the conditions of knowledge, which would be "transcendentally founded".
As such, you can pinpoint within cognitive science a few different reasons why consciousness seems to us to be unified. Our autobiographical self, certain brain structures, etc. are all responsible for maintaining a sense of self across different psychological "regions" (ratiocination, memory, emotions).
On the other hand, you can also pinpoint reasons which are purely axiomatic (pure logic, the cogito, the transcendantal self, etc.) and there is no gauge whatsoever to relate one to another.

[Anonymous No.19580517]

>>19580425
This is all well and good, but the reality is that consciousness is a series of flickerings perceived by the conscious mind as a mostly continuous stream of light. The point is one of obvious relevance to art, which has, to be sure, explored at incredible length the unconscious, dreams, etc. But where is the novel that seeks to describe the experience of subjective awareness "skinned" of its outer continuum and exposed as an aphasic or otherwise damaged state that is an actual deeper state of the organism's cerebral/sensory processes? One that might otherwise be described as the "alien" unconsciouses (note the plural) that we all contain within: as so many filters or layers, each in their way contributing to the general stability of the organism, not least of all in its psychological requirements for its preservation against a precipitation into almost assured madness (which is the skinning, the pulling back, the delayering, the in vivo dissection of all we depend upon in order to feel fully human and in control, and endowed with "free will," etc).

[Anonymous No.19580603]

>>19578686
>Decades of neuroscience research
That's nothing. Wait centuries
>Yet redditors and Reddit philosophers are adamant that science explains consciousness.
Who gives a fuck what they think

[Anonymous No.19580614]

>>19578686
>And science still answers nothing about consciousness,
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/lamps-instead-of-ladies-the-hard-problem-explained/

[Anonymous No.19580629]

>>19578686
>what it is
perspectival artifact, conjured by your INability to differentiate your states in time.

>how it's created
>how does it have continuity
Slide-show becomes film, because your eyes are UNable to differentiate them at such a high frequency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold

>how it even exists
Does a mirage in a desert exist, or is it your eyes' problem?
Except that, unlike the desert, you can't shake off the consciousness mirage by moving around - you are forever fixed to one position, like slaves in Plato's cave, and aren't able to know any alternative.

[Anonymous No.19580762]

>>19578686
Threadly reminder for those who actually read: of course Dennett's positions aren't nearly as retarded as they are presented on /lit/ and /sci/.

[Anonymous No.19580786]

>be me
>believe in science
>trust that scientists got it all figured out
>I ain't gotta explain sheeittt mang
feels good dude

[Anonymous No.19580840]

>>19580786
>>believe in science
>>I ain't gotta explain sheeittt mang
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/zizek-hollywood-and-the-disenchantment-of-continental-philosophy/

"My own position might be summarized as a kind of ‘Good-Luck-Chuck’ argument. Either you posit an occult brand of reality special to you and go join the Christians in their churches, or you own up to the inevitable. The fate of the transcendental lies in empirical hands now. There is no way, short of begging the question against science, of securing the transcendental against the empirical. Imagine you come up with, say, Argument A, which concludes on non-empirical Ground X that intentionality cannot be a ‘cognitive illusion.’ The problem, obviously, is that Argument A can only take it on faith that no future neuroscience will revise or eliminate its interpretation of Ground X. And that faith, like most faith, only comes easy in the absence of alternatives–of imagination.

The notion of using transcendental speculation to foreclose on possible empirical findings is hopeless. Speculation is too unreliable and nature is too fraught with surprises. One of the things that makes the Blind Brain Theory so important, I think, is the way its mere existence reveals this new thetic landscape. By deriving the signature characteristics of the first-personal out of the mechanical, it provides a kind of ‘proof of concept,’ a demonstration that post-intentional theory is not only possible, but potentially powerful. As a viable alternative to intentional thought (of which transcendental philosophy is a subset), it has the effect of dispelling the ‘only game in town illusion,’ the sense of necessity that accompanies every failure of philosophical imagination. It forces ‘has to be’ down to the level of ‘might be’…

You could say the mere possibility that the Blind Brain Theory might be empirically verified drags the whole of Continental philosophy into the purview of science. The most the Continental philosopher can do is match their intentional hopes against my mechanistic fears. Put simply, the grand old philosophical question of what we are no longer belongs to them: It has fallen to science."

[Anonymous No.19580871]

>>19578733
Yes.

[Anonymous No.19580882]

>>19580840
Laruelle blows Bakker's asshole out like an inchoroi

[Anonymous No.19580885]

>>19579827
>No matter how elaborate you make a computer

There is every reason to believe otherwise. If you could program a computer to emulate the structures that result in a human mind, but the result *isn't* conscious, than that implies that there is something "magical" about the fact that we are constructed of meat, or something even more bizarre.

[Anonymous No.19580900]

Philosophers have generally learned not to bet on the failure or inability of science in any given area, so when attempting an a priori proof either way, they tend to just assume science will eventually, at some point in the future, figure it out. All good Philosophy is completely immune to empirical confirmation, and doesn't puts limits on science ("Space is euclidean, Time is absolute, Newtons laws of motions are correct") that it may surpass.

[Anonymous No.19580909]

>>19580882
>Laruelle
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/speculative-musings/adventures-in-speculative-realism/rhapsophy-a-prolegomena-to-the-next-whacked-out-problematic-assumption/
"So the first question I think I would pose to Laruelle would be: I’ve noticed that you have this way of reading that you find readily identifiable. How do you know it’s ‘non-philosophy’ (as you define it) as opposed to simply another esoteric, regimented way of gaming ambiguity, especially when Occam’s Razor suggests the latter?"

[Anonymous No.19580936]

>>19580900
>All good Philosophy is completely immune to empirical confirmation
https://www.academia.edu/31152366/On_Alien_Philosophy
"Philosophy attempts to comprehend the ‘big picture’. The problem with this definition is that it overlooks the special relationship between philosophy and ignorance, and so fails to decisively distinguish philosophical enquiry from, say, scientific or religious enquiry. Philosophy is invested in a specific kind of ‘big picture’, one that acknowledges the theoretical nature of its claims, while remaining beyond the pale of scientific arbitration. Philosophy is perhaps better defined, then, as the attempt to comprehend how things in general hang together in general absent conclusive evidence.
All too often philosophy is conceived in positive terms, either as an archive of theoretical claims, or as a capacity to ‘see beyond’ or ‘peer into’. On this definition, however, philosophy characterizes a certain relationship to the unknown, one where enquiry eschews supernatural authority, and yet lacks the methodological, technical, and institutional resources of science.5 Philosophy is the attempt to theoretically explain in the absence of decisive warrant, to argue general claims that cannot, for whatever reason, be presently arbitrated. This is why questions serve as the basic organizing principles of the institution, the shared boughs from which various approaches branch and twig in endless disputation. Philosophy is where we ponder the general questions we cannot decisively answer, where we grapple with ignorances we cannot readily overcome.
This is why the presence of philosophers in the scientific thick of things generally indicates controversy, and why their absence generally indicates consensus. It’s not so much the generality that draws them as the attendant confusion."

"5 In keeping with Firestein’s (2012, p. 29) characterization of science as also ‘about the unknown’, you could characterize the distinction between science and philosophy as the distinction between edible versus inedible ignorance."

[Anonymous No.19581009]

>>19580629
>Does a mirage in a desert exist, or is it your eyes' problem?
Yes, in fact it does, AND it is my eyes' (or brain's) problem.

[Anonymous No.19581020]

>>19578713
gross

[Anonymous No.19581038]

>>19581009
Most of what passes for experience in the human is a mirage.

[Anonymous No.19581046]

>>19579280
>A specific form of relationship established between an agent and an object
So the agent is actually unconscious? if consciousness is the relation then how does the agent of knowing know that relation if the agent itself is unconscious? That doesn’t make much sense.
>>19578797
> Metzinger
retroactively refuted by Adi Shankara (pbuh)
>>19578944
> It literally doesn't, is formed in discrete chunks of around 80ms
why dont we ever encounter or notice the gaps between these alleged chunks?

[Anonymous No.19581055]

>>19581009
>Yes, in fact it does
No, it doesn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

[Anonymous No.19581082]

>>19581055
If something is perceived then it exists (as a perception). The only difference to other things on which you would agree that they exist is that you believe other people perceive it to.

[Anonymous No.19581085]

>>19578726
1000% this.
Pragmatist "science-bro" philosophers come in with their heads full of prejudice, already having decided they have nothing to learn from real philosophy and real psychology (i.e Montaigne, François de La Rochefoucauld, the Pali canon if you can believe it, etc...). They completely disregard the possibility of subtler perspectives or ways of analyzing familiar perceptions and concepts (atoms are atoms bro, what's more to say?).

[Anonymous No.19581087]

>>19579664
>
Brought this little person in from the street almost a year ago. When I'd go out to smoke or just think on the porch steps at night, she would come up and sit silently beside me.

full believer in sentience all along the animal spectrum

[Anonymous No.19581089]

>>19579450
Pantheismus ist besonders basiert

[Anonymous No.19581091]

>>19581087
I never understood why someone would think animals aren't sentient. It makes zero sense from a survival perspective for them not to be.

[Anonymous No.19581096]

>>19578717

[Anonymous No.19581105]

>>19581082
>If something is perceived then it exists (as a perception)
Is it the martian face that exists or is it the .jpg picture of martian face? Or is it a bunch of pixels on your display that look like the picture that depicts a face?

[Anonymous No.19581106]

>>19579718
> There are other experiments that show the same, as it turns out, your brain collects all the input from an 80ms chunk of time and process it as the same instant of conscious time
That’s only a change in the way information is presented to consciousness and not a change or gap or chunk in consciousness itself, consciousness is the presence of awareness that objects like sound and sight are revealed to, a difference in the way the mind compresses visual etc data and presents it to awareness doesn’t involve any actual change in the consciousness which knows that data.

[Anonymous No.19581152]

>>19579799
>And philosophy still answers nothing about conscio-

>what it is,
God, the ultimate metaphysical ground of everything
>how it's created,
Its uncreated and eternal
>how does it have identity
the mind projects its egoistic self-understanding onto the consciousness which knows the mind
>how does it have continuity even though the atoms in our brain aren't continuous
Because its existence is immutable and eternal, continuous, partless, self-disclosing, effortless, self-sufficent, beyond time and space and unaffected by the things the mind knows in its presence
>how it even exists
By existing eternally as the source and basis of everything
>why can't it be understood by a non-conscious being
being understanding can only occur by the light of awareness being also present along with that mind, like how a man needs a light to see in the dark

[Anonymous No.19581159]

>>19581106
This is a complete misunderstanding of consciousness

[Anonymous No.19581167]

>>19581152
based because this is one hundred times better than rebbit "philosophy", but unbased because Heraclitus owns your ass

[Anonymous No.19581168]

>>19579819
> The "I" you refer to is just the implication of unity
the unity of consciousness or awareness is non-discursively self-evident in every moment, in our experience of awareness as uninterrupted presence alongside objects, and what’s non-discursive isn’t actually implied or known through implication because to understand implications and impute them as implied truth requires discursive thought

[Anonymous No.19581173]

>>19579877
> The matter of consciousness is essential to the matter of transference and the matter of transference essential to the matter of consciousness
why?

[Anonymous No.19581177]

>>19581105
Only your perception of the image strictly exists, everything beyond that relies on intersubjectivity. Of course, it would be very inconvenient for common discourse to say that everything beyond doesn't exist since that is the world we operate in, but when we talk about conciousness/perception/existence the distinction must be kept in mind (in my opinion).

[Anonymous No.19581188]

>>19581105
it exists as a perception. They mean it exists internally.

[Anonymous No.19581190]

>>19581105
Think of it this way, with regard to the problem of minds: imagine I've witnessed a gruesome murder and am in the worst shock of my life. I then suddenly walk into a building a lock eyes with you and as I never have before with a person. You see at that moment of ocular locking the very image of the act of murder, in the most literal and visual sense, and are turn burdened by shock of the image and the double shock of the appercieving of it with such detailed clarity through the ocular lock? Has not an absolute truth about the human mind been conveyed and revealed here. Even if the first man had hallucinated the entire gruesome murder, you saw with maximal clarity the truth of what images were then so intensely contained in his mind.

[Anonymous No.19581191]

>>19581105
Think of it this way, with regard to the problem of minds: imagine I've witnessed a gruesome murder and am in the worst shock of my life. I then suddenly walk into a building and lock eyes with you and as I never have before with a person. You see at that moment of ocular locking the very image of the act of murder, in the most literal and visual sense, and are turn in burdened by the shock of the image and the double shock of the appercieving of it with such detailed clarity through the ocular lock. Has not an absolute truth about the human mind been conveyed and revealed here? Even if the first man had hallucinated the entire gruesome murder, you saw with maximal clarity the truth of what images were then so intensely contained in his mind.

[Anonymous No.19581197]

>>19581177
I would word it differently (this is what I would have written when I was younger), but this is the objective and correct take

[Anonymous No.19581202]

>>19581197
This is just Kantian solipsism

[Anonymous No.19581207]

>>19581202
No, it's just basic phenomenology

[Anonymous No.19581214]

>>19581202
Would you believe, I have not really read Kant. I saw his categories table, discovered what I thought were errors, and lost interest in reading someone who presents himself as being the final word in his topic. I'll probably go back and read him for real this year.
I have read Hume, though.

[Anonymous No.19581267]

>>19580900
You understand that this
>the idea that Space is euclidean, Time is absolute, and Newtons laws of motions are correct has been surpassed
was not science surpassing philosophy, but one philosophy winning over another. This is well documented

[Anonymous No.19581295]

>>19580026
> Your stances would be reconciled by treating the experiencing self as a property of matter o energy or the universe or something inherent.
its more parsimonious to treat consciousness as being still fundamental but without making identical with matter or inherent to matter, since we cant locate any matter making up consciousness because consciousness is invisible, soundless, odorless and not directly measurable by any scientific instrument.

[Anonymous No.19581301]

>>19581267
And the point people are making in this thread is that scientism is just one particularly retarded philosophy, not a meta system that surpasses and replaces the concept of philosophy. The very relativity you're citing as having surpassed old philosophy also shits on vulgar atomism

[Anonymous No.19581314]

>>19581301
Schrodinger's cat shreds this entire discussion

[Anonymous No.19581315]

>>19581159
No it’s not, if you disagree with it then you are the one who misunderstands consciousness.

[Anonymous No.19581326]

>>19581167
> but unbased because Heraclitus owns your ass
lol nope

[Anonymous No.19581328]

>>19578686
people who separate science and philosophy are fucking retards. nobody with an education sees any sort of "science vs philosophy". philosophy is science and science is philosophy. read a book you uneducated nigger

[Anonymous No.19581344]

>>19581315
Consciousness means awareness, most of human mentally activity is unconscious and that includes what people perceive as the height of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.19581360]

>>19579849
>magic magic magic
"Everything that doesn't fit into my very narrow conception of possible things is magic therefore it can't exist"
Wow, guess most quantum physicists believe in magic, unlike you, who are an enlightened rational being, damn
>dude the self is an illusion lmao you have no identity
Who the FUCK is it illuding then, retard, answer
>You people are idiots.
Your arrogant and fallacious midwit "arguments" demonstrate that you're the idiot here, you have 5 minutes to tell me WHO the self is illuding if it's an illusion. An illusion doesn't exist without someone to be illuded by it

[Anonymous No.19581389]

>>19579435
Large systems can be approximately deterministic as a consequence of quantum mechanics, so systems can appear deterministic but they aren't 100% of the time.

[Anonymous No.19581432]

>>19581360
When they the self is an illusion what is meant is that if we could see are true selves we would be utterly repulsed by the alienness of what lies within, a vast multiplicity of layerings of mental processes forming a sort of alien conglomerate with a human inner voice on top that defines are very false of freedom of will. We are ignorance and unknowingness and instinct and repetition that responds most times like clockwork to the like repetition imposed by our parents as was done unto them, etc. The human mind is a genealogical entity, formation, and superimposition, about which most people have not the slightest awareness. We are illusions illuding ourselves: illusions and mirages and errors of nature come to life as never before in the natural history of earth.

[Anonymous No.19581433]

>>19581344
> Consciousness means awareness, most of human mentally activity is unconscious and that includes what people perceive as the height of consciousness
All mental activity is unconscious full stop, all forms of mental activity that are directly apprehended by us as occurring are all invariably known by consciousness, they are known *by* consciousness because they themselves are non-conscious, a thought of an apple doesn’t have its own center of awareness but its known by the same consciousness which knew the previous thought and which persisted as something different amidst the arising and falling of those changing thoughts, the knowing of the apple happens when the presence of that consciousness reveals the mind engaged in the thought of apple.

[Anonymous No.19581447]

>>19581360
When they the self is an illusion what is meant is that if we could see our true selves we would be utterly repulsed by the alienness of what lies within, a vast multiplicity of layerings of mental processes forming a sort of alien conglomerate with a human inner voice on top that defines our very false of freedom of will. We are ignorance and unknowingness and instinct and repetition that responds most times like clockwork to the like repetition imposed by our parents as was done unto them, etc. The human mind is a genealogical entity, formation, and superimposition, about which most people have not the slightest awareness. We are illusions illuding ourselves: illusions and mirages and errors of nature come to life as never before in the natural history of earth.

[Anonymous No.19581462]

>>19579872
>Computer software is conscious because it can form internal models of itself.
LMAO

Very typical of scientism plebbitors to state baseless, untestable, unfalsifiable claims as if they're obvious facts. I bet you believe in the Singularity and Simulation Theory too

>>19579897
>your consciousness has a limited frame rate and is not continuous
That's not what i mean by continuous. Consciousness isn't continuous in the sense it has an infinite "frame rate", you obviously don't process things instantly. But in the sense that your consciousness continues even as every atom in your brain is replaced from childhood to adulthood

>>19579927
>No such thing exists. You are the one invoking magic here, you go start your own dipshit cult of people who think if they don't understand something it's magic.
Again talking about "magic", very open-minded

>experiencing subjective "self" is an actual thing that acts and behaves and effects and has substance.
>You are incorrect about this, or there would be a place in the brain where physical events happen for nonphysical reasons.
>Something has to act on the physical to be real
By that logic consciousness isn't real either, pain isn't real, actually, then nothing is fucking real because you only experience or know about anything through consciousness, and since consciousness doesn't act on the physical i guess it isn't real

[Anonymous No.19581510]

>>19580629
>Does a mirage
>consciousness is like a mirage
>therefore consciousness is an "illusion"
THEN WHO THE FUCK IS IT ILLUDING

NOBODY INCLUDING DENNETT ANSWERS THIS BECAUSE THERE IS NO ANSWER, CONSCIOUSNESS CAN'T BE AN ILLUSION BECAUSE ONLY CONSCIOUS BEINGS CAN BE ILLUDED. IT'S A CIRCULAR PARADOX. CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE ONLY THING THAT IS GUARANTEED TO BE REAL, HOW DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?

>you are forever fixed to one position, like slaves in Plato's cave, and aren't able to know any alternative.
What is the "alternative" to consciousness, being a philosophical zombie? Wouldn't surprise me if people who think the self or consciousness are an illusion were zombies

[Anonymous No.19581533]

>>19581462
"But in the sense that your consciousness continues even as every atom in your brain is replaced from childhood to adulthood." This simply isn't the case, though there is this illusion.

[Anonymous No.19581601]

>>19579849
>"how do particles move"?
>properties of particles
Lmao wow that is certainly enlightening. And tell me, how are able to think? Let me guess: it's thanks to a faculty of thinking?

[Anonymous No.19581619]

>>19581447
No, illusionists literally mean that consciousness doesnt exist and that it is an illusion. As in, you're literally not seeing any color at the moment, nor are you hearing any sound, and so on.
They also say that the illusion of consciousness is not itself conscioussness (so, even if you believe that you're seeing colours right now, this appearance doesnt mean that youre seeing colors). It's a fucking retarded idea, dkn't try to save it with a Nietzschiean analysis (Nietzsche would have never daid something as retarded as what Dennett said)

[Anonymous No.19581644]

>>19578686
My understanding of consciousness is that it's a behavioral trait of humans. Mind and body are not separate. The strata of art, religion, politics etc that exists in history is the history of developing consciousness as humans began to think less like animals and more as self-aware individuals. Since humans are the most social animals, consciousness is a self-reinforcing behavior as new generations of humans mimic the previous and build upon their thought structures.

[Anonymous No.19581658]

>>19581447
>When they the self is an illusion what is meant is that if we could see our true selves we would be utterly repulsed by the alienness of what lies withi
That's absolutely not what Dennett means, he isn't talking about the dark side of human nature, just about consciousness

He really does mean, that consciousness is an illusion. He ACTUALLY means it, he thinks the thing we use to know all of reality is an illusion, yet the underlying reality isn't, somehow

[Anonymous No.19581716]

https://youtu.be/lMl8C1ViL1c
You guys will probably ignore this. But I'll leave it here anyway.

Based nyanamoli just posted a video on this topic.

[Anonymous No.19581728]

>>19581716
i will ignore this

[Anonymous No.19581736]

>>19581658
We're not talking about the dark side, we're talking about hearing your voice played back to you but a million times worse, it means you're an alien to yourself at a vast multiplicity of levels. It means the human is a hell of a thing and a thing of a hell, because hell is to be aware of the disintegration of the so called self for as prolonged a process as possible.

[Anonymous No.19581804]

>>19581389
My point is that the conventional notion of what defines material isn't real. Most atoms consist of empty space, solid, impenetrable particles are really amorphous waveforms . The classical view of materialism in which the world consists at its foundational bedrock of indivisible atoms is false. Indeed, according to quantum field theory what we see as distinct physical objects are excitations of fundamental fields, they are derivative of a more essential physical reality which does not consist of matter. Matter is in fact secondary and derivative . The fundamental fields might be physicalist but they are not matter in the conventional sense.

[Anonymous No.19581820]

>>19581447
> we could see our true selves we would be utterly repulsed by the alienness of what lies within,
if it’s our true self then it’s not alien but as far from alien as can be

[Anonymous No.19581849]

>>19581804
Quite right, so if there is a self it is contained in no one place but rather is a spectrum both genealogical and biological: a thing of matter and a thing of mind, the latter being a stretching of experience across both time and space, beyond anyone lifetime and behind anyone spacetime.

[Anonymous No.19581857]

>>19581820
It's alien to self awareness, see how that works?

[Anonymous No.19581886]

>>19581804
>QFT
I honestly think quantum field theory is the key to everything. A big problem in phenomenology is as the OP mistakenly suggests, in that we are trying to conform what is essentially a wavelike continuous analog phenomenon to a digital, discrete understanding.

Yet consciousness is incomprehensible as a discrete information system. Its adequate description must be in the terms in which it is presented: as continuous and analog in nature. There have been some somewhat crackpot theories that attempt to link consciousness and QM (most notably Penrose and Hameroff microtubules) but these fail if particle physics is not fundamental and instead just a theoretical approximation of field physics. (In the same way that classical mechanics approximates relativity). Consciousness CAN be descriptively formatted in terms of fields. Indeed there is quite interesting fresh thinking these days that tries to link it to electromagnetism. Viewing consciousness in atomistic terms is a fatal dead end however and you would think that after literally thousands of years of trying people would give up on the idea that consciousness is atomic or linked to atoms as the basic constituents of physical reality.

If you want to view consciousness as a physical entity, it helps to not have wrong physics. Otherwise you're comparing something you don't understand with something you misunderstand and that does not lead to understanding

[Anonymous No.19581895]

>>19581886
"electromagnetism"
Quite right, and this is why telepathy is entirely possible, even probable.

[Anonymous No.19581948]

>>19581849
I can get on board with that. Dualism is not real. It's an illusion created by the principium individuationis, it is a biological process generated by the needs of survival and the darwinian need for an organism to regulate an internal homeostasis against an external gradient.

In reality each individual is an instantiation of the whole. All the information to describe the universe is holographically embedded in each consciousness. Atman and Brahman and so on. Or at least that sounds cool to me and I like that idea.

[Anonymous No.19581967]

>>19581895
Could be! I think dreaming is a telling phenomenon. When we dream we are capable of throwing up a presentation of the world which is almost indiscernible from the real thing. Maybe because IT IS indiscernible from the real thing. We are merely tuning into another channel, as it were. Conscious states temporarily delocalize from their synchronization with immediate physical states and briefly entangle with another coherent world-form, which we briefly experience before blinking out and synchronizing with the quantum state which is most probable for us (waking life in this universe)

[Anonymous No.19581976]

>>19581857
> It's alien to self awareness
In the self-awareness of the true self, we are aware of our true self that is not alien to us, in normal mundane thought people identify with the mundane egoistic false self which is really what is alien, the latter is not real self-awareness, the former involving the true self is actual self-awareness, and this self-awareness is never alien to that true self

[Anonymous No.19582025]

>>19581976
That's Platonic gobbledygook and probably just trolling, the self is at best a genealogical and geographical spectrum that is continuously reconstituting itself at the same time. In the more evolved sorts it's characterized by a maladaptive and torturous awareness of what came before and a desire, utterly futile, of preservation of key notes on the diachronically recording device known as the spectrum. It is job of all sound minds to betray this as blissfully as possible: which is what American capitalism best teaches and expects of us.

[Anonymous No.19582027]

science is not concerned with explanations, only descriptions. the laws of the universe that we observe do not explain the universe, much less explain themselves, they describe it. our scientific knowledge of the brain allow us to describe and predict, using correlations of self-reported experiences and physiological phenomenas, the functioning of your body with respect to your subjective experience.

what would it even mean to "explain" consciousness?

[Anonymous No.19582101]

>>19582025
> That's Platonic gobbledygook and probably just trolling,
It’s neither Platonic, nor gobbledygook, nor trolling. That’s three strikes!
>the self is at best a genealogical and geographical spectrum that is continuously reconstituting itself at the same time.
What you are describing is the false, egoistic, psychological conception of selfhood formed by the mind and not the actual real self. As changeless and innermost awareness that persists as the witnessing knower amidst all variation in thought and mental sensations and which is peaceful and complete, the real self never has to be and never is reconstituted because it is unchanging and always the same.

[Anonymous No.19582106]

>>19581091
They are sentient. Just not sapient.

[Anonymous No.19582113]

>>19582106
Some gorillas have 70+ IQs.

[Anonymous No.19582114]

>>19582106
I agree with that, but there are people who say they're not even sentient.

[Anonymous No.19582122]

>>19582027
>science is not concerned with explanations, only descriptions

[Anonymous No.19582240]

>>19578686
>science still answers nothing about consciousness
The desperate cope of one who fear death.

[Anonymous No.19582481]

>>19582122
nice contribution fucktard

[Anonymous No.19582578]

>>19581046
The relationship to consciousness is not an obvious one. You do *not* feel your consciousness then know you are conscious the same way you *feel* your hunger and then know you are hungry. Generations of generations of humans have existed without once asking themselves that question.
The agent knows he is conscious only once he has been provided with the linguistic tools to recognize it.
>>19581046
>why dont we ever encounter or notice the gaps between these alleged chunks?
How, by principle, could you be conscious of your unconsciousness?

[Anonymous No.19582586]

>>19581087
Bless you anon, you are doing God's will.
>>19581091
Believe it or not, but the American Vetenary Association only recognized in 2001 that animals can feel pain. Before, the official stance was that event that we recognize as pain could not by principle be thought as pain, or as evidence of suffering.

[Anonymous No.19582621]

>>19582240
This entire thread summarized.
"I think therefore I am" assumes the truth of what it set out to prove from the beginning. There was nothing to be referred to by "I" other than brainstates referencing brainstates. The only reason consciousness even seems to have continuity is because what would do the observing of the discontinuous parts?

Consciousness is real, but does not necessitate a self.

[Anonymous No.19582630]

>>19582621
You've literally just explained that consciousness produces a self by principle. The self is the apodictic continuity of consciousness, regardless of its physical implementation.

[Anonymous No.19582678]

>>19582630
*The consciousness implicates a delusion of self by principle.

Fixed that for you

[Anonymous No.19582711]

>>19582678
It is only a delusion when you limit yourself at the functional understanding. You *are* an individual Self, even if the psychological implementation requires working around the constraints of materialism.

[Anonymous No.19582736]

>>19582711
You are states in constant flux and the illusion of self can be easily removed by even moderate emotional upset, such as that produced by certain forms of gaslighting or group bullying, when the person has no where to turn they become deindividualized, i.e. "broken," which from another perspective is something akin to a Buddhist state.

[Anonymous No.19582748]

>>19582711
>Brainstates being convinced of something makes it true.

[Anonymous No.19582784]

>>1957868
consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe, the opposite of entropy, the creation of order and structure. It persists through the universal cycle of expansion and contraction on a quantum level, every living thing has some level of consciousness and adds to this. Humans are so successful because our evolution aligned with consciousness more than any other lifeform on earth.

[Anonymous No.19582801]

>>19578686

Every time I argue with someone about the hard problem of counciousness and qualia, I get a little more certain that most people actually are not concious as they cannot comprehend such a simple idea, that was for me just a kind of a-ha moment, something that is so self evidently clear once someone articulates it.

[Anonymous No.19582808]

>>19581510
>THEN WHO THE FUCK IS IT ILLUDING
Your present state can perceive only past states. But not present states. Therefore, it *appears* as if 'your' thoughts come out of nowhere. Therefore, it *appears* as if 'you' are the originator of 'your' actions.

>NOBODY INCLUDING DENNETT ANSWERS THIS BECAUSE THERE IS NO ANSWER, CONSCIOUSNESS CAN'T BE AN ILLUSION BECAUSE ONLY CONSCIOUS BEINGS CAN BE ILLUDED
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/paradox-as-cognitive-illusion/

"Now if we were machines, we simply wouldn’t have this problem. It seems to be a brute fact of nature that an information processing mechanism cannot model its modelling as it models. Why? Simply because its resources are engaged. It can model its modelling (at the expense of fidelity) after it has modelled something else. But only after, never as.
Thus, thanks to the irreflexivity of nature, the closest a machine can come to a paradox is a loop. Well, actually, not even that, at least to the extent that ‘loops’ presuppose some kind of circularity. An information processing mechanism can only model the performance of its modelling subsequent to its modelling, which is just to say the circle is never closed, thanks to the crowbar of temporality. So rather, what we have looks more like a spiral than a loop.
Machines can only ‘refer’ to their past states simply because they need their present states to do the ‘referring.’"

[Anonymous No.19582843]

>>19578686
The origin of consciousness and how it works doesn't matter! It's terrible and should eradicated. That's literally all that matters, is that it's bad

[Anonymous No.19582849]

>>19581510
>What is the "alternative" to consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exformation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWfFco7K9v8

That's the whole problem, dumb retard. Every-fucking-time you think you have the complete information, until suddenly the reality hits you in the face, making you realize that *something* is wrong.

You are blind to your own blindness.

[Anonymous No.19582879]

>>19581510
>CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE ONLY THING THAT IS GUARANTEED TO BE REAL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion

[Anonymous No.19583002]

>>19582240
>The desperate cope of one who fear death.
Dismissing your opponent's argument by construing it as cope, nice nonargument

>>19582621
>>19582678
>>19582736
There's no difference between a self and a "delusion" of self any more than there is a difference between consciousness and the "delusion" of consciousness

>>19582748
My brainstates have consistently maintained a self for decades, and the burden of proof is on you that i have no self. Not on me to prove that i have one when the existence of the self is the intuitively obvious idea to everyone except a tiny minority of people and so is the base assumption, not a theory

>>19582849
None of this is an "alternative" to anything or proving that consciousness or the self are illusions. The first link is just about how communication requires shared knowledge, in order for it to not be extremely verbose. The second is an optical illusion. Do you think consciousness and the self being real rests on consciousness being infallible at capturing reality?

>>19582879
I didn't say the contents of consciousness perfectly portray reality, i said that the consciousness ITSELF is the only thing that is guaranteed to be real. Whether the underlying reality portrayed by the consciousness is accurate is irrelevant, since there is still consciousness and it's the only way to perceive or "understand" anything to begin with. If consciousness is an illusion, then NOTHING is real because the consciousness is the only way you ever had any conception of "real" or "fake". Why you calling me retarded if you can't even understand this basic idea? Are you a P-Zombie?

[Anonymous No.19583066]

>>19582808
You insist that "you" must be placed in quotes but I don't understand the insistence on this point. What might help make things clearer is if you expand a bit on what linguistics should be modified to better fit reality, like Robert Anton Wilson did with his idea of dropping the verb "to be" you know?
>continuous brain states
nobody claims simultaneity of being with their past selves. Everybody knows that the past is history and the present is what matters, but if a person's present is determined by their past then doesn't the broader biological continuity maintain its relevance? I'm struggling to discern what this greater mechanical understanding of consciousness actually changes. You seem to be convinced that some fundamental shift has occurred but I don't see it.
Each brainstate, on its own, is subject to more or less the same philosophical quandaries that faced the "continuous consciousness" perspective.

[Anonymous No.19583089]

>>19583002
>None of this is an "alternative" to anything
Were you dropped on your head in your youth, or something?
Let me repeat to you then: YOU ARE SYSTEMATICALLY UNABLE TO FORETELL THE "ALTERNATIVE", UNTIL YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN FUCKED BY IT IN THE ASS, IMBECILE.

>Do you think consciousness and the self being real rests on consciousness being infallible at capturing reality?
No, moron. I think, consciousness and the self rest on brain being FALLIBLE at capturing reality.

>>19583002
>I didn't say the contents of consciousness perfectly portray reality
Me neither. That's the whole point.

>i said that the consciousness ITSELF is the only thing that is guaranteed to be real
It isn't. The thing that "guarantees" consciousness is NEGLECT

>since there is still consciousness
Prove it. Your screechings 'Because I feel so' don't count, because >>19582879 there are numerous ways of fucking your perception mechanisms up.

>If consciousness is an illusion, then NOTHING is real
You are a biorobot, drifting in the environment of uncertainty, yes. Luckily, your heuristics have been sharped by millions of years of natural selection not to misfire often.

>consciousness is the only way you ever had any conception of "real" or "fake"
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2017/12/15/the-liars-paradox-naturalized/
"What is the most economical way for two or more people to harmonize their environmental orientations? To communicate environmental discrepancies, while taking preexisting harmonies for granted. I don’t rehash my autobiography when I see my friends, nor do I lecture them on the physiology of human cognition or the evolution of the human species. I ‘dish dirt.’ I bring everyone ‘up to speed.’"
"In such a system, the sufficiency of preexisting harmonies—our shared physiology, location, and training—would go without saying. I update my friends and they update me. The same can be said of the system itself: the sufficiency of language, it’s biomechanical capacity to effect synchronization would also go without saying—short, that is, the detection of discrepancies. I update my friends and they update me, and so long as everyone agrees, nary a word about truth need be spoken."

"It’s only when we question the sufficiency of these communications that truth-talk comes into play."

[Anonymous No.19583129]

>>19583089
Yeah i give up trying to argue with you, you're either trolling or really dense. I explained what i meant several times like clearing up that when i said consciousness and the self are real that i never meant that the senses are infallible, and you still manage to misunderstand or strawman everything i say. And you still refuse to give answers that aren't vague or unrelated to my questions like "then what is the alternative to consciousness" instead of dancing around them

If you're baiting you did a very good job Bakkerfag

[Anonymous No.19583132]

>>19583066
>I don't understand the insistence on this point
>Everybody knows that the past is history and the present is what matters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_arousal

The past does NOT contain the causes that causally move you in the present RIGHT NOW. Your perception experiences a small lag.
Therefore, -being unable to perceive true causes - you conjure up fictional ones. You misattribute the causes of your actions to something you call 'you'. You conjure up a normative domain out of your blindness.

[Anonymous No.19583166]

>>19583002
Consciousness is the word made flesh, what is the word if not consciousness? The word gives flesh to thought which is otherwise emotion and instinct, unguided. The word is the instruction manual for the act, the word is the Platonic ideal that makes of the flesh its robot, its marionette. We are the viruses of the word and the virus of the word is the form and function of humanity itself. Which makes constantly new viruses with which to entrap, enthrall itself, in the manner of spider webs, in the manner of a blind weaver directed by the muse of the unconscious. But beyond this state, this tyrannical regime of the word, this cross of the concept, lies the emotional language in the raw which we share with many other animals, through a method that approaches something close to telepathy and has a fluidity and eloquence that belies its seeming brevity and laconicness.

[Anonymous No.19583170]

>>19582748
Yes, when they relate to apodictical truths.
>>19582736
Those states are united materially, historically and ontologically. Psychological states and their presentation can be altered through drug or trauma, that is not something new or surprising. The self remains apodictical. Ask yourself, if someone were to offer you a bet, betting that you do not exist, and ask you to bet according to the strenght of your conviction that you do exist, how much should you reasonably bet?
The answer is everything, because if you don't exist you cannot lose anything.

[Anonymous No.19583226]

>>19582808
>Your present state can perceive only past states. But not present states.
Retarded. The time in which the act of perception depends entirely on the object perceived and the intentional act behind it.
"Lag" doesnt come into it.

[Anonymous No.19583229]

>>19583132
So the 80ms lag is filled in somehow by the brain and that forms some kind of "margin of error"? Or should it be thought of as a biorobot, not being subject to lag, making decisions, which our consciousness then rationalizes after the fact?
So it seems that you are unhappy with people overly-identifying with their biorobot? But that seems to imply a duality: consciousness and biorobot, but that obviously isn't what you're saying. If the consciousness should be identified as part of the biorobot then "you" might simply refer to said robot, and the self-referential "consciousness", having a place within (or perhaps atop) this robot, is none the privileged with the use of "I" (however qualified).
At the end of the day there is still something making decisions, and that thing has for some reason or other a 'consciousness' (however fallible). Should we use 'vous' instead of 'you' and 'nous' instead of 'I'?
I guess the question now is whether our experience is merely a by-product of the machine or whether it serves a purpose.
This post may be muddled but I'm sure an intelligent man such as yourself can puzzle out what I'm trying to say.

[Anonymous No.19583236]

>>19583229
>is none the privileged
I meant "none the less privileged"

[Anonymous No.19583239]

>>19582748
>>19582736
is your brainstate convinced of that?
retards

[Anonymous No.19583241]

>>19583166
>what is the word if not consciousness?
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2017/12/15/the-liars-paradox-naturalized/
"Neglecting harmonies isn’t simply economical, it’s also necessary, at least to the extent that humans have only the most superficial access to the details of those harmonies. It’s not that I don’t bother lecturing my ingroup on the physiology of human cognition and the evolution of the human species, it’s that, ancestrally speaking, I have no way of doing so. I suffer, as all humans suffer, from medial neglect, an inability to intuit the nature of my cognitive capacities, as well as frame neglect, an inability to put those capacities in natural context.
Neglecting the circumstances and constitution of verbal communication is a condition of verbal communication. Speech is oblivious to its biological and historical conditions. Verbal communication appears ‘extensional,’ as the philosophers of language say, because we have no other way of cognizing it. We have instances of speech and we have instances of the world, and we have no way of intuitively fathoming the actual relations between. Luckily for us, if our orientations are sufficiently isomorphic, we can communicate—harmonize our orientations—without fathoming these relations."

[Anonymous No.19583264]

You're welcome.

[Anonymous No.19583268]

>>19583170
"The answer is everything, because if you don't exist you cannot lose anything."
Depends on the meaning of existence. We are a modality by which the universe itself acts, but it would have us believe we do so voluntarily and freely, but in the midst of our immense ignorance freedom is an absurdity and a mockery of a true state of slavery to the continuous impulses that determine our every thought: at most we are fathomless waves of instinct, by which the most unlearned can spontaneously make the most impressive art. The point is that we are seas of the most mysterious instinct and of capabilities that quite defy the explanations of science, such as in the matter of telepathy, which reveals the fiction of the individual mind for what it is: a foundationally capitalist prosthetic and falsification against the unicity of thought, which is naturally free and fully available to all, if only the prison house of capitalist psychology can be perceived and defied through clarity of mind.

[Anonymous No.19583291]

>>19583229
>So the 80ms lag is filled in somehow by the brain and that forms some kind of "margin of error"?
Your causal connections are an after-thought, because otherwise you would have been going in an endless loop.

>So it seems that you are unhappy with people overly-identifying with their biorobot?
I am not, dumbass.

>At the end of the day there is still something making decisions
A computer program does it, too. Your thinking that you are conscious, is merely a question of NOT BEING ABLE TO PERCEIVE.
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/reengineering-dennett-intentionality-and-the-curse-of-dimensionality/
"How then does one partition the task of the robot so that it is apt to make reliable real time decisions? One thing one can do is declare that some things in the world of the creature are to be considered fixed; no effort will be expended trying to track them, to gather more information on them. The state of these features is going to be set down in axioms, in effect, but these are built into the system at no representational cost. One simply designs the system in such a way that it works well provided the world is as one supposes it always will be, and makes no provision for the system to work well (“properly”) under other conditions. The system as a whole operates as if the world were always going to be one way, so that whether the world really is that way is not an issue that can come up for determination."

>I'm sure an intelligent man such as yourself can puzzle out what I'm trying to say.
I'm intelligent enough to understand that you are retarded and are entirely missing the point.

[Anonymous No.19583293]

>>19582736
>>19582808
>>19583002
> the purpose of a car provide continuous motion.
> but if you look into the engine, this continuous motion is provided by discrete controlled explosions.
> Therefore the continuous motion of the car is an illusion and doesnt exist. And

[Anonymous No.19583342]

>>19583293
>the continuous motion of the car is an illusion
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/cognition-obscura-reprise/
"All the information we presently possess regarding supernova and nebula formulation simply was not accessible to the ancient Anasazi or Chinese. As a result, it simply could not impact their attempts to cognize SN-1054. More importantly, not only did they lack access to this information, they also lacked access to any information regarding this lack of information. Their understanding was their only understanding, hedged with portent and mystery, certainly, but sufficient for their practices nonetheless.
The bulk of SN-1054 as we know it, in other words, was superunknown to our ancestors. And, the same as the spark-plugs in your garage make no difference to the operation of your car, that information made no cognizable difference to the way they cognized the skies. The petroglyph understanding of the Anasazi, though doubtless hedged with mystery and curiosity, was for them the entirety of their understanding. It was, in a word, sufficient. Here we see the power–if it can be called such–exercised by the invisibility of ignorance. Who hasn’t read ancient myths or even contemporary religious claims and wondered how anyone could have possibly believed such ‘nonsense’? But the answer is quite simple: those lacking the information and/or capacity required to cognize that nonsense as nonsense!"


> the purpose of a car provide continuous motion.
'Purpose' is an illusion.

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/01/23/flies-frogs-and-fishhooks/
"We were just kids. We knew nothing about biology or evolution, let alone cognition. Despite this ignorance, we had no difficulty whatsoever explaining why it was so easy to catch the frogs: they were too stupid to tell the difference between fishhooks and flies.
Contrast this with the biological view I have available now. Given the capacity of Anuran visual cognition and the information sampled, frogs exhibit systematic insensitivities to the difference between fishhooks and flies. Anuran visual cognition not only evolved to catch flies, it evolved to catch flies as cheaply as possible. Without fishhooks to filter the less fishhook sensitive from the more fishhook sensitive, frogs had no way of evolving the capacity to distinguish flies from fishhooks.
Our old childhood theory is pretty clearly a normative one, explaining the frogs’ failure in terms what they ought to do (the dumb buggers). The frogs were mistaking fishhooks for flies. But if you look closely, you’ll notice how the latter theory communicates a similar normative component only in biological guise. Adducing evolutionary history pretty clearly allows us to say the proper function of Anuran cognition is to catch flies."

[Anonymous No.19583359]

>>19582578
>The agent knows he is conscious only once he has been provided with the linguistic tools to recognize it.
This is nonsense, since using linguistic tools already presupposing that one is conscious already and aware of one’s state of being consciousness to the point of being able to engage in retrospection
>>19581046 #
>why dont we ever encounter or notice the gaps between these alleged chunks?
>How, by principle, could you be conscious of your unconsciousness?
You can’t be directly, but it could be indicated indirectly by constantly occurring gaps in our own experience of being aware, without our waking awareness often vanishing and then suddenly coming into being again, which we dont experience, which is an indication that there are no gaps in consciousness, since we dont have direct confirmation it (which is impossible) nor strong indirect evidence.

[Anonymous No.19583396]

>>19583291
It seems that you are not talented at communicating, and so our dialogue is stymied. I will leave you with this comic strip.

[Anonymous No.19583494]

>>19578686
Are you sure humans are even conscious?, Couldn't there be an alien species that experience reality in a more complex way than we do and by theur definitions we are barely above rock when it comes to our consciousness

[Anonymous No.19583496]

>>19583342
Are you trying as hard as you can to channel the redditor's spirit? Because it really is impressive.

[Anonymous No.19583513]

>>19583494
>Are you sure humans are even conscious?
Literally the only thing I am sure about

[Anonymous No.19583516]

>>19583264
No one trusted the brain to tell us how it worked in science. That was before when we weren’t able to actually pick things apart and look.
The people who didn’t use science and used their own brains to tell them what they were thought they were magic immortal souls.
Do you really think we discovered the human brain functions electro-chemically by just thinking about it???
Are you a fucking idiot?

[Anonymous No.19583520]

>>19583359
*with our waking awareness often vanishing

[Anonymous No.19583545]

>>19583513
But you only have your own experience of what consciousness is, a computer can be programmed to cstegorize itself as conscious but that doesn't means it is, our consciousness could be just an approximation to true conciusness

[Anonymous No.19583554]

>>19583494
> what is the IQ communication gap.
You dont need to think about aliens to realize this, talking with anyone who has more or less 35~40 IQ than you is like interacting with a golden retriever.

[Anonymous No.19583566]

>>19583516
>The people who didn’t use science and used their own brains
>implying these are somehow separate
scientists have brains and make use of them
factoring in information that travelled up your optical nerve does magically alter the processing
retard

[Anonymous No.19583573]

>>19583545
>approximation to true conciusness
I call that consciousness

[Anonymous No.19583638]

>>19583359
>since using linguistic tools already presupposing that one is conscious already and aware of one’s state of being consciousness to the point of being able to engage in retrospection
It simply doesn't. Children are not aware of their consciousness as consciousness when they learn language. Most teenagers have never thematized their own consciousness.

[Anonymous No.19583643]

>>19583573
How can meatbags believe themselves conscious when they can only experience one branch of the wave-function?

[Anonymous No.19583661]

>>19583643
Quite right, they are ignorance personified.

[Anonymous No.19583666]

>>19578733
Based.

[Anonymous No.19583668]

>>19583638
>It simply doesn't. Children are not aware of their consciousness as consciousness when they learn language.
This is just the verbal or discursive idea of consciousness as consciousness, this isn't the same as the immediate and non-discursive awareness of the fact that one is presently sentient, i.e. is aware. Even before somebody has a discursive understanding of consciousness which they acquired from some source, they still have an immediate awareness of the fact that they are endowed with the quality of sentience, that they are conscious in general.

Using linguistic tools presupposes having this immediate and non-conceptual awareness of the fact that oneself is aware, because applying them involves inserting the right words into a framework that presupposes a difference between you, the world and other people, various other grammatical rules etc, which one cannot do without already knowing oneself as a sentient being who occupies a certain context which one has to employ the right linguistic tools for.

This is why it was wrong of you to say "the agent knows he is conscious only once he has been provided with X"

[Anonymous No.19583672]

>>19578686
The answer has always been obvious, consciousness is nothing but an illusion, it doesn't exist, it has never existed, and it will never exist. People are no different than ants, their behaviours predictable.

[Anonymous No.19583673]

>>19583668
I'm not sure about that. My memories from before age 3ish are just flashes of senses, not like a sense that "I am here in this place"

[Anonymous No.19583698]

>>19583661
>>19583643
>they
>them
you may have a habit against it, but this is really the time to be using >we

[Anonymous No.19583712]

>>19583668
Being aware and being aware of your consciousness as a consciousness are not the same thing, obviously. No one understands immanently that we have a property that eludes definition and separates us from automatons while they are still shitting their diapers.

[Anonymous No.19583733]

>>19583712
At which stage humans have less awareness than a chimpanzee the same age.

[Anonymous No.19583737]

>>19583643
What about quantum computers?, Assuming they're able to experience their own superposition could they achieve a higher level of consciousness than us meatbags?

[Anonymous No.19583741]

>>19578686
Science (necessarily) describes physical processes. Mental states are not physical, so science can't describe them.

If someone in this thread can give an ACTUAL, CLEAR, CAUSAL explanation of how ions moving in and out of little meat tubes inside of my head can produce the experience of spiciness, or the color blue, or whatever, I will profess your intellectual superiority and leave this board forever

[Anonymous No.19583746]

>>19583737
How do you know we ourselves don't function as quantum computers, especially given the right optimal environment. Maybe we already are mentats in the rough.

[Anonymous No.19583775]

>>19583737
Sounds a lot like the old quack Sentience Quotient. Iirc a hypothetical qantum computers were thought to be a couple of points higher than us (smaller difference than between us and cats, for example).

[Anonymous No.19583781]

>>19583673
>My memories from before age 3ish are just flashes of senses, not like a sense that "I am here in this place"
Those flashes are only memories in the first place because those things presented themselves as contents revealed to a knowing consciousness. It's impossible to be aware of something while at the same time being unware of the fact that you are aware generally, because the first discloses the second at the same time as itself.

[Anonymous No.19583789]

>>19583781
Incorrect, certain psychological & brain traumas suggest otherwise.

[Anonymous No.19583798]

>>19583781
>It's impossible to be aware of something while at the same time being unware of the fact that you are aware generally, because the first discloses the second at the same time as itself
Awareness doesn't share itself by implication. A child is aware of something without being aware he is aware because awareness is not a concept for him.

[Anonymous No.19583802]

>>19583781
I thought it was generally accepted that around 3-5 is when you first get the awareness of self that you're describing

[Anonymous No.19583805]

>>19583789
If you have only inconclusive evidence that at most 'suggests' something then it's silly to act as though that allows you to declare with certainty that the claim in question is wrong. In any case, what is the certain psychological or brain trauma that you believe suggests otherwise and how?

[Anonymous No.19583833]

>>19578686
Why are you expecting science to answer philosophical problems? Pic related already answered the remaining questions in philosophy related to consciousness. You read the wrong books.

[Anonymous No.19583842]

>>19583805
Certain states that mimic this by force of shock or trauma: "Verse 7 of the Mandukya Upanishad mentions four states of consciousness. Three states of consciousness are familiar, which are wakefulness, dreaming, and sleep. The most interesting and unusual is the fourth state called Turiya. Turiya is defined as follows: “They consider the fourth quarter as perceiving neither what is inside nor what is outside, nor even both together; not as a mass of perception, neither as perceiving nor as not perceiving; as unseen; as beyond the reach of ordinary transaction; as ungraspable; as without distinguishing marks; as unthinkable; as indescribable; as one whose essence is the perception of itself alone; as the cessation of the visible world; as tranquil; as auspicious; as without a second. That is the self (atman), and it is that which should be perceived (Olivelle, 1998, p. 475).” Turiya is also mentioned in other Upanishads as well; for example, in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, chapter 5.14.3 (Olivelle, 1998). Turiya is not simply another state of consciousness but is considered the basis of all the other three states of consciousness. Given this conceptualization, the possibility of Turiya has important implications for theories of consciousness (Metzinger, 2019)."

[Anonymous No.19583854]

>>19583833
ba-a-a-sed

[Anonymous No.19583862]

>>19583854
But it should be qualified that reading him well actually means reading a hundred that came before

[Anonymous No.19583878]

>>19583833
But that isn't Brentano or Husserl...? I think

[Anonymous No.19583886]

>>19583878
and yet no one mentions Chomsky the pinnacle of the linguistic side of these considerations.

[Anonymous No.19583972]

>>19583833
How? Elaborate, anon.

[Anonymous No.19583974]

>>19578717
I freak*ng love science

[Anonymous No.19583977]

Is this any good? From a first glance it seems very extensive and even has a section of mystical experiences

[Anonymous No.19583983]

>>19583798
>Awareness doesn't share itself by implication.
It does, because the fact of having knowledge cannot be separated from or occur outside the context of being known by a knower, i.e. a knowing presence. Knowledge occurring involves the disclosure of presence of the knower at the same time as the known content, in the very moment of something appearing to awareness it has established itself as that which is appearing to and hence which is opposed to awareness, something cannot appear to awareness without that fact disclosing that there is an awareness knowing it. Knowing anything presupposes a knower.

When you know something, when knowledge takes place, there is an element present which is not the object, which is different from it, we cannot reduce everything to the object because then there is nobody and nothing left who can know that object when there is knowledge, which leaves you with nobody to assign the role of knowing the object aside from the object itself, making the object self-knowing—but this is illogical and contradicted by our experience since we find that thoughts and sensory phenomena are known by awareness and not themselves. We hear sound etc as something different from us, from our knowing awareness, sounds do not hear themselves or smell odors etc. So, since not everything about knowledge can be reduced to the details of the object alone, there has to be admitted something present when there is knowledge, something that isn't the object and its particular shape, sound, color etc, and this is the presence of awareness which is self-disclosing to itself. There is no way for us to know objects, without this other thing that is awareness also being involved and disclosing its own involvement/presence.

Also, consider this, if awareness didn't contain it's own giveness, or self-disclosure, if awareness wasn't revealed to itself, then awareness would have to be known by a 2nd awareness in order for us to have knowledge of it, i.e. in order for us to have awareness of the fact of awareness; but according to you if awareness cannot posses self-disclosure as a rule, a 3rd awareness is required to know the 2nd awareness in order for knowledge to occur, and a 4th awareness needed for that 3rd awareness, and it ends up leading to an infinite regress that makes it impossible to know anything, because there is never a moment when it finally emerges into being known, but it just keeps getting passed down the line without end, you can never arrive at knowledge of anything in this case.

[Anonymous No.19583988]

>>19583798
>A child is aware of something without being aware he is aware because awareness is not a concept for him.
There are two different things this can mean:

1) Being aware as an infant without having a intellectual/discursive notion of what awareness means
2) Being aware as an infant without having an immediate and non-conceptual awareness of the fact that one *is* aware

#1 is acceptable because without your mind understanding a concept discursively you won't have a very clear notion of it as a general concept separated from other concepts, you may only have snatches of it and in ways that are not separated from other things
#2 is not acceptable and should be rejected because regardless of whether you have a discursive understanding of the general notion of awareness in your mind or not, the fact of awareness still involves its own disclosure to itself either way and hence immediate and self-evident non-conceptual awareness of the fact that one is aware

>>19583802
They test that by whether beings can recognize themselves in a mirror, but this recognition is a discursive process meditated by the mind, whereas all discursive mental processes presuppose and require a non-discursive awareness who knows them as such. And so, the recognition of the body in the mirror only shows that the mental discursive process of recognition of identity is taking place, alongside the presence of consciousness; it doesn't directly measure whether that person's consciousness is actually self-aware or not. The consequence of this is that the failure to recognize oneself doesn't necessarily indicate that the consciousness of the being who failed the test is not self-aware already, as it may only be a failure of the discursive mental process of thinking that identifies with the body and then recognizes the reflection of that body in the mirror. You can have a baby with immediate and non-discursive self-awareness of itself as an aware entity without it having developed the cognitive structure yet that is needed to recognize one's own reflection.

[Anonymous No.19583989]

>>19583977
I would look into books written from a non-Western scientific academic perspective, e.g. China or India, even Russia.

[Anonymous No.19583992]

>>19583972

[Anonymous No.19583995]

>>19583988
Do you remember being a baby though? I don't. Again I just remember little flashes of sound, vision, and emotion that dont contain a sense of self at all.

[Anonymous No.19583996]

>>19583989
Any good recommendations? Ones that are similar to to the pic would be best (i.e. ones that give a comprehensive overview of the different schools of thought)

[Anonymous No.19584012]

>>19583995
I remember thought with concomitant verbalization, thinking as an emotional impressionistic state with notions of correlation and causation and emotional *logic*, not just emotional instinct or flashes.

[Anonymous No.19584018]

>>19584012
But that isn't a self aware model of yourself is it? I can distinctly remember the earliest moment when I realized I existed, the sense of being someone in a place, surrounded by other people no less. It was a particular feeling and it isnt present in earlier memories

[Anonymous No.19584022]

>>19583983
You are implying that secondary perceptions are contained within primary ones. They aren't. They are *available* from them, given the right context.

[Anonymous No.19584026]

>>19583833
I used to use the eternal recurrence as a thought experiment.

I would say to myself, "well, that sucked, but if I lament it all day, then I'll lament it in some form over and over again, so I should try to be content."

It was only later I realized Nietzsche was speaking about literal eternal traps; That we should treat consciousness and its hallmark suffering as if it never ends. As prisoners, we should live life as if there is no escape because for all we know, there isn't.

[Anonymous No.19584050]

>>19583996
First I recommend a rudimentary familiarity with Chinese traditional philosophy of consciousness, such as this and decide whether to proceed from there: https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/consciousness-chinese-thought

I personally think it's much more intuitive than coeval Western philosophies of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.19584070]

>>19584018
Usually such infantile forms of consciousness are highly solipsistic: Is it possible that other people have the awareness that I clearly am experiencing, and doubting that such a thing can be equally possible. Btw, I meant *sans* corresponding verbalization in my original comment.

[Anonymous No.19584076]

>>19584050
Thank you anon

[Anonymous No.19584101]

>>19578686

>reasoning

that was their first mistake

[Anonymous No.19584174]

>>19579849
>, but "I don't understand and I'm gonna stop trying because it upsets me" is not a discovery or profound insight. It's a cope.
So learn what Buddhism has to say by ontic inspection instead of being a dumb cunt mate.

[Anonymous No.19584199]

>>19583842
>Certain states that mimic this by force of shock or trauma:
Such as? I have never heard of this proving or showing that people are somehow both aware and not aware that they are aware at the same time which is a contradiction.

>"Verse 7 of the Mandukya Upanishad mentions four states of consciousness.
I have read that Upanishad and Shankara's bhasya on Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika, it would be incorrect for you to cite the Mandukya Upanishad as an example of a state of awareness where there is no non-conceptual self-awareness present, because the Turiya is the same as the Atman, the Turiya is contrasted as a 4th "state" in relation to the previous 3 only to point it out as the unconditioned consciousness which persists immutably despite the successive changes of waking, dream and deep sleep that all take place 'within' Turiya insofar as it is the eternal presence whose light they come and go by. And this Turiya or Atman has its own reality as ever-liberated awareness disclosed to itself, it always has immediate and non-discursive non-dual knowledge of itself. When the Mandukya Upanishad talks about the Turiya not knowing other things, it's talking about how when you really isolate awareness itself and recognize and speak about it as its own thing that has its own nature to it independent of any reference to the objects associated with it, prior to any consideration of it as a 'witness' of objects you still have a self-disclosing, partless, invisible, peaceful, effortlessly existing, non-dual presence that is unaffected by anything and that never goes away or switches off ever, even when you are asleep, sedated, or even when your human body dies and your subtle body is transmigrating to the next host.

That *would* be an example of awareness being present without there being an intellect also present that was thinking about things by the light of awareness, since the Turiya persists even when in Prajna (which occurs in deep sleep and equivalent states) the subtle body along with the mind and all discursivity is withdrawn into an unmanifest state while Turiya remains as non-dual awareness, however that *would not* be an example of awareness somehow being present without having immediate, direct and non-discursive access to (or awareness of) its own beingness as awareness, because Turiya always has this.

[Anonymous No.19584234]

>>19583995
>Again I just remember little flashes of sound, vision, and emotion that dont contain a sense of self at all.
Your memory of those things includes within that memory the non-conceptual awareness you had of the original flash of color, taste etc, but what you're probably looking for is some sort of conceptual awareness of yourself as anon with such and such parents that is aware of blue etc, but this is actually a conceptual i.e. mentally constructed sense of self which may or may not have been present at such an early stage, unlike the non-conceptual self of awareness which is always present as the presence which illumines all objects and which is required in order for any knowledge of thoughts and sensory-perceptions at all to occur.

[Anonymous No.19584242]

>>19578686
give me books on this

[Anonymous No.19584245]

>>19584022
>You are implying that secondary perceptions are contained within primary ones. They aren't. They are *available* from them, given the right context.
I don't really see how that can be so, can you give a theoretical example of how that can take place in relation to what I said and how that might resolve the issue?

[Anonymous No.19584297]

>>19583988
>#2 is not acceptable and should be rejected because regardless of whether you have a discursive understanding of the general notion of awareness in your mind or not, the fact of awareness still involves its own disclosure to itself either way and hence immediate and self-evident non-conceptual awareness of the fact that one is aware
Wrong. A child is aware of the dog barking. He couldn't care less about his awareness of being aware of the dog barking. To obtain it requires a modification of the normal conditions of perception, which is always in principle possible, but in practicality we do not see in young infants or even a number of adults.
A child is a complete prisoner of the natural attitude. Only through his cultivation can he hope to break free of it. The general ToM used by adults is a crutch allowing them to navigate the intricacies of internal life without having to quit leaning on the naturalistic attitude.

[Anonymous No.19584363]

>>19584245
The individual events of perceptions which leads from a primary object to a secondary, and then from that one as a primary to another secondary can be thought as concatenations within the flux of consciousness, but eidetically they are not "contained", but related.
To see the forest from the tree, or the tree from the forest requires not only the actual physical capacity to make to transition, but a certain knowledge (the concepts of trees and forest and the understanding of the relation between the two would be a dead giveaway) of what the transition should result in.

[Anonymous No.19584373]

>>19584297
>Wrong. A child is aware of the dog barking. He couldn't care less about his awareness of being aware of the dog barking.
He may not care about it, but it's already contained in the knowledge of the dark barking as the non-conceptual self-knowledge or self-disclosure of awareness that is inalienable from awareness. This is never absent from us. Even when he is not thinking in a meta- sense about the fact that he is aware and is instead totally engrossed mentally in some seen or heard object, even at that moment there is still immediate, continuous and non-discursive disclosure to awareness that right now, as awareness, it is there existing *as* awareness while the sound of barks and the sights of one's surroundings are all flashing before that awareness like images on a screen, this requires no thought but takes place effortlessly and naturally, it cannot even be interrupted, and it happens even when you are thinking about totally different things or in a daze and not thinking about much at all. You have the non-discursive and effortlessly disclosure of awareness to itself regardless of whatever you are thinking about, even when when you are not thinking about the fact you are aware.
>To obtain it requires a modification of the normal conditions of perception,
Discursive understandings are obtained through a process, but non-discursive immediate self-disclosure of awareness to itself is the very nature of awareness and cannot be separated from it.

[Anonymous No.19584435]

>>19584363
>The individual events of perceptions which leads from a primary object to a secondary, and then from that one as a primary to another secondary can be thought as concatenations within the flux of consciousness, but eidetically they are not "contained", but related.
That doesn't really seem to solve the problem, since that doesn't account for how WE can personally have knowledge of things in such a scheme. Even if you try to smudge the boundaries between the knowledge objects and try to frame things as relations instead, it still leaves the original problem intact of knowledge being impossible because of the regress.

E.G.

I look at my computer (1a), to have knowledge of my computer, that "1a" is taking place needs to be revealed to an awareness which knows "1a", call this second one "1b"

Regardless of whether you try to frame it as 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d etc as discrete entities or events or instead as reference points or transformations in a series of relations, if none of them disclose to themselves their own occurrence then it always gets passed off to another, always delaying its disclosure in knowledge, forever keeping knowledge from actually being known by us.

[Anonymous No.19584438]

>>19584373
The thing is, I believe you are 100% correct *if* you position your analysis within either the eidetic or transcendental field, but at the psychological one this intuition translates only in the absolute acceptation of awareness as itself.

[Anonymous No.19584481]

>>19584438
Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean

[Anonymous No.19584535]

>>19584435
At some point you can pass from concrete intuitions to abstract intuitions (ones which are devoid of material content), such as with any regress toward an axiomatic truth from an event which illustrates it.
To consider an object, really, to make it an objectivity, requires taking a specific point-of-view, which along our umwelt and the object's apertures, gives us a specific vision of that object. This process implies logically a disclosure as well as a closure, but we have no reason that the limits of the act are specifically those of that object, and not rather those of the region surrounding that object. Every point of view therefore creates also a registry of secondary objects which could be obtained by more or less simple modifications of either us, the point-of-view, or the object. If you want to say that these are contained within the act of perception, fine, that isn't too much of a stretch, but they aren't contained within the object itself.
The transformation necessary can require time to acquire. In general, critical thinking doesn't come easily to young folks (a teacher with a knack for Piaget once said full critical thinking is usually only reached around 40-50, which I always thought to be a stretch, but still).

[Anonymous No.19584579]

>>19584199
akinetopsia

[Anonymous No.19584730]

>>19584535
>To consider an object, really, to make it an objectivity, requires taking a specific point-of-view, which along our umwelt and the object's apertures, gives us a specific vision of that object. This process implies logically a disclosure as well as a closure
Yes, but to what though? The objects cannot disclose themselves to themselves as they are insentient. There won't be an 'us' having a vision of them to speak of in the first place if that sense of 'us' isn't known as taking place until its grounded in something else, which then needs to be grounded somewhere and this process extended indefinitely

[Anonymous No.19584773]

>>19579819
p-zombie spotted. or, retard spotted.

[Anonymous No.19584788]

>>19584579
>akinetopsia
That's not an example of having a gap in their consciousness or their sentience failing to disclose the fact that they are sentient to themselves. People with akinetopsia can still perceive motion taking place over multiple moments but struggle with evaluating it in relation to other things or closely tracking distant/fast things, their sense of awareness, of being aware, remains as uninterrupted even when they struggle to visually place a fast moving object, and their knowledge of sounds and the touch of things etc is not interrupted by disruptions of visual data. The awareness which knows the uninterrupted sounds and touch is the same as the one that knows the distorted visual data, alterations in one kind of input to the display of what is revealed to this awareness like when akinetopsia disrupts clean visual processing of changes makes no difference in the awareness which knows that display.

[Anonymous No.19585082]

>>19584730
>The objects cannot disclose themselves to themselves as they are insentient.
They can, as you are an object yourself, if you put yourself in a position to view yourself or part of yourself.
>There won't be an 'us' having a vision of them to speak of in the first place if that sense of 'us' isn't known
I don't see why. Although I guess there is a sense in which it could be said that even your most basic actions would imply a certain intuitive sense of self, as in a sense of a perfect but basic (in the sense of destined to unfold itself) adequation between the actions and actor. This really doesn't seem to me to reach the degree of what I would call a pre-conceptual intuition. There *is* a pre-conceptual mental life, made of pathos and pulsions, as anyone who has seen a 6 hours old fowl faced by a wolf can attest (I mean, unless you want to claim that this fowl as an intuitive conception of the value of its own life).
>which then needs to be grounded somewhere and this process extended indefinitely
I also don't see why that really is a problem. Objectivities are infinitely exchangeable within their specific region, and point-of-views are by principle unlimited. Knowledge may be structured and founded within the edifice of knowledge, but within normal everyday life, we usually do not care that we have not exhausted the possibilities of any mental act.

[Anonymous No.19585138]

>>19583516
>The people who didn’t use science and used their own brains to tell them what they were thought they were magic immortal souls.
The Greeks literally came up with the idea of atoms and that minds were just made of atoms 2400 years before we could observe atoms, you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.19585148]

>>19585082
Exactly, total lack of Eastern philosophy on his part hence the lack of awareness. Objects themselves may have a measure of "sentience," of which they remind us of if only we're attuned to listen and have empathy.

[Anonymous No.19585153]

>>19585138
They also came up with the notion of microbes.

[Anonymous No.19585183]

>>19585148
That has nothing to do with it, but that subjects are 'perceived' as objects are (they are made into an objectivity for your consciousness).

[Anonymous No.19585201]

>>19584026
correct! He means it very literally

[Anonymous No.19585205]

>>19583989
the Pali canon. Full translations of huge parts of it can be found online for free

[Anonymous No.19585249]

please don't argue with the redditor. Don't make him think the studies and blogs he posts that no one will read in 2 years have had or will have any impact on philosophy. Don't acknowledge that he is unknowingly stepping into philosophy, that for his terms necessarily have some relation to ours or the debate would be meaningless, or that the only reason he thinks "philosophy" has made no progress is because he is illiterate. A philosopher does not lower himself to make apologetics for things already long overcome by his predecessors.
The only correct way, as some already know, is to tell him to either get reading and come up to your level, or fuck off

[Anonymous No.19585251]

>current year
>still trying to understand reality by removing the observer
>still thinking in terms of objective/subjective
NGMI

[Anonymous No.19585292]

>>19578749
Through several drug induced programs I have been able to synthesize the thoughts of my companions. I have received their messages and no doubt more have received mine. We are living in a simulation and my goal is to sublimate my consciousness into as many living organisms as possible. Through this I will achieve a form of immortality that historical philosophers only dreamed of.

[Anonymous No.19585322]

>>19585292
Sublimate (in psychoanalytic theory) divert or modify (an instinctual impulse) into a culturally higher or socially more acceptable activity.
"libido must be sublimated into productive work activities)... this tells me nothing, but you go for it! Follow your dream!

[Anonymous No.19585331]

>>19579637
>>19579664
>>19581087
>being so retarded that you take signals that only exist because of your reaction to them as proof of intelligence, personality, and consciousness
wild animals are much smarter yet signal nothing to humans so you would mistake them as automatons.

[Anonymous No.19585366]

>>19585331
Poor trolling, who can doubt that porpoises or elephants have emotions?

[Anonymous No.19585449]

>>19585322
i.e. The instinctual reception of my message (or messages) into the higher consciousness, into thereafter the higher social proceedings of the organism.
I guide my receptors to the light. We are the Enlightened Few.

[Anonymous No.19585590]

>Science tries to explain how quantum physics and regular physics works
>Science tries to explain how chemistry and biology works which is has a relationship with the above.
>Currently consciousness isn't solved
>Regardless philosophers get to do their thing about what this all means.
I don't see the difficulty

[Anonymous No.19585643]

>+280 posts just to say that Hegel was right
Spirit, do explain how this thread was necessary for you?

[Anonymous No.19585720]

>>19585643i
mlds ;pruned my thread on brutal mcarthian murder, so this be ok

[Anonymous No.19585733]

>>19578717
We're just particles of change

[Anonymous No.19585750]

>>19578733
True

[Anonymous No.19585953]

>>19585331
>signal nothing
Have you ever interacted with an animal?
Alternatively any women?

[Anonymous No.19586660]

>>19583977
Yes, it's the best introduction that I found, it lays out all of the issues and theories and it's quite contemporary. It will also naturally suggest further reading. Don't waste your time with eastern "philosophy" or at least don't replace this book with it, as you're already on the right track. When you compare the two, you'll see which approach is clearly superior and which is a confused mess that isn't going anywhere and claims to be complete by ignoring obvious problems.

[Anonymous No.19586945]

>>19578717
>stabs you in the chest
it's just some molecules moving through space bro

[Anonymous No.19587353]

>>19586660
how do you know that book doesn't have ideas from eastern philosophy?

[Anonymous No.19587373]

>>19587353
actually, forget the question. I went and checked and of course it has several sections on it. There's more hidden, but it's filtered through western interpreters, and you'd need to know the history of philosophy to spot it

[Anonymous No.19587517]

>>19583741
Nigger, your argument is not wrong, but I would make this adjustment to really hit home precisely:
It needs to asserted that for materialism to hold, a model of the arrangement or movement of ions/waves/atoms in a brain must have *the same meaning* as the color blue, spiciness, a train, etc... (Since materialism means asserting that precisely only the model exists).
In other words, if you were to construct a perfect mental model of a brain in the state where blue is being perceived, materialism would imply that model would be identical to blue. But then the color could be substituted for the model, apparently without loss of information, and perceiving the color blue would be equivalent to *knowing the exact position and arrangement of all the monads (waves, atoms, whatever your mathematical model wants to cal them) that make up the brain state in the moment it perceives blue. But this is absurd

[Anonymous No.19587616]

>>19586660
No, the best is the one that combines the two approaches, in the practice eastern meditation is unequaled and therefore eastern theories of mind have much empirically to teach us about mind.

[Anonymous No.19587629]

>>19587353
>>19587373
It does, some of it is fashionable in some circles and it doesn't invalidate my point. Also
>There's more hidden, but it's filtered through western interpreters, and you'd need to know the history of philosophy to spot it
Do tell. Until you give an example it's just a pretense to knowledge and I call bullshit. Unless you claim some eastern influence that ever happened before Schopenhauer, then you can just not bother with this long disproven crap.

[Anonymous No.19587655]

>>19587616
That's a confused argument. You can have beneficial techne with an utterly bullshit theory. Unless you claim that the practice of meditation has epistemic value in which case I reject your premise.

[Anonymous No.19587667]

>>19587629
>>19587629
What sort of arrogance allows you to say without qualification that the societies that most excelled at meditation, systematized it like nothing else remotely seen in the West, have nothing to contribute to theories of mind? You do realize that until the arrival of Chomsky the apex of linguistic theory had been reached in the East by a Sanskrit scholar writing around 400BCE.

[Anonymous No.19587683]

>>19587655
Occam's razor: possible but improbable.

[Anonymous No.19587758]

>>19587667
>What sort of arrogance allows you to say without qualification that the societies that most excelled at meditation, systematized it like nothing else remotely seen in the West, have nothing to contribute to theories of mind?
Every time I check out what they have to say I'm unimpressed. I dabble here and there and the West wins, its problems posed and proposed solutions clearly of more epistemic value. You sloppily expanded my argument out of proportion, as if I passed a value judgement over the unknown, but I'll chalk it up to too much meditation and not enough old fashioned reading and evaluating of arguments.
>You do realize that until the arrival of Chomsky the apex of linguistic theory had been reached in the East by a Sanskrit scholar writing around 400BCE.
I don't know about your ancient scholar, but I know that I would have heard about him if this was true. Pretty sure it's another one of those cases where some ancient eastern work is misinterpreted to be prescient of modern western work in order to popularize it.
>>19587683
That's not quite Occam's razor, but whatever. It's still wrong on its face, cases of beneficial techne and some completely bonkers theory to go with it are ubiquitous in human history, this happens more often than not. Medicine is as old as archaeology.

[Anonymous No.19587767]

>>19587758
All of science, technology, and terse philosophy were mistakes and lead one astray from a more sophisticated manner of thinking and approaching problems.
Dharmic mysticism does have more to say about the mind and one's relationship to the absolute than any Western scientist or philosopher. Please go back to Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19587782]

>>19587758
Well then you're contradicting Chomsky himself: like I said absolutely ignorant arrogance. The ancient linguist in question is Panini, leaves the ancient Greeks in the stone age.

[Anonymous No.19587789]

>>19587767
>All of science, technology, and terse philosophy were mistakes and lead one astray from a more sophisticated manner of thinking and approaching problems.
Approach the problem of replying to my post without the benefits of science and technology.
>Please go back to Christianity.
Damn again with these >implications

[Anonymous No.19587807]

>>19587782
>In particular, de Saussure, who lectured on Sanskrit for three decades, may have been influenced by Pāṇini and Bhartrihari; his idea of the unity of signifier-signified in the sign somewhat resembles the notion of Sphoṭa.
ah, "may have been influenced by something tangential", "somewhat resembles", I stand corrected lmao

[Anonymous No.19587811]

>>19587789
>Approach the problem of replying to my post without the benefits of science and technology.
There are no benefits to science and technology. I use these tools because I was never taught self-reliance skills in nature. You act like learning to live like Ted Kaczysnki or Forestanon is easy. It requires a lot of training, learning, and preparation. I was sadly domesticated by modern society. Of course, since I consider the secular world order an immense failure, I will have no kids. My decision to have no kids is not rooted in bullshit nihilism, but rather, it is based on acknowledging the secular, technological world order as a failure.
>Damn again with these >implications
Christianity is better than the fervent worship of science, technology, rationalism, and secular ideals. All of these been failures for a number of reasons that require a thorough honest mind to understand. To discuss each point requires a critical mind outside of simply enslaving itself to the "Scientific Method".

[Anonymous No.19587828]

>>19587807
Damn have you been filtered, nah you gotta be trolling methinks (can't be this dense): "Pāṇini's theory of morphological analysis was more advanced than any equivalent Western theory before the 20th century. His treatise is generative and descriptive, uses metalanguage and meta-rules, and has been compared to the Turing machine wherein the logical structure of any computing device has been reduced to its essentials using an idealized mathematical model."

[Anonymous No.19587829]

>>19587811
>You act like learning to live like Ted Kaczysnki or Forestanon is easy. It requires a lot of training, learning, and preparation. I was sadly domesticated by modern society. Of course, since I consider the secular world order an immense failure, I will have no kids. My decision to have no kids is not rooted in bullshit nihilism, but rather, it is based on acknowledging the secular, technological world order as a failure.
You what? Is the shit you write in any way related to what you're replying to? Is this some deep level of meditative discourse that I'm unable to comprehend?

[Anonymous No.19587849]

>>19587829
You claimed I am using the "benefits of technology and science". I countered that there are truly no benefits of technology and science, and the only reason I use them is as a tool for survival because I was domesticated by society.
I am attacking your fundamental claim that any aspect of science or technology has had a "positive effect". In order to refute your position more, we must proceed to enumerate the aspects of modernized society that you find "better". After you enumerate these aspects, I will proceed to dismantle each point with a combination of wisdom, exposing misinformation, and more.

Everything from modern technology, modern medicine, modern TV & social media, modern "secular ideals" of liberty, modern social norms, and so forth have all been utter failures.

[Anonymous No.19587857]

>>19587849
Add modern agriculture too. The list is endless.
I await your process of enumerating what aspects of modern, secular, and technological society are better.

[Anonymous No.19587860]

>>19587828
Let me refer you to my original claim >>19587758 :
>Pretty sure it's another one of those cases where some ancient eastern work is misinterpreted to be prescient of modern western work in order to popularize it.
This is not incompatible with your claim that Panini was had more advanced linguistics than any equivalent Western theory before the 20th century. Arguing with the likes of you is really tiring.

[Anonymous No.19587889]

Boltzman theory ensures random versions of your brain will manifest in the cosmos given enough time.

If consciousness is tied to matter you're fucked, there's no leaving, even after death. We're here forever.

[Anonymous No.19587893]

>>19578686
Neuroscience is largely a flawed field based on producing "toy models", which is composed of metaphors rooted in modern technology, as a way of describing the brain. It is debatable if there is even a "progress towards greater truth" with its limited methodology of the "Scientific Method".
In Philosophy of Science, there is a position called "instrumentalism". Science is not a way of describing the nature of reality; rather, it is way of learning trends or patterns of activity and then making predictions based on provisional models of reality. As the saying goes, "The map is not the territory."

[Anonymous No.19587916]

>>19587857
>I await your process of enumerating what aspects of modern, secular, and technological society are better.
Shift the topic, invent some claim I never made as if it's relevant and unless I can defend it, I'm wrong. This is your brain on eastern "philosophy". The claim happens to perfectly defensible, but I'm really done with this exchange.

[Anonymous No.19587925]

>>19587916
You told me to "Approach the problem of replying to my post without the benefits of science and technology." You are already assuming there are benefits of science and technology here. You are disingenuous and not interested in genuine discussion.
I am approaching the problem with a "tool" that has overall been more destructive to the health & communal integrity of people, to the ecological state of the world, and much more.

[Anonymous No.19587989]

>>19587925
I know you're too dumb to see how you inadvertently shifted the topic from episteme to techne, but this is precisely the reason why I'm done with you. :^)

[Anonymous No.19588028]

>>19587989
List each of the benefits that have come from societies that value science, technology, and secularism, and I will refute each point individually. Do it if you're not a coward.

[Anonymous No.19588322]

>>19579601
this is the single educated post in this whole thread

[Anonymous No.19589457]

>>19579643
But isn’t the only reason that its more metaphysically concise to advocate for pansychism is because of the very subjectivity which limits not only our perception of the world, but how the sensible data given to us is constructed according to the metrics of consciousness (time and space) and the categories of intuition? Saying Pansychism is more metaphysically concise is just saying that pansychism appeals more to our intuition and ability to organize and conceive of the data given to us. Saying that it’s much harder for a mental entity to describe the world in non-mental terms only tells us about the limitations of our grasp of reality as opposed to the fundamental nature of reality itself.

[Anonymous No.19589504]

>>19579799
Absolute strawman. Reddit sciencetards deny the existence of philosophically imposed limitations on the complete knowability of consciousness through scientific investigation. Philosophy doesn’t eschew scientific explanation in favor of theoretical philosophical explanation in regards to explaining consciousness, rather it posits philosophical limitations on the ability for science and physicalism to fully describe and mathematize conscious experience. No one is saying philosophy has the answers, rather philosophy is needed as a tool to keep science’s conclusions in check and determine/limit overzealous implications of its discoveries. Without philosophical work on the “hard problem of consciousness,” people could claim that knowledge about all physical facts of neurobiology constitutes everything there is to know about consciousness— but many would argue this is not the case.

[Anonymous No.19589712]

>>19582879
These examples don’t, in any way, disprove that claim. These are conditions which only alter/disable a consciousness’ ability to interpret/process the information given to it, and to draw faulty conclusions from those faulty processes about itself. They don’t at all demonstrate an underlying possibility that consciousness can delude itself about its very existence. The act of even calling these mental delusions “delusions” implies they are deviations from a real state of being. How can you suppose one’s false belief in their being-dead is false without consequently implying their belief in being-alive (being-conscious) is true?

[Anonymous No.19589725]

>>19579771
Francis stop smelling cats and get back to work. and fix your fingernails too they're all long