/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20189667]

What does /lit/ think about the filtering hypothesis? Essentially that the brain filters consciousness activity which is in reality unbound and goes beyond space and time. The brain is like a radio that is tuned to a certain channel, namely your personal consciousness, so that brain activity and consciousness are not the same.

[Anonymous No.20189674]

>>20189667
I've been reading Skinner lately, and while he makes a good case for physicalist behaviorism I can't help but think that cognitivism and behaviorism are not completely exclusive. I think cognition and behavior exist independently of one another, I'm assuming that might be a pseudo-Cartesian position. Fill me in.

[Anonymous No.20189679]

i thought god just gave us a remarkable brain structure that we still have trouble keeping up with its omnipotence

[Anonymous No.20189694]

>>20189667

[Anonymous No.20189707]

>>20189667
Bunch of metaphysical nonsense with no backing up.
>Brain is just a receiver bro
>*Brain gets removed*
>See, see! He can't function he isn't receiving anything.
>*Dude gets blugeoned or gets brain disease and is fucked up*
>See, see! The receiver is damaged and makes the person fucked up!
Damn you are retarded. If brain was receiving anything then it would be possible to measure it like radio waves, instead it's a bunch of metaphysical masturbation, that honestly doesn't answer nor change anything.

[Anonymous No.20189718]

>>20189707

[Anonymous No.20189719]

>>20189707
>regurgitated Carnapshit

[Anonymous No.20189734]

>>20189667

[Anonymous No.20189736]

>>20189667
fag

[Anonymous No.20189739]

>>20189707
>If brain was receiving anything then it would be possible to measure it like radio waves
We can, it's called the measure of consciousness which only (you) can measure in each instant of your existence.

[Anonymous No.20189750]

>>20189707
Why do materialists have to resort to mischaracterising arguments that counter their views? Why do you expect people to even take you seriously if you're just going to argue against straw men?

[Anonymous No.20189768]

>>20189707
>this literal zombie nigger is incapable of measuring his own consciousness
Stick with engineering

[Anonymous No.20189786]

>>20189718
By this logic your electric motor is conscious, you retards haven't even finished highschool. Or is only the human brain endowed with the possibility to decrypt your waves into consciousness? You people are literally insane.
>>20189719
Not an argument, finish highschool.
>>20189739
>It's real in my mind
There are retards who have talked to Jesus in their mind, you are retarded, go submit to the next Jim Jones or Ron Hubbard.
>>20189750
Make an argument, but your arguments as the others replied above are either "it's real in my mind" or "my EV is conscious".

[Anonymous No.20189792]

>>20189786
>finish high school
Nigger I'm 39.

[Anonymous No.20189793]

>>20189768
Stick to fiction.

[Anonymous No.20189796]

>>20189792
And still retarded, my condolences to your family.

[Anonymous No.20189821]

>>20189786
>There are retards who have talked to Jesus in their mind, you are retarded, go submit to the next Jim Jones or Ron Hubbard.
Consciousness != mind. Learn to read.

[Anonymous No.20189822]

>>20189786
Kastrup doesn't believe that the brain is a transistor. He asserts that such a view entails a dualist perspective, which he doesn't believe in. He doesn't believe in "things" that exist outside of consciousness. An individual's consciousness in his view is more like a whirlpool in a river. It is a type of activity in a field of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.20189861]

>>20189796
I guess it beats being a faggot. I mean I'm not the one trading stds in bathroom stalls with other men at Princeton or Harvard but what do I know?

[Anonymous No.20189910]

>>20189707
Materialism simply can't explain immaterial consciousness
COPE MOAR

[Anonymous No.20190116]

>>20189822
Is he an advaitafag too?

[Anonymous No.20190120]

>>20189910
>materialism can't explain something that doesn't exist
Agreed

[Anonymous No.20190138]

>>20190120
The only way you could believe that qualia doesn't exist is because you don't experience them, seeing as this is the only way of knowing them, and nothing could be more obvious than their existence to people who do experience them. Essentially it is impossible to prove the existence of qualia to an NPC, which you have made absolutely clear that you are, so there is no point in talking to you. You are a fully existing philosophical zombie.

[Anonymous No.20190141]

>>20190116
Relevence?

[Anonymous No.20190147]

>>20190116
No, Kastrup’s metaphysics actually teaches a lot of things that would be criticized by Advaita.

[Anonymous No.20190190]

>>20190138
> obvious
NTA but that's the thing about illusions - they have no foundation to them, but they are obvious. It's pretty much what makes them illusions.

You are living on Earth, and the Sun orbits it, because that is obvious to you. Or so you believe.

[Anonymous No.20190208]

>>20189707
>He thinks the arbitrarily chosen unfalsifiable foundation to his metaphysics is superior to the unfalsifiable foundation of a metaphysics that specifically chooses its foundation because it's the only thing that can logically never be falsified, despite his unfalsifiable foundation only being currently empirically unfalsifiable, although it could logically be falsified and likely will be soon given that many physicists believe spacetime is doomed.

[Anonymous No.20190214]

>>20190190
How could consciousness be considered an illusion? What does that even mean? The point of qualia is tha

[Anonymous No.20190222]

>>20190190
The point of qualia is that even if we call them illusions, they still exist. Literally philosophy 101.

[Anonymous No.20190224]

>>20190214
I knew it. Threads about philosophy of mind are preyed upon by the Candleja

[Anonymous No.20190241]

>>20190190
You do realise that "illusions" still exist, right? They may not exist in the outside world, but there is such a phenomena called "illusions". Just as dreams may not exist in the outside world, but there is such a phenomena as "dreams". The same can be said of qualia.

[Anonymous No.20190243]

>>20190222
>How could consciousness be considered an illusion? What does that even mean?
It means that there is no ghost in the shell, but the shell is built in such a way that it sees a ghost if it looks in a mirror.

>The point of qualia is that even if we call them illusions, they still exist.
Indeed. But that would mean that like any illusion, they exist only in our perception, and not in the internal workings of what forms the illusion. There's no need to fundamentally alter our perception to be rid of this illusion (why would we even need it?), but it cannot provide us with any meaningful insights into how our mind works, at all, and would rather lead us down a wrong path.

[Anonymous No.20190250]

>>20190214
Saying that qualia are illusions doesn’t necessarily entail saying that consciousness is an illusion, for the reason that one position is that qualia themselves are just unconscious content that is being known as objects by a unified field of awareness, which would be the actual consciousness. I dont think that’s the position the other poster was trying to articulate but its worth pointing out this distinction.

[Anonymous No.20190253]

>>20190241
>They may not exist in the outside world
Then stop trying to ground it in the outside world.

>Just as dreams may not exist in the outside world, but there is such a phenomena as "dreams"
Yeah, but you don't try and explain a human being through the contents of his dreams, do you?

[Anonymous No.20190258]

>>20189667
It sounds like an age old idea made novel so it can be sold. I prefer the memetic argument, when one wants to discuss valid 'reincarnation', as this is; all ideas about consciousness are born from fear of death and our losing the most central aspect of ourselves. But even without teleology, metaphysics or physics, if you want to get physical about the objectivity of consciousness - our consciousness (or it's artifacts) is axiomatically made up of memes, so when you die the memes continue to live, as nonphysical ideas, or cosmo-chronological tardigrades/cockroaches. If what matters most is just some abstract/vague/qualic - ultimately metaphysically disembodied 'seat of consciousness' - idea about consciousness existing... somewhere....sometime... as the ever-permeating expression of the monad or something, we're already there. When someone mourns they integrate some of your radiating memetic remnance into themselves, and partially fuse into you (as you do them.)

[Anonymous No.20190259]

>>20190138
>he thinks qualia disprove physicalism
I guess (You) were the npc the whole time

[Anonymous No.20190268]

>>20190258
>all ideas about consciousness are born from fear of death and our losing the most central aspect of ourselves
But the most central aspect of my being is my dick.

Might explain why I am not bothered by physicalism tho.

[Anonymous No.20190284]

>>20190243
>>20190243
>It means that there is no ghost in the shell, but the shell is built in such a way that it sees a ghost if it looks in a mirror.

Whether there is a ghost in the shell or not, it is irrelevant to the fact you can describe red in physicalist terms to someone who has never seen red, and this would lead to that person knowing red as someone who experiences it knows it.

>Indeed. But that would mean that like any illusion, they exist only in our perception, and not in the internal workings of what forms the illusion. There's no need to fundamentally alter our perception to be rid of this illusion (why would we even need it?), but it cannot provide us with any meaningful insights into how our mind works, at all, and would rather lead us down a wrong path.

It's not the qualia themselves that provide insight into how our mind works, it's the fact that explaining what causes qualia with physical facts does not help someone to know qualia if they haven't experienced the qualia in question, given that the definition of qualia is the something it is like to experience X. This therefore proves that a physicalist approach cannot explain everything, because there is a part of our world which cannot be described with references to other things, and this part is phenomenal experience. Every other part of our world can be sufficiently explained by references to other things, although eventually they will lead back to qualia.

Either way, I'm tired of arguing with an NPC, because I'm making the same points over and over again. I can totally understand why you have your perspective: what I'm saying must make no sense to a zombie. Have fun not experiencing anything.

[Anonymous No.20190294]

>>20190258
This is what happens when you think reading Richard Dawkins qualifies you to have philosophical opinions.

[Anonymous No.20190309]

>>20190284
>you can describe red in physicalist terms to someone who has never seen red, and this would lead to that person knowing red as someone who experiences it knows it
Ah, that's pure word games on what is "knowing" and what is "experience" and what contains what information and whatnot, and I don't see how it is relevant.

> because there is a part of our world which cannot be described with references to other things
That sounds more like a limitation of our perceptive and communicative capabilities, than anything. What does our capacity to explain anything has to do with qualia? If we cannot draw a map of it, than the territory exists/doesn't exist? It's kinda irrelevant.

>Either way, I'm tired of arguing with an NPC, because I'm making the same points over and over again
Nah, this is the first time you made this particular point. Your previous point was that it's impossible to have experiences and not believe that qualia exist. Which kinda rests on a hugeass assumption but pretends that it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.20190361]

>>20190309

>Ah, that's pure word games on what is "knowing" and what is "experience" and what contains what information and whatnot, and I don't see how it is relevant.

That qualia exists is the only thing you can know for certain. Are you a fucking retard? Someone who has experienced red "knows" what it is like to experience it. Someone who hasn't doesn't. The reason you can't grasp this is because you are an NPC.

>That sounds more like a limitation of our perceptive and communicative capabilities, than anything. What does our capacity to explain anything has to do with qualia? If we cannot draw a map of it, than the territory exists/doesn't exist? It's kinda irrelevant.

It's not a limit of perception, it's a limit of materialism. I KNOW I experience things, and so therefore there is such a thing as qualia that exists, but it is by the definition of qualia impossible for materialism to describe it. Anything else that exists could POSSIBLY be described, even if we are not yet aware of its existence.

Holy fuck how many times are you going to fail to understand this? Are you moron?

[Anonymous No.20190415]

>>20190361
>That qualia exists is the only thing you can know for certain. Are you a fucking retard? Someone who has experienced red "knows" what it is like to experience it
I just pointed out that it's all a construct of what meaning we place on "knowing". If the experience of red simply has any content that cannot exist in a language, then the difference will persist regardless of existence or nonexistence of qualia - some of the information is simply lost in translation. Arguably, some information is lost in translation of any phenomenon into any language, but for some reason you don't see that as an argument for existence of qualia in everything that can ever be communicated, and consequentially transcendental nature of absolutely everything.

I also think you messed up your negations on the first take there
> it is irrelevant to the fact you can describe red in physicalist terms to someone who has never seen red, and this would lead to that person knowing red as someone who experiences it knows it.

>I KNOW I experience things
So does a computer. I mean, at least it can be programmed to answer this way, and it will make perfect sense in it's internal logic. But (you) are not that way, of course, (you) just KNOW it.

>It's not a limit of perception, it's a limit of materialism.
How so? You don't explain that part - you just refer back to the axiom, without elaborating on.
>but it is by the definition of qualia impossible for materialism to describe it
Most philosophers of mind do entirely agree that the formal concept of qualia IS indeed a dig at the physicalism and nothing else, so they successfully ignore it.

>Anything else that exists could POSSIBLY be described
That's also an extremely strong and retarded claim.

[Anonymous No.20190420]

>>20190284
>and this would lead to that person knowing red as someone who experiences it knows it.

No one actually believes this, right?

[Anonymous No.20190428]

>>20190420
He made a typo, don't be mean.

[Anonymous No.20190432]

>>20189667
>What does /lit/ think about the filtering hypothesis? Essentially that the brain filters consciousness activity which is in reality unbound and goes beyond space and time. The brain is like a radio that is tuned to a certain channel, namely your personal consciousness, so that brain activity and consciousness are not the same.
Is this thesis vulnerable in any way? Is it possible to falsify it? Chances are, it's a load of speculative theorizing that is impervious to facts. Either that or, if his terms are well-defined and his mechanisms well-described, this theory was already falsified by neuropsychology, which has many examples of very specific changes in the mind caused by very specific brain damage. If he can wave all of these facts away by saying "yeah, the receiver got damaged bro, so the signal is different", then his speculations are suspect. Why can we map the workings of the mind to the structure and functions of the brain with such precision and predictive power? If the metaphor with the radio is of any use, then the radio does not need to be so closely similar in structure and function with the radio waves, that's nonsense. And if he would claim in response to this that when you take psychodelics you are, like, tuned to a totally different frequency bro, then this is useless brophilosophy that's pandering to the Internet crowd and wrong on the facts.
>>20189822
>Kastrup doesn't believe that the brain is a transistor. He asserts that such a view entails a dualist perspective, which he doesn't believe in. He doesn't believe in "things" that exist outside of consciousness. An individual's consciousness in his view is more like a whirlpool in a river. It is a type of activity in a field of consciousness.
It's possible to concoct a perfectly encapsulated (epistemological) idealism that would be resistant to philosophical arguments. And it seems like this is what this guy is going for. But there's a reason why idealism is not taken seriously anymore, a little thing called the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing and predicting the behavior of extramental phenomena (a.k.a. science).

At a quick glance, you can see that this Kastrup guy spends more time gallivanting around the Internet and pushing out self-published books, than engaging with actual philosophers. This is always a red flag.

[Anonymous No.20190451]

>>20190432
>It's possible to concoct a perfectly encapsulated (epistemological) idealism that would be resistant to philosophical arguments
It's not just possible - it's easy. Just leave all the internal contradictions outside the parentheses.

[Anonymous No.20190457]

>>20190451
There are many meanings of the term and I specified which one I meant. Not sure what your point is.

[Anonymous No.20190465]

>>20190457
>Not sure what your point is.
That I agree with you.

[Anonymous No.20190480]

>>20190465
You're not sure what your point is? Ok, then.

[Anonymous No.20190485]

>>20189750
You can't blame them. They were fated to be this retarded from the dawn of time.

[Anonymous No.20190487]

>>20190361
>MUH qualia YOU NPC, you will never understand what I'm talking about
The last refuge of the lazy brainlet. They will pretend like actual human beings cannot see colors the way they do. All to avoid admitting to themselves that there just might be something they don't understand and it might just take some effort to take their understanding a bit further than entry-level. No, the brainlet will be satisfied in the delusion that his mind is special and those who disagree must lack insight into fundamental facts.

[Anonymous No.20190555]

>>20190487
>fundamental facts.

Qualia are fundamental facts? How does that fit into your materialist world view?

[Anonymous No.20190568]

>>20190415
>That's also an extremely strong and retarded claim.

Uh anon, that's literally the claim that materialism makes.

[Anonymous No.20190604]

>>20190568
>Uh anon, that's literally the claim that materialism makes.
Uh anon, it is not. Mind being an epiphenomenon of material processes does not require said epiphenomenon to be capable of describing absolutely everything that may or may not exist regardless of circumstances. In fact, I don't know any forms of materialism that are grounded on every extant phenomenon being a priori describable.

It seems more like Kastrup's argument is built on qualia seeming like an illusory non-entity for physicalism while it it meaningful and relevant for him - and he described the opposing argument AROUND this opposition using the antithesis to his point as the base, while in practice it's not the foundation - it's merely one of the consequences, and an irrelevant one.

In other words, it's a strawman.

[Anonymous No.20190622]

>>20190555
>Qualia are fundamental facts?
This literal word salad is something I said, according to the brainlet. Qualia in the concrete, qualia in the abstract, what's the difference, right? Literally too dense to argue with, especially because it's the exact attitude I attacked in the quoted post. Willfully ignorant and proud of it.

[Anonymous No.20190680]

>>20190415
>I just pointed out that it's all a construct of what meaning we place on "knowing". If the experience of red simply has any content that cannot exist in a language, then the difference will persist regardless of existence or nonexistence of qualia - some of the information is simply lost in translation. Arguably, some information is lost in translation of any phenomenon into any language, but for some reason you don't see that as an argument for existence of qualia in everything that can ever be communicated, and consequentially transcendental nature of absolutely everything.

If I describe to you the physical process that causes heat to occur, then it is possible for you to understand this process. There might be other details I could add, but ultimately those details are all possible to describe in physical terms, except phenomenal experiences of heat.

>I also think you messed up your negations on the first take there

Just a typo, you get the picture.

>So does a computer. I mean, at least it can be programmed to answer this way, and it will make perfect sense in it's internal logic. But (you) are not that way, of course, (you) just KNOW it

I don't know how this is relevant. I'm not denying computers can have phenomenal experiences, and if they can it makes it no easier to describe such experiences in physical terms.

>How so? You don't explain that part - you just refer back to the axiom, without elaborating on.

I've actually already explained this multiple times. There is nothing in the materialist worldview that describes how conscious experience supervenes on the physical. The physical might imply the existence of awareness, but as I have already shown, this is distinct from phenomenal experience.

>Most philosophers of mind do entirely agree that the formal concept of qualia IS indeed a dig at the physicalism and nothing else, so they successfully ignore it.

Not an argument.

>That's also an extremely strong and retarded claim.

It's the claim that materialism makes. If X cannot be explained in physical terms, it must not supervene on the physical. Or in other words, it is possible to imagine a physically identical world where X doesn't exist. As shown, the experience of the colour red cannot be described in physical terms to someone has never experienced it to the point that the explanation would give them the same knowledge as experience of it. Or in other words, a person who has studied neurology for all their life but never seen red would not know what it is like to see red. This proves that qualia cannot be "known" by physical explanation, and if materialism says that everything physical can be understood by physical terms, then it must not be physical.

Anyway, we're going in circles now. I've made the same arguments over and over, and you seem to be so far from understanding them that you think invoking AI is relevant. So I'm finished with this argument, have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.20190750]

>>20190680
>There is nothing in the materialist worldview that describes how conscious experience supervenes on the physical. The physical might imply the existence of awareness, but as I have already shown, this is distinct from phenomenal experience.
Oh, look, Chalmer's language suddenly appears, looks like this anon did some googling in the meantime. You do understand all the implications of Chalmer's account that he himself admits, right? Everything that doesn't involve consciousness is causally closed, and that includes your utterances and your beliefs. Your qualia do not cause your beliefs about qualia, your beliefs about qualia are exactly the same, and have the exact same origin, as that of your zombie twin. Everything you said about qualia justifying your worldview is therefore self-defeating. Loser.

[Anonymous No.20190777]

>>20189707
holy cope

[Anonymous No.20190807]

>>20190750
I've read all of Chalmers work and fully accept his world view.

[Anonymous No.20190827]

>>20189667

I for one, excitedly anticipate the anguished seething of hylics in response to the publishing of David Bentley Harts upcoming book on philosophy of mind.

https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/plan-for-a-book-on-the-science-of-mind/

[Anonymous No.20190865]

>>20190807
Ok, so I automatically get the reply to the paradox I outlined, because you're just going to parrot Chalmers in addressing it. It's not a contradiction, you say, it's a "challenge" to be "resolved in the future"? Allright, if and when Chalmers resolves this "challenge" I'll have your answer too. Of course, until then you'll have to refrain from mentioning qualia, because it's provably fruitless. Ironic that you go around calling other people NPCs if you have no mind of your own though.

[Anonymous No.20190959]

>>20190865
Less of a challenge than proving matter even exists.

[Anonymous No.20190983]

>>20190827
It has been quite some time since he announced that he's working on this book, but in the meantime he kept publishing other books. I hope he delivers.

[Anonymous No.20191033]

>>20190432
> this theory was already falsified by neuropsychology, which has many examples of very specific changes in the mind caused by very specific brain damage.
That’s not actually falsifying the premise that consciousness is like a radio wave in relation to the brain-as-radio-receiver, because those changes observed in mental behavior are not actually changes observed in consciousness itself, but are changes in thoughts, memory etc; but thoughts are not conscious or consciousness but are insentient mental objects of consciousness that are known by and revealed to a witnessing-consciousness, and so changes taking place in the known unconscious content/objects known by consciousness (like changing thoughts, memory, emotion etc) is not an actual demonstration of any change in consciousness itself. Of course this defense wouldn’t be available to someone like Kastrup who identifies mental actions as themselves consisting of consciousness, it would only be available to those (like Advaitins) who recognize and accept that consciousness is what reveals mental phenomena instead of considering consciousness to be entirely comprised of and identical with that mental phenomena.

[Anonymous No.20191041]

>>20190983
In one of the youtube interviews uploaded during the last month or two he mentions that he is still working on it

[Anonymous No.20191116]

>>20191033
Announce your sympathy to the Advaitins in the first sentence next time, so I don't have to plow through this drivel.

[Anonymous No.20191127]

>>20191116
Arrogant cunt.

[Anonymous No.20191148]

>>20191116
No, because when people repeat inane bullshit about consciousness I find it amusing to take apart their arguments from unexpected angles and then watch them become flustered in response

[Anonymous No.20191150]

>>20191127
How quickly the pseudointellectual pajeet unravels.

[Anonymous No.20191160]

>>20189667
>The brain is like a radio that is tuned to a certain channel, namely your personal consciousness, so that brain activity and consciousness
I think it depends on your definitions of the words, I've never read the book so I don't know what the definition they use here is but from the research I read, consciousness isn't well defined, the method of determining if someone is even dead is a trick and they aren't really sure.
So the term brain death is meaningless since even when a person stops breathing/ isn't responsive his brain is still operating for some time after.
The current definitions and treatments rely on the fact that if your body dies, your brain dies and you are medically dead BUT your brain can keep going if it's given the right procedure- if it's taken out and hooked up to a machine it can keep going and sustain itself.
They have killed chickens, frozen the brains and revived them 24 hours after so that the brain activity resumes and the chickens were killed 24 hours later.
What this all means for the process of the dying person, how they could cope with not having a body, being interrupted whilst dying and dying and then being revived later on, I don't know but scientifically this stuff is suspect and the disconnect between philosophy (I'm a lightweight, I don't read much of it, when philosophers talk about science it isn't as relevant as the actual science and research and is amateur in prospective) and science is too great to reconcile.

[Anonymous No.20191168]

>>20191150
not me

[Anonymous No.20191185]

>>20191160
I'll add a small appendum, they did some reseach by cutting out a brain from a fetus and hooking it up to a machine, and it had activity 24 hours later on and presumably would have continued to do in the future, what sort of state that brain was operating in, if consciousness would occur later on or if the brain could develop and operate are all questions it raises.

It depends on what you think about this and how you frame the viewpoint.

There's ethical reasons why they haven't done more on this stuff but at some point it needs to be researched to determine.

[Anonymous No.20191230]

>>20191148
>>20191168
How quickly the pseudointellectual pajeet unravels.

[Anonymous No.20191248]

>>20191230
Smug cunt

[Anonymous No.20191404]

>>20190258
go to sleep monsoon

[Anonymous No.20191584]

>>20191230
What do you mean by “unraveled”? I simply pointed out that your claim that the “consciousness as radio wave” model has been falsified was an untrue claim and that it hasn’t actually been falsified, and then all you did in response was to signify that you were upset by me mentioning Advaita, but without actually addressing the point made in the post. If anything, it was your incorrect claim regarding consciousness that was itself unraveled.

[Anonymous No.20191592]

>>20189707
>If brain was receiving anything then it would be possible to measure it like radio waves
For how much of human history has anybody known about radio waves?

[Anonymous No.20191616]

>>20189667
Do you recommend any books or texts about psychiatric disorders and behaviour

[Anonymous No.20191621]

>>20190253
>but you don't try and explain a human being through the contents of his dreams, do you?
why not? Actually dreams can tell a lot about your person.

[Anonymous No.20191652]

>>20189707
>bro if we put a brain in a lead-lined jar and kept the cells alive with a nutrient bath, it would still totally have thoughts and be a person and stuff
this is how stupid you are, the brain is transparently and obviously a receiver and organizer of external signals

[Anonymous No.20191660]

>>20191616

[Anonymous No.20191688]

>>20191584
What I meant, dumbass, is that you failed to even understand and address my original point with your nonsensical drivel. By claiming what you just claimed you have now doubled down on your pedestrian misreading, you absolute mouth breathing cretin. Not only that, you proceeded to smugly congratulate yourself how you "took apart my argument" in your head >>20191148 and then again in this next post where you keep rewriting your fictional account of this exchange. That's why I won't even seriously engage with your dumb ass and that's why you deserve nothing but insults, you retarded dipshit. Don't even jerk yourself off with how "upset" I am. You're irritating like a shit eating fly is irritating. I'm happy to debate those who are capable of reading and comprehending my points, but that group sure as fuck does not include the likes of you, as can be evidently seen in the verbal diarrhea that you type out. Piss right off.

[Anonymous No.20191690]

>>20189667

[Anonymous No.20191754]

>>20191688
>What I meant, dumbass, is that you failed to even understand and address my original point with your nonsensical drivel.
No I didn’t misunderstand. You very clearly stated in unmistaken terms that you thought the “consciousness as radio-wave” model has been falsified and then you cited experimental evidence that you claimed supported this conclusion, and then I pointed out that this was wrong and explained why the evidence you cited doesn’t actually refute the “consciousness as radio-wave” model, it only presents problems for a very specific and idiosyncratic model of consciousness that identifies it with thoughts etc, but the experimental evidence you cited does absolutely nothing to disprove, falsify or even remotely challenge other models of consciousness that posit it to be a separate witnessing presence that is different from individual thoughts etc. Hence, your original claim that this model has been falsified is false, it’s factually incorrect.

>Don't even jerk yourself off with how "upset" I am.
Imagine letting yourself become this histrionic because an anonymous stranger pointed out that a claim you made about consciousness isnt true

[Anonymous No.20191781]

>>20191754
>You very clearly stated in unmistaken terms that you thought the “consciousness as radio-wave” model has been falsified
This colossal fucking retard just tripled down. Maybe he'll quote my post verbatim when he quadruples down, wouldn't that be fucking hilarious? Make sure to quote it fully.

[Anonymous No.20191817]

>>20191688
>>20191781
Did you miss the school bus so that's why you're home today?

[Anonymous No.20191842]

>>20191817
And of course the retard chickens out of quoting the correct post. >>20190432 It's confirmed, you know very well what a absolute ass you've made of yourself, you're just posturing now. Go waste somebody else's time.

[Anonymous No.20191857]

>>20191842
No u it is who art the fag, fag. But you already knew this. I'm just here to remind you of your self-loathing.

[Anonymous No.20191880]

>>20191781

You said here >>20190432 :

> Either that or, if his terms are well-defined and his mechanisms well-described, this theory was already falsified by neuropsychology, which has many examples of very specific changes in the mind caused by very specific brain damage.
You were responding to someone talking specifically about “consciousness”, and so the sensible interpretation of the implied meaning of the above post is that when you say ‘mind’ you are speaking about the consciousness that the other person you replied to was already discussing. Under this interpretation, Your claim that changes in consciousness has been proven to be caused by brain damage and that this thereby falsifies the “brain as receiver vs consciousness as radio-wave” is a factually false claim for reasons I have already laid out.

[Anonymous No.20191927]

>my philosophy of mind
eliminative materialism
>my cosmology
standard model
>my politics
utilitarian technocratic liberalism
>my religion
militant atheism

You're no match for me.

[Anonymous No.20192044]

>>20191927
Militant faggotry

[Anonymous No.20192607]

>>20189667
Bump

[Anonymous No.20192620]

>>20192607
just let this shitshow die

[Anonymous No.20192644]

Imagine (lol) arguing with materialists. You are talking with people that believe they are flesh robots. Treat them like so.

[Anonymous No.20192773]

>>20192644
I think your pic is supposed to be ironic.

[Anonymous No.20193102]

>>20192644
Your edit is more based than xkcd deserves.

[Anonymous No.20194334]

>>20190294
How will I know where I went wrong if you don't explain it to me? Unless you can't explain because you have no argument?

[Anonymous No.20194726]

>>20190432
>At a quick glance, you can see that this Kastrup guy spends more time gallivanting around the Internet and pushing out self-published books, than engaging with actual philosophers. This is always a red flag.

He posts himself here pretty regularly. One time I called him a faggot for it and he inadvertently (or perhaps intentionally) revealed that it was in fact him posting.

[Anonymous No.20195028]

>>20189667
The religious notion that we gain intelligence upon dying is absurd.

[Anonymous No.20195064]

>>20189667
If this is the level of cope antimaterialists have been forced to retreat to I think it's safe to say materialism won.

[Anonymous No.20195080]

>>20195028
why?

[Anonymous No.20195356]

>>20194726
>He posts himself here pretty regularly. One time I called him a faggot for it and he inadvertently (or perhaps intentionally) revealed that it was in fact him posting.
I hope you have a screencap to torpedo all of this threads.

[Anonymous No.20195378]

>>20190432
>But there's a reason why idealism is not taken seriously anymore, a little thing called the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing and predicting the behavior of extramental phenomena (a.k.a. science).
What? This is a red flag you don't know what you're talking about. The effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences doesn't prove anything at all, whether you can predict the behavior of phenomena doesn't give the slightest indication of the underlying nature of those phenomena. I think you're making the classic mistake of thinking idealism is similar to saying reality is just a dream and that if idealism is true then reality wouldn't behave in consistent ways. This is false. The underlying structure of reality could easily be non-material and still adhere to non-material "laws" that bind it's perceived behavior into certain specific patterns.

[Anonymous No.20195407]

>>20195378
Another dumbass that cherrypicks a second sentence, ignoring the first and proceeds to attack me using something I already admitted myself. Fuck right off and l2read. I will also not be engaging in a multi-post, tired explanation on why science made idealism seem improbable, just to waste it on someone who struggles this much with nuance and needs to have everything tirelessly spelled out.

[Anonymous No.20195427]

>>20195407
>I will also not be engaging in a multi-post, tired explanation on why science made idealism seem improbable
Science can't "make idealism seem improbable" because science says absolutely nothing about the underlying nature of phenomena only on how they APPEAR to behave. You're making the exact same mistake all those "I fucking love science" guys make when they claim that science proves anything about the metaphysical properties of reality itself

[Anonymous No.20196762]

>>20189667
Kastrup talks about it. He says the filter metaphor presents the problem of a dualistic worldwide of consciousness and of the filter. The division between the AM/FM signals and your car radio that tunes them.

[Anonymous No.20197659]

>>20189667
Is this book hard to read ? I'm thinking of getting it.

[Anonymous No.20197766]

>>20197659
not at all, he explain clearly and in a rather simple way.

[Anonymous No.20198090]

>>20195064
I was just thinking the same thing.

[Anonymous No.20198114]

>>20189768
>my inner thoughts are actually magic from beyond space and time

[Anonymous No.20198119]

>>20189910
but consciousness only exist in material

[Anonymous No.20198144]

>>20190827
wouldn't NPC be unable to be angry only seeming so? they would need to experience qualia to truly seethe.

[Anonymous No.20198145]

>>20190259
It disproves reductive physicalism, but there are still somewhat sensible arguments for nonreductive physicalism. The point is that you cannot reduce consciousness to neural activity even if it is contingent on it.

[Anonymous No.20198289]

>>20189667
> Brain is a receiver
> Signal
How is this not materialism?

[Anonymous No.20198296]

>>20191927
Only respectable if you are also a NATO shill and potentially a glowie.
If so, based. Unbelievably so.

[Anonymous No.20198347]

>>20198119
>science answers everything!!!!!!!
>something new
bro what even is your argument? if something like consciousness is that simple how is there no true definition or scientific equation for it? literally infinite things lie beyond the horizon of science and it will never reach them, the same with philosophy. There will literally never be a final answer to 'where we come from' or 'what we are' or ' why we're here'. The entire point is to get as much information as possible to come even a micrometer closer to having Gods understanding so the next generation can move an attometer closer. Do something worthwhile in your life and go outside and stop worrying about useless, answerless question and actually enjoy yourself.

[Anonymous No.20199568]

>>20189667
The differences to panpsychism are negligible.
Why does it even matter in the end? Regardless of the theory, the self doesn't seem to survive.

[Anonymous No.20199726]

>>20190284
>it's the fact that explaining what causes qualia with physical facts does not help someone to know qualia if they haven't experienced the qualia in question
It's rather obvious, isn't it?
There is the thing and there are models of it. Models can never be 100% accurate. If they were they would be identical to the real thing that they're trying to explain and thus would not be models. You can't explain the color red because there's nothing to explain (or everything to explain depending on how you wanna frame it). The perception of the color red is the informationless byproduct of a very intricate materialistic process in your brain.
You will never see the same red again because you'd have to run the exact same process again which is impossible. Explaining your color to someone requires a lossless translation of the state of your system to the system of that other person which basically means that you have to turn him into a copy of yourself (by wiping out any memory of his previous state which means that you're not really explaining anything to anyone | also ignoring that a human isn't a closed system for a moment).
Qualia doesn't carry any information, rather it's the indication of an irreducible process. Materialistically speaking, it might as well not exist and yet it is everything because without it materialism might as well not exist.

[Anonymous No.20199951]

>>20195064
when agnosticism isn't enough

[Anonymous No.20199961]

>>20190827
>"church" and "science" in same url

into the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.20200181]

>>20198347
>science can't know everything
>therefore my mind is a super duper special magic thing that exist independant of space and time.

[Anonymous No.20200219]

>>20198289
It's an analogy

[Anonymous No.20200271]

>>20200219
What is it an analogy of? It seems a fairly clear and "quantifiable" claim? If consciousness is like a signal, in any way, it has to have some medium of transmission can be isolated. If the brain is like a receiver, rather than an operator, than there must be some mechanism of reception which is once again can be isolated.
Afaik there is no evidence to support either claims.

[Anonymous No.20200283]

>>20200271
The medium of transmission is not contained within formal manifestation, ie the domain of time and action. It is not even a medium in the sense of extension or succession.

[Anonymous No.20200363]

>>20200271
You're thinking of the immaterial in material terms

[Anonymous No.20200622]

>>20200181
evidence saying it isnt, nigger?

[Anonymous No.20200850]

>>20199568
>the self doesn't seem to survive
how do you know?

[Anonymous No.20200864]

>>20190680
> This proves that qualia cannot be "known" by physical explanation, and if materialism says that everything physical can be understood by physical terms, then it must not be physical.
Not at all. You're equating understanding and experience. Memory can't be explained to someone who doesn't have memory. Does that mean memory is not a feature of cognitive psychology, physical? No. You're just saying that you can't hammer in a nail without a hammer. It's like saying paintings aren't physical because you can't describe them with words exactly.

[N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.20200869]

Casting stones; flipping pages; shuffling images.

[Anonymous No.20201220]

>>20200850
Because reality seems to be causally closed and the mind is too clearly a product of biological evolution for it to be likely to have some transcendental origin.

[Anonymous No.20201224]

>>20200622
Kekkies, cope cow.

[Anonymous No.20201263]

>>20191927
Absolutely based

[Anonymous No.20201264]

>>20201220
How do you deal with the argument from reason?

[Anonymous No.20201284]

>>20201220
>reality seems to be causally closed
No?
>mind is too clearly a product
How? You mean in the sense of efficient causes? Why would the process of biological development not be a part of transcendental manifestation?

[Anonymous No.20201292]

>>20201264
We're just correlating measurements to other measurements. I don't see how this relies on objective facts. It merely requires the underlying to be stable enough over long enough.

[Anonymous No.20201297]

>>20201220
KEK

[Anonymous No.20202020]

>>20200363
I'm saying this analogy is materialistic in principle. It is (nearly) always the idealist which insist on thinking of the immaterial in material terms.
Idealism isn't true because of some mystical properties of the realm of ideas, it is true because phenomenological closure is absolutely unavoidable.

[Anonymous No.20202059]

>>20189667
I preffered the Weird Al parody “Materialism is bolognese“

[Anonymous No.20202081]

>>20202020
nice digits

[Anonymous No.20202109]

>MY BRAIN IS MAGIC!!
>MY BRAIN IS MAGIC!!
>MY BRAIN IS MAGIC!!
>MY BRAIN IS MAGIC!!
>MY BRAIN IS MAGIC!!
>MY BRAIN IS MAGIC!!

[Anonymous No.20202324]

>>20202020
holy

[Anonymous No.20202395]

>>20191592
Pretty much. Shows how arrogant some people are with their knowledge. Imagine going back in time 3000 years and trying to prove the existence of radio waves.