/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20779930]

>Scientifically proves materialism

[Anonymous No.20779935]

Preach brother

La ilaha materialah

[Anonymous No.20779946]

>Metaphysically proves non-dualism

[Anonymous No.20780192]

>>20779930
wanna bet

[Anonymous No.20780196]

>>20779946
Perrenialism is astrology for men

[Anonymous No.20780218]

How so? if he did not show proof that your mind/ego/mood/health all comes from astrology he did not prove shit. bet he says some dumb shit like no one can understand the mind.

[Anonymous No.20780221]

[Anonymous No.20780275]

>>20780221
Fun meme, but begs the question by assuming counsciousness has to be unitary, instead of a complex process of multiple parts.

[Anonymous No.20780291]

>>20780275
Why do you think that? You're retarded Dennett.

[Anonymous No.20780299]

>>20779930
Huh, I don't think that's possible, in principle.
You can't really "prove" anything by making observations and deriving mathematical relations between those observations. If you're going to "prove" anything you need a metaphysical framework already in place, and then the only thing you can prove is that the chosen framework is consistent with the data.
I'm not very familiar with his work, but don't think I've ever seen him disproving dualism, hylomorphism, or anything of the sort?

[Anonymous No.20780328]

>>20779930
Ronnie Hubbard was more in touch with reality than this guy.

[Anonymous No.20780329]

>>20779946
It's amazing how this guy spent so much effort refuting Western misconceptions of Hinduism, but goes out of his way to adopt the dumbest school of thought that benighted Western occultists love the most.
>>20780196
It's not strictly true that all religions are the exact same. The similarities between Christianity and Islam are, in fact, completely superficial. However, all of the great world-religions of to day are indeed operating off of a common framework. You either know, or you don't.

[Anonymous No.20780354]

>>20780329
you're either a midwit desperate for meaning or you're not

[Anonymous No.20780482]

>>20780291
Because our Brain is made up of multiple parts, and our brain has a clear causal relation with our consciousness.

[Anonymous No.20780500]

>Theologically proves religion

[Anonymous No.20780502]

>>20780482
That has nothing to do with anything said in the meme.
Why do you think it makes any assumptions about the mechanisms of the phenomena?
What is wrong with your brain?

[Anonymous No.20780513]

>>20780482
Correlation does not imply causation.

[Anonymous No.20780518]

>>20780513
Yes it does.

[Anonymous No.20780521]

>>20780502
The meme is just a meme, because Dennet doesn't use illusion to mean appearance contrary to reality, he uses it to mean misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.20780523]

>>20780513
You think that the relation between the brain and consciousness in coincidental?

[Anonymous No.20780524]

>>20780500
sort of this
even though materialism does include a metanarrative that could be seen as almost religious if you want to. Like medicine sort of includes the secret goal of eliminating sickness.

[Anonymous No.20780525]

>>20780521
He tries to push it as if it's a way to explain away experience when he's saying absolutely nothing. The man, like you is braindead.

[Anonymous No.20780552]

>>20780518
No it does not. When does correlation end and causation begin?

[Anonymous No.20780554]

>>20779930
Sorry but panpsychism is the final redpill. If you weren't a p-zombie you'd have realized this by now. All of the cosmos is constructed on a mental matrix that animates us.

[Anonymous No.20780560]

>>20780523
Yes, parallelism.

[Anonymous No.20780570]

>>20780560
I guess shooting yourself in the end has a chance not to end your consciousness? Why not do it then pussy?

>>20780525
Since the brain doesn't have anything to do with consciousness being braindead means nothing to his argument.

[Anonymous No.20780576]

>>20780570
>I guess shooting yourself in the end has a chance not to end your consciousness? Why not do it then pussy?
I'm arguing for parallelism you moron.

[Anonymous No.20780595]

>>20780576
Why?

[Anonymous No.20780601]

>>20780552
It does *imply* causation. You don't know the details like if there are underlying factors causing both but there is an implied causal relationship there worth exploring.

[Anonymous No.20780602]

>>20780595
I'm a skeptic.

[Anonymous No.20780607]

>>20780275
Consciousness is the most perfectly simple thing in existence. If it were otherwise, it would not be truly real. You have noticed the one thing that you know for an absolute fact to be a reality, ignored it, and placed all of your faith in a collective illusion purely because a pseudo-religious ideology told you to.

[Anonymous No.20780609]

>>20780601
Science cannot prove causation.

[Anonymous No.20780612]

>>20780607
You might as well drink water from a desert mirage. Read Kant

[Anonymous No.20780618]

>>20780570
>Since the brain doesn't have anything to do with consciousness
You can't account for experience by arranging components in the right way like legos. If the correct arrangement of legos expresses the phenomena then the phenomena was already in the lego world just not expressed in that way.
>>20780609
It's the other way around. Proof needs logical causation.

[Anonymous No.20780633]

>>20780618
>Proof needs logical causation.
Why?

[Anonymous No.20780644]

>>20780633
Because that's how proof works. Given points and lines exist you get geometry. Given geometry you get a million other things we can "prove" withing that context.
Everything we call proof rests on logical causal chains.

[Anonymous No.20780646]

>>20780612
You've simply stated something I don't disagree with instead of addressing the gist of what I said. Consciousness isn't a process, it is consciousness; the ability to be aware of things. It is perfectly simple, and therefore an indisputable reality in its own right, not a sum of independent parts.

[Anonymous No.20780657]

>>20780644
Prove that proof exists.

[Anonymous No.20780662]

>>20780618
>then the phenomena was already in the lego world just not expressed in that way.
How does that disprove materialism? There are limits with our consciousness much like how there's a limit with our organs and we can't see infrared. It's not strange to say our brain has the capability of sorting through existing phenomena due to the available hardware. you can only put CD disks in a CD drive, and there's a limit to what phenomena which can interact with our conscioussness, that does mean every drive needs to necessarily contain every possible CD information.

[Anonymous No.20780665]

>>20780662
>does
*doesn't

[Anonymous No.20780693]

>>20780657
That's not possible but you'll be retarded by your refusal to use the tools available while I fuck your wife using proofs.
>>20780662
>existing phenomena
Refutes the idea that the material model is all there is. It's not like it needs refuting from that angle, you can do it by just asking where the fundamental forces or fields or whatever your model uses comes from. Saying it always existed is a temporal answer but the question is about logic. The forces or fields or whatever abstraction you use can't produce logic, they're products of it since they're human made descriptions. You will always end up in the same place as classical theists with an unknowable origin to any imaginable description.

[Anonymous No.20780732]

>>20780554
You're 9 years late. Even reddit grew out of this shit by now.

[Anonymous No.20780744]

>>20780732
>ctrl+f "Argument"
>no responses found

[Anonymous No.20780750]

>>20780662
>that does mean every drive needs to necessarily contain every possible CD information
You're conflating it all, memories, processing and experience. We can model data processing, memory recall, neural nets and all that without needing to invoke an observer. Our models of brains basically account for everything they do except one thing that we know is there but we can't empirically demonstrate it because it has no apparent relationship with the material world we can measure.
>>20780732
It's the simplest explanation, no unnecessary exceptions. To convince anyone reasonable that you have a better idea you need to present reasons.

[Anonymous No.20780756]

>>20780693
>but the question is about logic.
I thought the question was about consciousness. I don't have to know where logic comes from in order to use it, and I can just accept Kant's view that it's just the way humans think about the world. Just because the origin is "unknowable" (which I don't think is correct, it's just that we don't currently know of it) doesn't mean the fact is false or unknown. We can know plenty of things without knowing their origin. Even if I don't know why I am a certain way I know still know that I am a certain way.

[Anonymous No.20780767]

>>20780750
>Our models of brains basically account for everything they do except one thing that we know is there but we can't empirically demonstrate it because it has no apparent relationship with the material world we can measure.
...unless you assume consciousness is the product of several complex systems working together, rather than a unitary "consciousness organ".

[Anonymous No.20780771]

Imagine ACTUALLY being a materialist. Holy fuck I can’t stop laughing

[Anonymous No.20780773]

Consciousness is the emergent property of the highly complex molecular dynamics of the brain.

[Anonymous No.20780776]

>>20780771
Imagine ACTUALLY being a christlarper. I'd honestly be too embarrased to even leave the house

[Anonymous No.20780795]

>>20780756
>I thought the question was about consciousness
Read the fucking words retard. You asked about materialism and I gave another angle that obviously disproves it since that's apparently where you're stuck. You sincerely believe your maps of the world are the world.
>which I don't think is correct
I explained why it's correct. You can't make a logical description of the phenomena that produces logic, your brain can only conceive of things in these structured logical terms. If your opinions are based on reason instead of dogma you can explain why I'm wrong.
>We can know plenty of things without knowing their origin
Read the fucking words retard.
>>20780767
It has no bearing on anything. There are no assumptions about if it's unitary or not in the text you quoted. The only thing I can relate this to is the fact that you're conflating everything the brain does, the things we can measure and the things we can't.

[Anonymous No.20780807]

>>20780773
Like when many electrons in a piece of iron align in the same direction modulating a force that's already there to produce a large scale effect. The magnetic force was always there and it's universal not local.

[Anonymous No.20780826]

>>20780750
It's not the simplest explanation it requires a fuckton of unfounded assumptions about the properties of matter and rejects the much simpler solutoon that consciousness emerges from the only thing it is proven to be influenced by

[Anonymous No.20780842]

>>20780826
You're not even trying to describe the phenomena, that's not the simplest explanation, it's not even an explanation.

[Anonymous No.20780843]

>>20780795
>You asked about materialism and I gave another angle that obviously disproves it since that's apparently where you're stuck. You sincerely believe your maps of the world are the world.
That's just shallow skepticism, you could doubt the entire reality using this logic, but since you don't it's obvious the logic doesn't hold up.

The reason consciousness comes form the brain is that the brain is an organ and we can see a direct, clear and obvious causal relation between the brain and consciousness. If the brain gets sick, damaged or malformed it directly effects consciousness in predictable ways with 0 exceptions that hint at anything else.

Assuming anything else is jumping to a conclusion. If you want to question it by saying "but you can't tell me WHERE in the brain it comes from" then all you've disputed is that I know where, which I haven't claimed.

> but where's muh logic
We don't know where, but we know damage, illness or deformation severely impacts it.

If you wanna leap to a conclusion you can do that if you want.

[Anonymous No.20780856]

>>20780826
Wrong, its based on direct observations and experiences of mind-matter interactions.

[Anonymous No.20780862]

>>20780843
>obvious causal relation
There's not a clear causal relation, how many times do we have to go over this.
>>20780826
Materialism requires unfounded assumptions as well.

[Anonymous No.20780866]

>>20780843
>you could doubt the entire reality
No, just your maps of reality which you again confuse with reality.
We don't see that illness etc interferes with the existence of the observer, just the mechanical processes as previously discussed. You're conflating everything again dishonestly.
We can describe the entire brain without invoking an observer. The observer is extra, completely disconnected from your models that you conflate with reality. We only know about it because we experience it directly, on a level before any of our ideas about the material world are formed.

[Anonymous No.20780949]

>>20780866
>We don't see that illness etc interferes with the existence of the observer, just the mechanical processes as previously discussed. You're conflating everything again dishonestly
Try solving logic puzzles with a headache. But seriously, it's obvious that a lobotomy victim is less conscious, a retard is slightly more than that, a dumbass is slightly more than that etc. etc. At some point you end up with a body without consciousness, one that just coincidentally happens to be braindead.

"The observer" is Dennets illusion. What you perceive to be "the observer" is the result of complex systems functioning alongside eachother.
>but can you prooooooofs itttt
No but it's logical to assume first and foremost it comes from somewhere rather than coming from nowhere. Nothing comes from nowhere (aside from this one magical thing that just happens to be us).

[Anonymous No.20781028]

>>20779930
>>20779935
>>20779946
>>20780192
>>20780196
>>20780218
>ITT Dunning krugers debate theology without mentioning god

[Anonymous No.20781053]

>>20780949
>Try solving logic puzzles with a headache
Again conflating the same things over and over because you don't understand anything. We know the basic mechanism you use to solve puzzles and we've even recreated most of it in computers. It has nothing to do with the observer.
An electromagnet stops working when you disconnect the battery. If we applied your logic consistently it demands the electromagnetic force must be localized to the battery even though that description doesn't actually work. You're not even trying to construct an argument anymore, just appealing to intuition conditioned by materialism.
If a time travelling alium transported you to a torture chamber for a trillion years and returned you in the exact same moment with no memory of it happening you would continue as if nothing happened. Identity, memory, processing and all that are completely separate from the observer like I explained to you a million times but you're completely unable to engage with.
>What you perceive to be "the observer" is the result of complex systems functioning alongside eachother.
Does not explain anything. There is nothing there but the inane ramblings of a retard.
>proof
I'm not the one under the delusion I can prove anything in this context. That's just you.
I simply have better models that account for more phenomena than you. When your materialist model didn't account for this specific phenomena you decided it doesn't exist because your model is reality, the ultimate arbiter of truth and your holy dogma.

[Anonymous No.20781088]

>>20781053
You haven't explained shit and haven't even postulated shit. You just vomited on yourself.
> We know the basic mechanism you use to solve puzzles and we've even recreated most of it in computers.
That's like saying an artificial plant has recreated plants.
> An electromagnet stops working when you disconnect the battery. If we applied your logic consistently it demands the electromagnetic force must be localized to the battery even though that description doesn't actually work.
No, I'm saying that the interaction of electromagnatism and a toy racecar occurs in the battery.
> I simply have better models
You have no models, which is why you're not arguing for them.

[Anonymous No.20781112]

>>20781088
>That's like saying an artificial plant has recreated plants.
It's not the fucking point. The distinction between the mechanisms which we understand and the observer is.
>No, I'm saying that the interaction of electromagnatism and a toy racecar occurs in the battery.
And the interaction between the parts of the brain modulates the underlying phenomena of perception so that things like perceived identity get expressed based on a coherent narrative from memories.
>You have no models
The electromagnetic field is universal and a magnet modulates that field. That's both the simplest assumption and what best fits with experiments.
The simplest assumption about the fundamental phenomena that is expressed as our experience is similar. It's a thing that's everywhere and get's modulated by brains to create the coherent identities and narratives.

If you were able to think at all I wouldn't have to spoonfeed you all these minute details. You would have gotten it from the smallest hints and could have actually argued against what I'm talking about instead of mindlessly restating your dogma over and over.

[Anonymous No.20781142]

>>20781112
>It's not the fucking point. The distinction between the mechanisms which we understand and the observer is.
Then it's a bad example and you shouldn't have mentioned it.
> The electromagnetic field is universal and a magnet modulates that field. That's both the simplest assumption and what best fits with experiments.
Right, that our brain acts like a receiver to pick up "consciousness" is in no way the simplest explanation, because it's not an explanation.
> It's a thing that's everywhere and get's modulated by brains to create the coherent identities and narratives.
That's just experience and data retard. "Oh consciousness is a thing that's everywhere", that's not even a proposition. Just the rambling of some DMT stoner drooler.

[Anonymous No.20781175]

>>20781112
kek, this "emperor" had no cloths

[Anonymous No.20781192]

>>20781142
>Then it's a bad example
You don't seem to understand anything said to you. I'm desperately grasping at straws to find something that triggers your numb brain into actually engaging.
>that's not even a proposition
It's exactly the same principle as with magnets and everything else in physics, The difference is you've not been conditioned with it like the conclusions of physics, not that you even understand physics at all, your entire worldview is pop media brainwashing.
You start with the assumption that it's universal because that's the explanation with the fewest parts and the possibility of covering most phenomena. You restrict the model as data comes in.
>that our brain acts like a receiver to pick up "consciousness"
Is not what I said, you're deploying your favorite trick of dishonestly conflating everything instead of simply thinking.

[Anonymous No.20781195]

>>20780773
>emergent property
What does this mean?

[Anonymous No.20781200]

>>20780856
Where is that picture from?

[Anonymous No.20781206]

Materialism is self evident
Doesn't need scientific proofs

[Anonymous No.20781211]

>>20779930
The claim "It's all in the brain" is based on faith because there is no evidence one can present which can demonstrate the process. Additionally, there is something to be said about spirituality and the warmth/connection/oneness different cultures continue discussing. Materialism is scientism in denial.

[Anonymous No.20781235]

>>20781192
An idiot idolizes complexity, if I'm "dumbing your ideas down" it's because they don't function outside your angry shit rhetoric
>You start with the assumption that it's universal because that's the explanation with the fewest parts and the possibility of covering most phenomena. You restrict the model as data comes in.
Firstly "Universal" doesn't mean "All-encompasing". Secondly, positing that consciousness is pre existing to life itself is a huge claim, not a simple one at all, and absolutely leaping to a conclusion

But you're noticing you never explain what consciousness is, only that we "tap into it", tap into what exactly? God? I hope you're not so much of a pussy you can't even admit you're a theologian unless cornered...

[Anonymous No.20781285]

>can only argue by way of (false) analogies
>gets pissy when problems with the analogies are pointed out
Like.. this is not nit-picking, these are defeaters to your "argument"
kill me

[Anonymous No.20781292]

>>20781195
A lego house is an emergent phenomena that arises from arranging lego bricks. Usually it's used about more indirect emergence like in conways game of life. Complex behavior emerges from few rules.
>>20781235
>Firstly "Universal" doesn't mean "All-encompasing".
Yes it does. You have to expand on what you mean but I'm pretty sure you're just mindlessly conflating again, thinking all this necessitates some hippy bullshit. Nothing practical changes. You're just wrong and unable to think about any subject.
>consciousness is pre existing to life
Conflating mechanisms with the fundamental phenomena again. Magnetism pre-exists magnet. You can't build a mind without all the parts. Pretending one of the parts doesn't exist isn't just a leap, it's willful delusion to serve previously established dogma.
>tap into what exactly
Nothing I've said makes any claims about that because that's how thinking actually works. Nobody knows what exactly the electromagnetic field is either or it's various relationships but logic and observations dictates it works in certain ways.
>muh religion sperging
Again the only one here not willing to face and critically analyze his religious dogma is you.

[Anonymous No.20781297]

>>20781235
>if I'm "dumbing your ideas down"
Who are you quoting? I didn't say that. I said you don't seem to understand anything I say to you and this is another example of that.

[Anonymous No.20781320]

>>20781292
Again with the shitty analogies. Obviously I believe that there is magnetism going on without magnets! Begging the question is not going to persuade me
Do we know consciousness is the same??
Can you please not change the subjected? We were not talking about magnetism
Just say what you think about consciousness, and why you believe it. Don't tell me an irrelevant story about magnets

>Magnetism pre-exists magnet.
Do you think "magnetism" exists in an empty reality? That seems more like what I'm having a problem with

[Anonymous No.20781342]

>>20779930
> Scientifically proves Transcendental Idealism in your way nearly a century before.

[Anonymous No.20781352]

>>20781320
>Can you please not change the subjected? We were not talking about magnetism
All your points if consistently applied would apply to magnetism.
>Do we know consciousness is the same??
No. I told you what we know and you're unable to engage with any of it. Now you're asking me to restate it all again.
>in an empty reality
What the fuck is that supposed to be? This is an example of not thinking. If it has rules or the potential for consciousness it's not "empty".
All your thinking is completely formed by conditioning, there's not a hint of reason there. All you can do is conflate, that is impose your conditioning while ignoring all the logic.

[Anonymous No.20781356]

>rambles about how patients with split brain syndrome is scientific proof of the fundamental nature of reality being mental

[Anonymous No.20781376]

>>20781352
if I said I don't think magnetism would exist without magnets
would tell me about how charge moving causes magnetism, virtual particles in a vacuum, or maybe how light is magnetic radiation?
please don't talk about any this, this is just problems brought about by your analogy
all those removed, I don't think magnetism would exist

I don't think consciousness would exist either, without the thing I think it's reducible to (brains, etc) existing

basically I'm just rejecting your premise. right?

[Anonymous No.20781406]

>>20781376
>this is just problems brought about by your analogy
It's all analogous. You just don't understand physics at all, the thing you base your entire worldview on. The analogy works just as well pre-quantum physics.
>consciousness
You always demand to use the word that describes the phenomena including the parts we can describe because you think through conditioned associations like that instead of logic. You can't even step out of the dogma hypothetically to try to refute something from common ground.
Magnetism exists without magnets. The fundamental phenomena modulated by brains to produce perception exists without brains.
Your description is completely missing a part because you only allow parts described by physics, my description at least has a placeholder for the phenomena. Any description will need to replace that placeholder with something, you don't even try and just defer to holy physics.

[Anonymous No.20781436]

>>20780773
>Consciousness is the emergent property of the highly complex molecular dynamics of the brain.
> The most striking and important feature about this insanely complex and multipurpose organ is a complete accident and not its very essence.
> "Losing consciousness" is synonymous with losing 99% of your brain's higher functions, but again, no, consciousness is just a side effect.
Lol.
Even when I was a filthy materialist I wasn't that dumb.

[Anonymous No.20781449]

>>20779930
>Ignores the NDE literature

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Afterlife-Obviously-Exists-Realer-Than-Real/dp/1785359851/

If Dennett lived during the time of Galileo, he would not look through his telescope, just like he refuses to read the literature on NDEs today. He's just a man of his time, parroting the status quo beliefs loudly and often. Yawn.

[Anonymous No.20781453]

>>20781406
>Magnetism exists without magnets.
look, I also believe this
but not if you make the analogy really wordy, and also remove all the things that causes magnetism.
basically, I think magnetism is reducible to magnets, and you have given me no reasons to think otherwise.

"exist"
In what sense does magnetism exist, if you have removed everything that does magnetic stuff? I guess this is what I'm having a problem with

[Anonymous No.20781464]

What does it mean to be not be a materialist?
I don't call myself a materialist, still you would probably say that everything I believe exist, is material

Like, if I saw a ghost. Would that be an example of something not material, that exist?

[Anonymous No.20781472]

>>20781449
Do you seriously think there is good evidence of anything NDE related that cannot be explained on physicalism?

[Anonymous No.20781486]

>>20780776
>Christlarper
I was born and raised roman catholic. You're probably a fucking anglo though I wouldn't be surprised if american

[Anonymous No.20781490]

>>20781436
I don't understand.
What part of what you said should prevent me from thinking of consciousness as being emergent from the arrangement of physical matter (brain)?
Or reducible to, as I like to say, to avoid the using the E-word, which triggers so many people.

[Anonymous No.20781491]

>>20781472
Chimp face mortality chimp die. Why evolve DMT?

[Anonymous No.20781493]

>>20781436
>"Losing consciousness" is synonymous with losing 99% of your brain's higher functions
You're not a philosopher, just uneducated on physiology,

[Anonymous No.20781523]

>>20781464
Read the rest of this board. We have men who literally believe in all kinds of spooks. From spirits to soul to God to magic to "magic" to moksha to occult to esotericisms.

When you see this bigger picture it becomes easier to see thread like this for what they are. Mental gymnastics to justify(not prove) the spooks

[Anonymous No.20781533]

>>20781491
I could make up some shit about evolution and biology, right? If you don't like that, I can say it (whatever you are talking about) exist because of random chance.

Do you think we need literal magic to make a better explanation?

[Anonymous No.20781536]

>>20779930
daniel dennett is an actual fucking retard lmao

>free will doesn't exist but uhhhh it does exist because it comes from our thoughts and our thoughts originate in ourselves, so therefor we're free even if our thoughts are determined!
>uhhhhh free will doesn't exist but we shouldn't tell people because something bad might happen

[Anonymous No.20781538]

>>20781491
>DMT
why is this thing existing, evidence for dualism?

[Anonymous No.20781545]

>>20779930
lol

[Anonymous No.20781549]

daniel dennett is an actual fucking retard lmao

>imagine a fish that was indistinguishable from a regular fish, except when it inflates it's swimming bladder it doesn't float
>that's CONCEIVABLE, right? Therefore, buoyancy is magic

[Anonymous No.20781554]

>>20781453
>and also remove all the things that causes magnetism
In the analogy removing the brain is like removing the physical magnet. There are still other effects caused by the underlying phenomena happening like when you don't fall through your chair it's just not focused in a specific direction.
We can't even know that other people have experience. Why is it the more reasonable assumption? I tend to work from it because it's more useful, you blindly accept it because it's the pop media consensus.
Even if all ability to express it has been removed the potential has already been shown to us. We know the fundamental parts are there, a lack of knowledge about them wouldn't make them less there.
If you don't account for things that are clearly part of reality in your map you may fly into a mountain.
>>20781464
You don't believe logic exists? What the fuck is "material"? Can you give one example of that?

[Anonymous No.20781556]

>>20781211
your entire fucking argument is destroyed by the fact that nobody without a brain has been conscious. Nobody has had their head cut off and has still operated as normal.

[Anonymous No.20781561]

>>20781533
I think we need a replicable cause and effect explanation of a process to make claims. Materialism is just as faith based as literally any and all larps imagined from the beginning of the universe becoming conscious of itself.
>>20781538
Why would we evolve a useless thing which communicates information to the dead?
>>20781556
When you break a magnifying glass you cant fry ants on the sidewalk anymore.

[Anonymous No.20781564]

>>20781449
lmao retard

NDEs do not happen to everybody you stupid fucking faggot. If it was universal, everyone would have them, and not everybody does. Holy fuck you are a retard.

[Anonymous No.20781565]

>>20779930
>assumes materialism from the outset in an attempt to prove materialism
materialist """philosophers"""

[Anonymous No.20781573]

>>20781561
>When you break a magnifying glass you cant fry ants on the sidewalk anymore.
Doesn't follow. I know it is useless to ask you this because it would make no difference in your case but: if you had a brain do you still think you could be conscious?

[Anonymous No.20781582]

>>20781565
>assumes there's a god from the outset in contradiction to everything else we know
You assume matter can't have awareness.

[Anonymous No.20781586]

Atheist philosophy is nothing but question begging, moral grandstanding, and nonsequiturs.

[Anonymous No.20781587]

>>20781554
>What the fuck is "material"? Can you give one example of that?
NO! I'm not the one calling myself a "materialist"
I just believe in things that exist, right?

>logic
Come on now- That's just humans participating in a language game. Making sound waves, etc

[Anonymous No.20781589]

>>20781561
>When you break a magnifying glass you cant fry ants on the sidewalk anymore.
Doesn't follow. I know it's useless to ask you this, but: if you didn't have a brain, do you still believe you could be conscious?

Think about it for more than a minute. It isn't a spirit that animates you. If it was, it wouldn't need the body to animate itself.

[Anonymous No.20781592]

>>20781573
You're pretentious and your ego clearly has your mind made up. The question now is why are you under the impression I am going to go out of my way to change your mind? Your materialist driven understanding is just as faith based as everything else. Also, just because consciousness emerges through our brain and we have the ability to communicate that doesn't mean consciousness only emerges in entities that are able to communicate or even be aware of the fact they're conscious.

[Anonymous No.20781599]

>>20781587
If you deny the existence of logical laws then your argument is self-refuting.

[Anonymous No.20781600]

>>20781592
>>20781589

[Anonymous No.20781601]

>>20781554
I'm done with this.
Why are you arguing against a position you've clearly taken no time to try and understand

[Anonymous No.20781609]

>>20781561
Can you please just tell me whatever the acronym DMT is supposed to be
why is this evidence for dualism???

[Anonymous No.20781615]

>>20781561
Do you think there is good evidence of us successfully communicating the dead?
lmao

[Anonymous No.20781617]

>>20781556
>Magnetism only exists in magnets
>>20781573
There's nothing to stop it from experiencing things but having no memory or context to put it in. We know what happens when you have memory and context any other experience won't integrate into the constructed coherent identity.
>>20781587
>language game
That can be replicated physically in computers. Logic maps onto a phenomena that exists. If you want to go there, we make up everything including your precious "things that exist". Your perception maps on to an underlying reality but it's not the reality.

[Anonymous No.20781620]

>>20781592
You're the one arguing with the pretention that you are enlightened because you believe a spirit essence animates life or whatever the fuck. In humans, consciousness resides in the brain. It is how we are built. Just because other things like plants and microscopic organisms are able to have a modicum of awareness - not consciousness by the way, the two are different - that doesn't mean it's a spirit animating things, it means that matter has the inbuilt capability for awareness and later consciousness. Atoms do not have the property of waterness, but can make up water. What makes you think the building blocks of the universe do not have the capability to create consciousness?

[Anonymous No.20781623]

Quine already showed that materialism cannot justify the principle of induction and the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.20781629]

>>20781599
Oh you want to go there?
I just presuppose that I'm right and you're wrong
my position is proven true by the impossibility of the contrary
it's impossible for me to be wrong

bravo

[Anonymous No.20781631]

>>20781601
I understand your position better than you and held it for decades. You don't understand anything. The fundamental issue is the thing I pointed out many times now, you don't think, you're conditioned like an animal.

[Anonymous No.20781632]

>>20781620
Consciousness is a metaphysical idea which your paradigm cannot account for.

[Anonymous No.20781637]

>>20781632
It isn't. It's awareness built on awareness. It is awareness of awareness.

[Anonymous No.20781638]

>>20781629
>trying to use logic to disprove logic

[Anonymous No.20781639]

>>20781629
But your presupposition is wrong.

[Anonymous No.20781645]

>>20781637
>awareness
This is not a material object. On your own grounds, it cannot exist.

[Anonymous No.20781654]

>>20781623
So what?
I'll just have to make do without a justification

[Anonymous No.20781655]

>>20781609
It's a psychedelic that emerges in living things including humans. It's meaningless to a physicalist /materialist because it communicates information to the dead who can't do anything with it.
>>20781615
No, I don't. That's my point.
>>20781620
>You're the one arguing with the pretention
I am pointing out a useless evolution and connecting it with the notion that at the end of the road of materialism is faith which together alongside the notion that a multitude of cultures who are constantly in perpetual war with one another continue to arrive at a common understanding of oneness/warmth/connection with the universe on their own.
>What makes you think the building blocks of the universe do not have the capability to create consciousness?
I think we're conscious, anon. Universe clearly has the capability to create consciousness I just don't think it's derived through materialist means.

[Anonymous No.20781660]

>>20781639
No, you don't understand
I'm presupposing that I'm correct
It's impossible for me to be wrong, and that's transcendental-like

[Anonymous No.20781661]

>>20781654
Then stop acting like you've "proven" materialism like the OP says. You literally cannot prove anything.

[Anonymous No.20781664]

>>20781645
It's a phenomena based on material objects.

[Anonymous No.20781666]

>>20781655
How do you know that DMT causes us to be able to talk to ghosts?
why should I think that

[Anonymous No.20781667]

>>20781645
I literally already said that atoms are not water but can create water. Water is an emergent phenomenon based on material, which means it is in essence material because it is predicated on the material. Same with consciousness. Consciousness is the waterness of a complex system.

You can have matter without consciousness, but the opposite is not true, you cannot have consciousness without matter. Therefor matter supersedes any emergent phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.20781668]

>>20781660
You can't justify your presupposition.

[Anonymous No.20781671]

>>20781661
>You literally cannot prove anything.
So what?

[Anonymous No.20781672]

>>20781664
>phenomena
metaphysics again
You cannot escape it.

[Anonymous No.20781674]

>>20781668
Do you think we have to justify our presuppositions?
I presuppose that we don't, btw

[Anonymous No.20781676]

>>20781666
Reports from people who experienced DMT and you have the capacity to experience that personally if you're ever inclined to do so.

[Anonymous No.20781678]

There is no reason to presuppose that matter can observe or be aware of itself or other matter.

[Anonymous No.20781680]

>>20781599
Of course it was a tradcath larper all along
what else but being a literal cult member would motivate these beliefs

[Anonymous No.20781694]

>>20781676
What did the dead say to the people who took DMT ?
Something that couldn't easily be dreamt up by a drug addled mind, I suppose. Or this is really really dumb..

[Anonymous No.20781695]

>>20781674
Yes.
Then your argument is meaningless.
Read Aristotle's response to the sophists. I'm not an "Aristotelian" as it were but his point there is correct nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.20781697]

>>20780866
Bruh I'm NTA you're debating with but this is utter bs.

There's literally no observer in a deep dreamless sleep. Which also happens to be the time when brain shits down most of its functions.

[Anonymous No.20781701]

>>20781680
Jay Dyer isn't Roman Catholic.

[Anonymous No.20781702]

>>20780221
>for if consciousness be an illusion, there would yet be another consciousness observing that illusion
If we concede to call a simple "if-else" chatbot script, reacting to its environment, as conscious, then yes.
But that would open a huge can of worms, propelling to call every-fucking-thing to be conscious (a stone "signals" to heat via faster Brownian motion of its component parts).
And that would render such a definition as useless shit.

[Anonymous No.20781703]

>>20781680
What a surprise that the deranged propagandist jumps on every opportunity to reinforce pop media inspired thought-stopping conditioning.
That's a different anon you completely predictable mindless subhuman.

[Anonymous No.20781704]

>logic existing on materialism
lol
where's the logic? can you show it to me? May I touch it please, lmao

[Anonymous No.20781708]

>>20781694
Anon, you have the internet at your beck and call. Look up people sharing their experiences or look up a recipe and do it yourself and then make up your own mind.

[Anonymous No.20781709]

>>20781701
I don't care

[Anonymous No.20781717]

>>20781655
>I am pointing out a useless evolution
Evolution doesn't operate always on what is useful. It operates on what doesn't actively hinder reproduction. If something is useless or maybe even harmful, as long as it doesn't impede reproduction, it doesn't matter in the long run. Several animals already operate on conditions in which their body deteriorates very rapidly but because they reach maturity quickly it is not a defect in the system. Appendixes should have been filtered out of humans, but because they don't cause harm most of the time, they just kind of sit there and are useless until the possibility of inflammation. Several animals already still have useless byproducts of prior evolutions.
>with the notion that at the end of the road of materialism is faith which together alongside the notion that a multitude of cultures who are constantly in perpetual war with one another continue to arrive at a common understanding of oneness/warmth/connection with the universe on their own.
Not everyone has the same concepts of oneness but if feelings are based on the material, and we know that they are because feelings can be manipulated through material means, it stands to reason that this feeling of oneness is similar to multicellular organisms operating in tandem.
>I think we're conscious, anon. Universe clearly has the capability to create consciousness I just don't think it's derived through materialist means.
The difference here being that materialism offers several very plausible conclusions while spiritualism requires you to simply throw what we know out simply because it feels distasteful to admit that we are matter. Matter creates all of those spiritual feelings that we feel, but those who reject materialism do not want to admit this for fear of 'losing something' from the human experience.

[Anonymous No.20781718]

>>20781678
>>20781678
>>20781678

[Anonymous No.20781719]

>>20781676
So obvious liars then. It's been demonstrably proven that DMT people have lower IQ, less imagination and are less honest than normal people.

Do you have any actual proof?

[Anonymous No.20781723]

>>20781708
Obviously I don't think anything they are saying
is incompatible with naturalism

You were acting like it was
care to do some showing?

[Anonymous No.20781726]

>>20781702
>if we concede this
>if you just grant me this
"No."

[Anonymous No.20781729]

>>20781704
If something is based on the material it is derived from materialism. You cannot have logic without material to create soundwaves and organs to interpret those soundwaves into information read by material systems.

[Anonymous No.20781732]

>>20781719
lmao
I am not here to run down your markov chain, anon. Believe what you want to.
>>20781723
>Obviously I don't think anything they are saying is incompatible with naturalism
How would I know that. I am not in your brain. Also, see above.

[Anonymous No.20781738]

>>20781599
Did I deny logic? I don't think so.
I simply explained it in terms of a human language game

[Anonymous No.20781739]

>>20781449
NDEs aren't universal. Not everyone has them, and they are subjective. This sort of puts a nail in any theory that posits that a singular afterlife exists.

[Anonymous No.20781743]

>>20781697
>There's literally no observer in a deep dreamless sleep
You don't know,. The fundamental phenomena isn't the same as the higher level phenomena where you have coherent identity and a narrative derived from memory.

[Anonymous No.20781745]

>>20781732
Did you think I was asking you for evidence for a position I already believe is true?
I'm asking because I'm sceptical

Evidence of people talking to the dead, please?
(and not just retards that THINK they are talking to the dead, but are confused)

[Anonymous No.20781752]

>>20781745
What the fuck makes you think I am here to jump through your hoops?

[Anonymous No.20781753]

>>20781732
Yeah, I choose to not believe the lowest of the social ladder. Do you believe the homeless when they tell you about CIA making a porno with their wife?

[Anonymous No.20781754]

>materialism is false
>because DMT users, can talk to ghosts
Dualism don't send their best..

[Anonymous No.20781756]

>>20780221
Idk man, I think that when Dennett says consciousness is an illusion, he means the idea of a spatio-temporally localized “window” or “funnel” of experience which can be talked about as an entity. Neuroscience quite literally shows that the areas which process visual perception and allow us to create gestalt structures and perceive vertices and boundaries are processed at different places and times, then subsequently “reordered” to become known as a continual, unified stream of information by memory.

The illusion label refers to the fact that consciousness does not operate as it seems.

[Anonymous No.20781757]

>>20781752
Your wild claims. I just thought you may have wanted to back them up.
Rather than backing out like a total pussy

[Anonymous No.20781760]

>>20781753
> I choose to not believe the lowest of the social ladder.
Cool, I don't give a fuck. Good luck to you on your journey.

[Anonymous No.20781761]

>>20781726
Then the answer is "no". There wouldn't be another consciousness observing that illusion.

[Anonymous No.20781767]

>>20781757
I have shared what I believe you simply refused to engage and have turned into an entitled person demanding shit rather than someone having a conversation. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.20781773]

Thank god consciousness is material. Imagine a universe where it wasn't. I don't think anyone gives much thought to the horror of that implication. It opens the doors to things like metaphysical pain. If I were some form of dualist, I'm not sure how I could sleep at night.

[Anonymous No.20781774]

>>20781678
True. Matter doesn't "observe". You -a chunk of matter- think you are "observing", because the absence of perception of real processes, doing the perception, doesn't register inside your head even as absence.
Thus, "you" have to conjure false explanations out of your ass.You (the system that does the tracking) are unable to track yourself in time, therefore "you" are always "now". You are unable to track yourself in space, therefore "you" are always "here".
It's precisely the INability to observe that matters.

[Anonymous No.20781776]

>>20781767
Why should I care what you believe?

[Anonymous No.20781778]

>>20781493
Lol retard seething without any argument.

[Anonymous No.20781779]

>>20779930
Dualism retards can argue all they like, but keep in mind that no consistent or rigorous solution has ever been given to demonstrate how the material body/brain could interact with a non-material consciousness/soul. Shit is not even scripturally sound. Dualism is just theologians and philosophical infants (myself, once) holding onto primitive intuitions.

However, talking about “consciousness” as a unified entity is still useful for psychology and cognitive science. Different levels of magnitude proffer different kinds of observation.

[Anonymous No.20781782]

>>20781717
I am not selling you anything, retard. The goal is to have a conversation and share information to learn and grow. Believe or care about whatever the fuck you want to. You don't owe me anything and you're not owed anything.

[Anonymous No.20781786]

>>20781778
I think he's saying you are straw manning the materialist position

[Anonymous No.20781789]

>>20781717
My bad I was starting my reply and got distracted by this>>20781776

>>20781776
>>20781782
This is for you.

[Anonymous No.20781791]

>>20781782
>share information
Can you please share evidence of DMT users talking to ghosts? please please please

[Anonymous No.20781792]

>>20781702
>If we concede to call a simple "if-else" chatbot script, reacting to its environment, as conscious, then yes.
One has nothing to do with the other. The necessity of an observer observing the "illusion" does not mean chatbots are "conscious".

[Anonymous No.20781799]

>>20781786
I rather think he thinks the brain's activity during coma and loss of consciousness is equivalent with brain activity outside of it, which is retarded, if only because your entire activity is reduced to laying in a fucking bed.

[Anonymous No.20781800]

>>20781789
okay
>Why should I care what you believe?
Presumably this would be because there are good reasons for why you believe the things you do

Now I don't believe the same things as you. In fact, I believe you are wrong.
Could you please share the reasons for why you believe (that DMT users can talk to ghosts) ?

[Anonymous No.20781802]

>>20781792
>One has nothing to do with the other.
It has. The module of your brain that does the observing is not sentient by itself. If you claim that the observer must be conscious, then you are claiming any primitive thingamabob still must be.

[Anonymous No.20781804]

>>20780607
>Consciousness is the most perfectly simple thing in existence
the other guy is right, you should read Kant's paralogisms

[Anonymous No.20781807]

>>20781791
>>20781800
I don't think DMT users talk to ghosts. Your retarded interpretation of my claim that an evolution of DMT release during NDE is your ESL problem to solve not mine.

[Anonymous No.20781808]

>>20781743
Lol this is the level of bs needed to not see the truth for what it is.

>there's a phenomena bro
>your soul is observing it bro
>its just that there is no discernable context bro
>cuz the brain is not working bro

Holy shit self delusion should be a crime

[Anonymous No.20781817]

>>20781697
pure coincidence!

[Anonymous No.20781820]

>>20781802
>then you are claiming any primitive thingamabob still must be
No. It does not necessarily follow from anything you quoted.
>if consciousness be an illusion, there would yet be another consciousness observing that illusion
It's the best assumption to assume the fundamental phenomena is universal but this quoted point remains true whatever the nature of if is.

[Anonymous No.20781829]

>>20781807
Talk to the dead then w/e
so sorry

[Anonymous No.20781837]

>>20781779
Dualism is true but it isn't a mind-body dualism, it's a mechanistic vs random dualism. That is those entities which are governed by mathematical law/are describable by turing machines, like quantum mechanics, vs entities that are not governed by deterministic mechanistic evolution, like radioactive decay, the collapse of the wave function, or the emission of hawking radiation.

[Anonymous No.20781838]

Is there some particular problem with the brain stopping (pausing) it's functions
then resuming
???

jesus fucking christ

[Anonymous No.20781840]

>>20781838
by functions I mean, those necesarry for consciousness

[Anonymous No.20781850]

>>20781802
>If you claim that the observer must be conscious, then you are claiming any primitive thingamabob still must be.
If the fundamental phenomena is universal any primitive thing has the potential to express that phenomena in the way we recognize, which is true or you could become a p-zombie by eating the wrong things. If it's a kind of universal physical force like magnetism then it might not get expressed in a chatbot but the best model with least exceptions or extra assumptions is that it's universal like logic, it's beyond the physical and time and all that and could be expressed in bots.

[Anonymous No.20781854]

Why "dualists" not want to talk about what they believe, and why they believe them?

[Anonymous No.20781855]

Seriously though, what do dualists think happens when they die? Do they think aspects of consciousness not dependent on the brain that can the painful dying process is a good thing?

Its not like you need nerves to feel tremendous suffering. The brain decides what pain is and how intense it will be.

[Anonymous No.20781857]

>>20781292
You’re conflating the existence of the fundamental properties of matter which allow consciousness to emerge, with the idea that some kind of “consciousness” property is inherently out there, in the same way magnetism exists. This is superfluous and retarded. YES, dumbass, magnets presuppose magnetism, in the same way the existence of neurons presuppose molecular behavior. You fail to realize consciousness is a totality of micro processes, and it is enough for the laws which govern these micro processes to exist for a macro process to become instantiated from their uniquely structured behavior. Consciousness has always been possible under this universe’s physical laws. Consciousness not a distinct part of the mind, it is an activity of the mind’s parts working in unison. God, even reading Sartre would help you escape these mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous No.20781859]

>>20780657

[Anonymous No.20781861]

>>20781855
*that can SURVIVE the painful dying process

[Anonymous No.20781871]

>>20781857
So you believe the fundamental element that allows consciousness to express is universal and outside all physical models. You're not a materialist, you're a brainwashed retard.

[Anonymous No.20781872]

>numbers
>laws of logic
>physical laws
>principle of induction
>scientific method
>the self
>external world
>ethics
>the possibility of knowledge
>interpretation of empirical data
>causality
T
All these are things that materialists cannot account for.

[Anonymous No.20781879]

>>20781854
Yeah, all I'm hearing is stuff that is hard to explain in terms of materialism
What about ghosts and stuff, why dualist never talk about ectoplasm?

[Anonymous No.20781885]

>>20781872
Have you even tried to understand the materialist position?

What's you accounts, btw?

[Anonymous No.20781891]

>>20781885
The materialist position is incoherent and unjustifiable.

[Anonymous No.20781894]

Deep dreamless sleep. Brain shuts down and all experience, including that of the ego disappears.

Death. brain dies and there's no sign of anything that can be considered a consciousness or awareness.

/Thread

This is the thread disposable line. All posts beneath are made by brainless bacteria feeding on its corpse.

[Anonymous No.20781895]

>>20781879
Ghosts live in brains. Spirits live in mechanisms including brains, shopping carts and the chaos of the void.

[Anonymous No.20781897]

>>20781871
what causes a person to make these posts?

[Anonymous No.20781901]

>>20781872
also
>time
>identity over time

[Anonymous No.20781903]

>>20781897
Engage with it you mindless subhuman.

[Anonymous No.20781904]

>>20781891
okay
now what?

[Anonymous No.20781910]

>>20781904

[Anonymous No.20781912]

>>20781903
It's just that you seem so pissy
are you motivated by some kind of weird ideology?

[Anonymous No.20781916]

>>20781871
NTA but there are many things that exist that aren't consciousness that aren't describable on turing machines. Consciousness isn't special in that sense

[Anonymous No.20781917]

Dammit dualists, answer my question.
What happens when you die? I bet you think its something good or neutral, but now that you've moved pain qualia into metaphysics, you could expect some sort of unyielding suffering state.

[Anonymous No.20781918]

>>20781910
I get it
Jay Dyer is really really handsome
but if you just had sex, (I know you are not allowed to) it would solve 99% of this weird behaviour
you are probably not even gay

[Anonymous No.20781923]

>>20781894
I only skimmed the thread and granted I'm kinda retarded, but if there's no awareness/consciousness of some kind in deep sleep then how could an alarm wake you up? Awareness/consciousness and the mind with the sense-of-being must be distinct. And if the mind "emerges" from or is known to awareness, then what we essentially are is not the mind but that awareness. Which can, as shown in the alarm example, exist even without mental/experiential contents.

[Anonymous No.20781926]

>>20781910
Will this give me a position that is coherent and justifiable?
What position would that be?

[Anonymous No.20781928]

>>20781704
>computers can execute tasks logically
>Hmm I don’t see where the logic is, can someone point to it?
You’re a retard.

Imagine a concept is a neural firing sequence. Logic is the relationship between different neural firing sequences which allows the brain to build and manipulate patterns delivered from the senses. These patterns are concepts (read Kant: synthesis of impressions). In the same way computers encrypt, a brain can then translate these neural firing sequence relations into physical symbols able to represent them: written words. Or the brain can allow them to be transmitted through phonetic patterns: spoken words.

Shit is really not that hard to understand.

[Anonymous No.20781930]

>>20781904
Now you stop acting like you have anything but a a model to describe some things. Your model is not holy truth. You don't even understand it yourself.
>>20781912
Reason. The undermining of reason through conditioning like active propaganda has caused you endless misery and will continue to torture you for the rest of your life but here you are defending it passionately, unable to conceive of anything outside it, mindlessly deferring to your conditioning as it's equivalent to reason.

[Anonymous No.20781933]

>>20781926
Yes. In fact it is the only position that meets those criteria. You should read it!

[Anonymous No.20781939]

logic doesn't exist you retards, neither does computation or mathematics in general

[Anonymous No.20781943]

>>20781916
>Consciousness isn't special in that sense
That's part of the point with the magnetism analogy. Consciousness works like everything else. The spooky associations and such are just associations, they don't tell us anything. Magnets and logic are just as spooky if you want to call this spooky.

[Anonymous No.20781945]

>>20781871
No, that is the exact OPPOSITE of what I wrote. The fundamental elementS which allow consciousness to exist are universal and order the structure and behavior of its fundamental constituents, not the entity we call consciousness as a whole.

[Anonymous No.20781946]

Imagine thinking that experiencing supernatural phenomena under DMT influence is a sign of the existence of immaterial.

If anything the very fact that conscious experience can be altered using a drug, that works by chemically altering the functioning of brain, is just further proof that conscious experience(including that of the self) originates in the brain.

[Anonymous No.20781947]

>>20781939
This is clearly absurd, and yet at the same time, it is the logical conclusion if you want to be consistent as an atheist materialist.

[Anonymous No.20781949]

>>20781939
Then nothing exists. Name one thing.

[Anonymous No.20781956]

>>20781947
I'm not an atheist, I am a materialist.
How is it absurd? Matter does not follow logic, it doesn't even necessarily follow deterministic mechanistic evolution.

[Anonymous No.20781958]

>>20781947
You are wrong since immaterialism is fundamentally illlogical. Its a belief in things that simply don't exist

[Anonymous No.20781960]

>>20781917
I'm not a dualist and this is only applicable to certain theories but consider that you're conflating consciousness with the mind. Qualia are mental contents conditioned by the brain which are at the same time known by consciousness. So at death consciousness continues but the mind ceases, i.e. no pain experienced.

[Anonymous No.20781961]

>>20780607
How are we quantizing simplicity here?
What do you mean by "truly real"?
I ask these questions because I'm unsure of something. When this consciousness's metric of complexity doesn't constitute the lowest measurable bound, how does it follow that consciousness cannot be "truly real"?

Assuming common sense definitions, whereby a thing's "realness" constitutes its capacity to exhibit cause-and-effect among a collection of other real things, and "complexity" describes a quantity of components whether ontological or phenomenological: What is the link between consciousness, this lower bound of the metric and realness? What is the interaction between complexity and realness? What is the interaction between consciousness and this metric space?

[Anonymous No.20781963]

>>20781945
>The fundamental elementS which allow consciousness to exist are universal
Actual physical elements within accepted physics models? If so you're just talking about memory and all that again instead of staying on subject.

[Anonymous No.20781964]

>>20781933
>it is the only position that meets those criteria.
which is?

[Anonymous No.20781968]

>>20781939
Logic has no physical substrate, but it does exist as a phenomena instantiated by beings with critical awareness. The inarticulate logic of an animal’s hunting instincts is a primordial form of formal and explicit logic used by beings whose brains are complex enough to form and retain the neural equivalent of grammatical structure.

[Anonymous No.20781970]

>>20781956
What do you think "matter" is?

[Anonymous No.20781972]

>>20781930
Presumably you got a better way to go about things?

[Anonymous No.20781981]

>>20781960
>So at death consciousness continues but the mind ceases, i.e. no pain experienced.
I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. Pain states are direct conscious experience. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want consciousness to survive death, you can't just choose to leave pain qualia behind.

[Anonymous No.20781982]

>>20781970
all there is? Obviously
I'm a materialist, remember

[Anonymous No.20781985]

Without God putting everything in its proper order, all beliefs fall into absurdity and contradictions.

[Anonymous No.20781989]

>>20781972
How fucked in the head can you be? I told you, fucking reason.
What motivated this post like the previous one was a desperation to pigeonhole my person instead of engaging with any ideas using reason. It's yet again the same pattern of desperately needing conditioned associations as a crutch instead of actually fucking thinking.

[Anonymous No.20781990]

>>20781968
logic is a shorthand for the more complication evolution of matter
>>20781970
it's the gloop all around us

[Anonymous No.20781992]

>>20781949
Different anon but you're ironically correct. Observe any object/thing around you. Where was this thing before it was made into this thing, where will the thing go when it's destroyed and no longer this thing? There never really is any thing there, just the appearance of a thing that the mind reifies in this particular way.

[Anonymous No.20781993]

>>20781667
>but the opposite is not true, you cannot have consciousness without matter
There is no proof of this whatsoever; you are just blindly stating your faith in the dogma of scientism here

[Anonymous No.20781994]

>>20779930
Science disproved materialism with field theory to begin with. Monism and Dualism are both wrong. Pluralism is the only substantiated outlook.

[Anonymous No.20781998]

>>20781947
Hey kid, want some nominalism?

[Anonymous No.20781999]

>>20781985
Replace the word God with refrigerator and it would have the same effect

[Anonymous No.20782003]

>>20781989
I too engage in reasoned behaviour.
You just keep pointing out flaws, but what's your fix?

[Anonymous No.20782004]

>>20781697
>There's literally no observer in a deep dreamless sleep
You can either be totally guessing and hence your claim can be dismissed as unfounded; or you can observe the lack of an observer here which is a contradiction and nonsense

[Anonymous No.20782005]

>>20781992
What is an appearance?
How can there be appearance of a thing without the existence of the thing itself to which the appearance refers?
What is a mind?

[Anonymous No.20782008]

>>20781985
Help, help
I have fallen into absurdity and contradiction and can't get out!

[Anonymous No.20782009]

>>20781992
>Where was this thing before it was made into this thing
The future
>Where will the thing go when it's destroyed and no longer this thing
Into the past

The temporal-spatial distinction doesn't actually have a basis in reality.

[Anonymous No.20782010]

>>20781949
matter
god
neither of which are bound by deterministic mathematics i.e. logic

[Anonymous No.20782011]

>>20781998
No, I don't because nominalism is wrong. If universals don't exist then nothing exists.

[Anonymous No.20782012]

>>20782005
I a unicorn appeared to me in a dream.
Do you think unicorns exists now?

[Anonymous No.20782014]

>>20781999
No it wouldn't. A refrigerator is a material created object. God is uncreated and not material.

[Anonymous No.20782017]

>>20782011
So.. uhhh. hhhhh hhh
I'm, I'm basically just going to reject that
uhhhh
so sorry
i know, i know
I'm just gonna reject it

[Anonymous No.20782019]

>>20782014
An immaterial uncreated refrigerator*

[Anonymous No.20782021]

>>20781756
>The illusion label refers to the fact that consciousness does not operate as it seems.
what you described isn't consciousness as has already been pointed out by another anon; consciousness is the conscious observer or witness of all the senses and its not the senses themselves or the 'reordering' of senses. To deny this requires a special kind of 'learned stupidity'

[Anonymous No.20782027]

>>20781982
Then it includes logic and qualia.
>>20782003
>I too engage in reasoned behaviour.
Not really. The fix is be aware of the conditioning and transcend it using reason. Maintain multiple models. Two apparently conflicting models can account for the whole better than either one.

[Anonymous No.20782029]

>>20782011
>If universals don't exist then nothing exists.
proofs?

[Anonymous No.20782030]

>>20781872
>numbers
Literally just counting things. Numbers don't exist, they're an abstract of the material. If the material didn't exist, there would be nothing to count whereas the material can exist without abstract concepts like math. Math, like other languages, requires physical materials to interpret it.
>laws of logic
Don't exist.
>physical laws
Abstract understanding of processes that exist whether or not they are understood. It is a process not a thing.
>principle of induction
Again, abstract reasoning that does not exist in and of itself. Animals do this as well without elaborating on it. It is a process, not a thing.
>scientific method
See above. It is the process of physical matter manipulating physical matter to see what happens. Process, not a thing.
>the self
Doesn't exist. Process, not a thing.
>external world
Is material, not sure what your point here is.
>ethics
Don't exist.
>the possibility of knowledge
Is literally just recognition of the external world. Animals do this as well. Process, not a thing.
>interpretation of empirical data
Doesn't exist. Even if it did, process, not a thing.
>causality
Is a process, not a thing.
>>20781901
>time
Process, not a thing.
>identity over time
Doesn't exist. Process, not a thing.

>abstract concepts like time and causality are things to dualists
I really hope you guys don't REALLY think this. That'd be kind of embarrassing

[Anonymous No.20782031]

>>20782017
>>20782019
You have run out of arguments.
Materialism is a dead end.

[Anonymous No.20782032]

>>20782010
>neither of which are bound by deterministic mathematics i.e. logic
I can predict where matter goes using logic. Whatever the real process is it's similar enough that I can map it.

[Anonymous No.20782033]

>>20782011
"Existence" itself is non-universal. Like all other predicates, it can apply in some contexts and not in others.

[Anonymous No.20782034]

>>20781963
I’m talking about microbiological and chemical laws like molecular diffusion, ionization, protein synthesis.

[Anonymous No.20782036]

>>20782004

These guys just cannot say anything without sounding like complete meme retards can they?

>You can either be totally guessing and hence your claim can be dismissed as unfounded;

Its not a guess, when was the last time you experienced something in a dreamless sleep.

>or you can observe the lack of an observer here which is a contradiction and nonsense

Lmfao there is an observer that preceeds and succeeds the sleep period and becomes aware of the time that he was not consciousness.

Some people think they've said something smart and le philosophical but its all rubbish. The dunning kruger peak

[Anonymous No.20782038]

>>20781981
I'm not settled on any particular position so I'm not attempting to refute you, but it is entirely possible for there to be pain qualia without the sense of being an ego or self experiencing it. So while I think you make a good point, it would be pain that is direct experience, but not suffering. So there may be eternal pain after death, but nothing other than the impersonal awareness of it.

[Anonymous No.20782039]

>>20782030
>>laws of logic
>Don't exist.
Ok then I don't have to read your gay post because it's meaningless.

[Anonymous No.20782044]

>>20782039
But you did, because you have no free will, because you are made of blind matter. Your actions have already been determined.

[Anonymous No.20782045]

>>20782032
You can't though.
You can't predict where a particle will end up, you can't determine when a radioactive particle will decay, etc.
The universe/matter is not describable to arbitrary precision with any turing machine.

[Anonymous No.20782046]

>>20781779
>but keep in mind that no consistent or rigorous solution has ever been given to demonstrate how the material body/brain could interact with a non-material consciousness/soul.
There is no necessity that it has too in order to account for our experience so that's really an irrelevant problem that doesn't refute anything. One thing having a 1-way non-reciprocal effect upon a second thing literally isn't an 'interaction' according to what the meaning of 'interaction' is; so when consciousness is immaterial and has a one-way non-reciprocal effect upon the brain while remaining itself unaffected that's not an 'interaction'

[Anonymous No.20782050]

>>20782044
Completely baseless assumption.

[Anonymous No.20782051]

>>20782019
You can do this with anything. The definitive attributes are all these things you reassign to the word fridge like omnipotence and not being created. If you call that a fridge it doesn't change what it is.

[Anonymous No.20782052]

>>20782027
>Then it includes logic and qualia.
Sure, I think logic is like a human language game (read Wittgenstein or something, I dunno)
Then qualia I just think is explainable in terms of the physical
no problem

This is obviously not what you mean by the words logic or qualia, which is why I think those things doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.20782053]

>>20782014
The question is why God? Why not the refrigerator. Why does being material disqualify it.

I can just as easily say that my samsung s3354 is the "original cause".

[Anonymous No.20782055]

>>20781872
>numbers
form of language
>laws of logic
literally just rhetorical tools
>principle of induction
inductive reasoning is generally considered faulty
>scientific method
social norm
>the self
semantic tool

etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.20782060]

>>20782050
>baseless
Literally based on causality. You cannot help but seethe, it is determined.

[Anonymous No.20782061]

>>20782052
>Sure, I think logic is like a human language game (read Wittgenstein or something, I dunno)
You materialists are so retarded it's unreal.

[Anonymous No.20782064]

>>20780843
>The reason consciousness comes form the brain is that the brain is an organ and we can see a direct, clear and obvious causal relation between the brain and consciousness
Not true. There are things called neural correlates of consciousness but they are just as the name implies, CORRELATES. They do not prove causation or solve the hard problem of consciousness. Even the wiki article on neural correlates admits this.
>Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness that can explain how particular systems experience anything at all, or how and why they are associated with consciousness, the so-called hard problem of consciousness, but understanding the NCC may be a step toward such a theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

This would still not disprove idealism anyways as idealism does not deny brains exist or that there are certain potential correlative relationships between and observer qualitative experience and his brain activity. They exist (brains) as all matter does which is as objects rendered to observers in minds. They are mental objects. And idealism does not deny that these mental objects called brains are doing things which are correlative to some particular purported qualia in the consciousness of the subject associated with the particular brain upon which measurement is being taken. Idealism also does not deny that damage to these mental objects will correlate to changes in the consciousness of the observer to whom that brain belongs. This is also just correlation and does not show that some observer independent material/non-mental object called brain is causing consciousness. This is just correlation between an objectively observable mental object (a brain) and a subjectively observable mental experience (the qualia of the observer to whom the brain belongs). What idealism denies, or what properly formulated idealism should deny, is the existence of a non-mental observer independent and objectively self existent substance called matter. Something which exist outside of mentation. So there is something called matter which is presented as processed and structured data (information) in minds.

[Anonymous No.20782065]

>>20782009
Where exactly is this future and past? I only find them in imagination. Even if you are correct, at what point does the thing come into being that thing and not the thing it previously was, and at what point does it cease being the thing it is and become something else?

[Anonymous No.20782066]

>>20782031
Why do I need an argument?
You invented a premise
I rejected it

Seems fair

[Anonymous No.20782068]

>>20782030
>>abstract concepts like time and causality are things to dualists
I really hope you guys don't REALLY think this. That'd be kind of embarrassing

Bruh this is literally their entire argument. Abstract concepts exist and they are le immaterial hence materialism is wrong and whatever version of religion and spooks I believe in exists

[Anonymous No.20782069]

>>20782045
>You can't predict where a particle will end up
I'm not trying to. I'm predicting where a ball ends up. It does obey the rules I'm talking about. What the underlying processes are don't factor into it.
I can also predict particles just with less certainty.

[Anonymous No.20782071]

>>20781717
> Evolution doesn't operate always on what is useful.
Sure, evolution is an adaptation to something while not always useful it isn't arbitrary it's adaptive. What's DMT sacks adapting to you and why DMT is method of adaptation? What's the purpose for this evolution?
>Not everyone has the same concepts of oneness
We all have a subjective experience of reality and perceive the world through qualia. This isn't news
.> feelings are based on the material, and we know that they are because feelings can be manipulated through material means
I can stir water with a straw doesn't mean water is made out of straw.
>it stands to reason that this feeling of oneness is similar to multicellular organisms operating in tandem.
Alright, but it doesn't say anything about the root cause only that there is other observable similarities. Are you building the case that humanity is a single entity?
>The difference here being that materialism offers several very plausible conclusions
Astrology offers several very plausible conclusions. This is meaningless because the root is in faith.
> while spiritualism requires you to simply throw what we know out simply because it feels distasteful to admit that we are matter.
We're matter and no spiritualist is going to deny that. What a spiritualist is going to deny is that all we are is matter.
>Matter creates all of those spiritual feelings that we feel,
Really? Color red is matter? Matter creates the sensory tool (eye) which we can perceive wavelength with and through qualia (subjective experience) we perceive red, however color is not matter.
>, but those who reject materialism do not want to admit this for fear of 'losing something' from the human experience.
Projection.
There is simply things materialist can't explain. For example, double slit experiment demonstrates that light is both wave and particle. Materialist is not going to be able to me why outside of "It's just how it is"

[Anonymous No.20782076]

>>20782039
What's the argument here
how does the one thing follow from the other?

[Anonymous No.20782077]

>>20782053
>I can just as easily say that my samsung s3354 is the "original cause".
No you can't.
When I say God in this context I am not using it arbitrarily as a flaccid designator, but referring specifically to the Triune God of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.20782078]

>>20782069
You can't predict particles with arbitrary certainty, because there is no deterministic mechanistic principle guiding the collapse of a wavefunction or the decay of a radioactive particle. It's inherently random and not driven by deterministic mathematics/turing computations.

[Anonymous No.20782084]

>>20782060
>causality
A metaphysical category which you have no reason to assume in your paradigm.

[Anonymous No.20782087]

>>20782052
You don't try to explain anything, I say you can't. You just say your dogma is true and stop thinking.
>Everything is explainable within the framework of Dianetics but I'm not gonna try.

[Anonymous No.20782089]

>>20782045
>you can't determine when a radioactive particle will decay, etc.
Okay, but that doesn't mean it's impossible
hidden variables could be true
and radioactive decay could be entirely deterministic, we just don't see the variables that determines it (because they are hidden XD )

[Anonymous No.20782090]

>>20782038
>So there may be eternal pain after death
There we go. That is hard and fast implication of mind-body dualism. The problem is you've run from honesty again in that you admit the pain is possible, but you smuggle in that the suffering would be impersonal and of no consequence, which is wishful thinking.

Luckily, no such thing exists because the experience of you stops when the hardware stops, but people need to be honest about the implications of non-material conscious states. Like I said earlier, dualists (and I know you don't purport to be a dualist) should be very afraid of the implications of their own beliefs.

[Anonymous No.20782099]

>>20782068
BRUH

[Anonymous No.20782100]

>>20782061
Read Wittgenstein, seriously

[Anonymous No.20782103]

>>20782084
I said it is a process, not a thing, not that it doesn't exist. Water moving isn't a thing. Water is a thing. Movement is a process. Things moving is causality.

[Anonymous No.20782110]

>>20782077
Can't prove it. Why christianity?

[Anonymous No.20782111]

>>20782087
>You don't try to explain anything
Okay. So what? Do I have to?
lmao

I don't see you doing a lot of explaining
it's not a high bar to beat
jfc

[Anonymous No.20782113]

>>20782078
The unpredictability is predictable. Chances of radiactive decay increase under neutron bombardment. Rainbows always look the same despite resting on a million chaotic, "random" elements. The emergent behavior can be described precisely like the trajectory of a ball.
>It's inherently random
You have no idea if it is. Normally random just means too complex for us to resolve it. We don't know what's going on in this case.

[Anonymous No.20782120]

>>20782110
Only the Triune God of Christianity resolves the dialectic of unity vs multiplicity.

[Anonymous No.20782128]

>>20782111
>I don't see you doing a lot of explaining
I at least try to account for things but I'm not the one saying I've accounted for everything. You say Dianetics explains everything but refuse to elaborate on how it even accounts for a single thing.

[Anonymous No.20782131]

Oh no, I can't explain qualia on materialism

WTF
I'm a Christian now (eastern orthodox, btw)

[Anonymous No.20782135]

>>20782076
If laws of logic don't exist then nothing anyone says can make any sense.
If he denies the laws of logic then obviously his whole post is absurd self-refuting nonsense.

[Anonymous No.20782136]

>>20782005
>What is an appearance?
This
>How can there be appearance of a thing without the existence of the thing itself to which the appearance refers?
I said in another reply: at what point does a thing come into being that thing and not the thing it previously was, and at what point does it cease being the thing it is and become something else?
There certainly is apparent things, but no actual spatial or temporal distinction between them can be found — even under materialism, don't think I'm advocating for Idealism. We project substantial entities onto what is just the whole of reality reality-ing. There aren't any independently existing things.
>What is a mind?
In this case, I use mind as synonymous with brain.

[Anonymous No.20782137]

>>20782100
Either he's retarded or you read him wrong.

[Anonymous No.20782140]

>>20782099
Ghost are re-

[Anonymous No.20782145]

>>20782128
I already explained that logic was a language game
didn't you like my explanation?

Do you seriously think you are justified in throwing a tantrum because I didn't fully explain qualia? (a thing we both probably agree that no living human fully understand)

You are such a bag of empty farts

[Anonymous No.20782148]

>>20782120
Care to elab?

[Anonymous No.20782149]

>>20781981
>Pain states are direct conscious experience. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
To assume that they automatically accompany all instances of consciousness is just begging the question; we experience moments in life that are free from pain so there isnt any sound basis to say its inextricably inseparable from the existence of consciousness since thats contradicted just by ordinary experience

[Anonymous No.20782150]

[Anonymous No.20782152]

>>20782135
>If laws of logic don't exist then nothing anyone says can make any sense.
Okay, I disagree. What makes that true?

Evidently we are communicating, with some success. So things seems to make.. some... sense.


>if he denies the laws of logic then obviously his whole post is absurd self-refuting nonsense.
can "logic" exist, without there being LAWS of logic?

[Anonymous No.20782153]

>>20782046
In what way is the interaction non-reciprocal? Phenomena of consciousness, mental disorders are all subject to changes in brain activity.

[Anonymous No.20782156]

>>20782150
So much bullshit still no proof that god exists

[Anonymous No.20782157]

>>20782137
cool it with the dogma
nobody is going to hell

[Anonymous No.20782167]

>>20782150
I don't think pantheists says god needs to have the omni-omni-omni attributes...

[Anonymous No.20782168]

>>20782036
>Its not a guess, when was the last time you experienced something in a dreamless sleep.
Yes that is a guess you idiot; by your own admission you cant observe your own absence in sleep so you have no choice but to make guesses that you cannot confirm to be true

[Anonymous No.20782172]

>>20782071
>Sure, evolution is an adaptation to something while not always useful it isn't arbitrary it's adaptive. What's DMT sacks adapting to you and why DMT is method of adaptation? What's the purpose for this evolution?
The lack of knowledge of a reason doesn't mean there is no reason. It could literally just be an evolutionary mistake and that would still be reason enough for it to exist.
>I can stir water with a straw doesn't mean water is made out of straw.
Not a relevant argument to what is being made. The water isn't made of straw but the 'metaphysical' concept of the water being stirred is a result of the physical process. What is being argued is that 'stir' is a thing, when it is a process.
>Alright, but it doesn't say anything about the root cause only that there is other observable similarities. Are you building the case that humanity is a single entity?
Building the case that humans can use various chemical and psychosocial elements that exist within the brain (material) that stimulate these processes because we are animals that are made to be cooperative. Most mammals are like this to varying degrees.
>We're matter and no spiritualist is going to deny that. What a spiritualist is going to deny is that all we are is matter.
A spiritualist will argue that the immaterial supersedes the material, but the truth is that material supersedes immaterial. Dualism posits both exist, but it mistakes immaterial as things and not processes. Movement isn't a 'thing', gravity isn't a 'thing', both of those things exist though.
>Really? Color red is matter? Matter creates the sensory tool (eye) which we can perceive wavelength with and through qualia (subjective experience) we perceive red, however color is not matter.
Color isn't matter but it also isn't a thing. Its conception is however derived from materials that read light waves if they are properly equipped to do so, and if the material in question has the composition to reflect red light. I think the confusion here is the idea that materialists are arguing everything is matter, when it is more fair to say all things, even immaterial concepts, are derived from matter in some way.
>There is simply things materialist can't explain. For example, double slit experiment demonstrates that light is both wave and particle. Materialist is not going to be able to me why outside of "It's just how it is"
It's both, because it is one or the other depending on how you measure it. The issue here lies in our ability to measure. It would be like if you could measure a cup of water's cupness or its waterness. Both are true, because the cup is a cup and it has water in it, but only one can be measured at a time. That is my understanding, at least.

[Anonymous No.20782179]

>>20782168
Do I need knowledge with total certainty
in order to not be "totally guessing"
???

[Anonymous No.20782182]

>>20782090
>That is hard and fast implication of mind-body dualism.
It could be but what would be the cause of the pain? Once the body has entirely ceased to function there'd be no sensory information, therefore no pain.
>the experience of you stops when the hardware stops
My point is that the experience of you can stop even while the hardware is still running. This is in a simplified sense what "enlightenment" is, and it's a real experience, not anything necessarily metaphysical or mystical. So I disagree that personal suffering would necessarily be experienced, but whether or not this state of impersonal awareness is naturally entered upon death would be the more important question I suppose.

[Anonymous No.20782186]

[Anonymous No.20782190]

>>20782167
Regardless of what they say, it is necessary for it to be the case. Literally by definition.

[Anonymous No.20782192]

>>20782149
The fact is pain states outnumber relief states. I challenge you to feel very good right now. Its not easy, especially if you're in a pain state, and even if you have a willing partner set to blow you at the command of a guy on the internet, you may not be in the mood, you may be in a negative state right now.

Now I challenge you to enter a suffering state. Well, that's pretty simple. I have a cement floor beneath my feet. I should simply fall forward to enter a decidedly negative state, possibly without hope of any soon relief. I might not have tylenol on-hand, and even then the pain will linger, changes to my breathing may occur through damage to my sinuses, all sorts of bad.

So now we're dying. Have you ever taken care of the dying? I have. Sometime when you're applying the third fentanyl patch and the severe pain is only very slightly waning, you realize there is something very negative about the character of this experience. So if I have a dual aspect to my consciousness, there's a very real sense in that this final suffering state is what "goes on" past the physical death. Dualists want to pretend they get to go forward seeing the red in apples with none of these negative truths intruding on their experience.

I posit that what dualism implies is the existence of possibly unyielding hell-states.

[Anonymous No.20782193]

>>20782145
>I already explained that logic was a language game
This statement has no explanatory power. It has negative power, we lose control by working from it as an assumption.
The "tantrum" is about your inability to present anything except dogma. If you accept your ideas are basically religious and you have nothing to offer other than dogma then you're more honest than most "materialist". But you retards all pretend you have "proofs" and that you're so much more enlightened than the dogmatic scientologists or whatever.

[Anonymous No.20782195]

>>20782152
>Evidently we are communicating, with some success. So things seems to make.. some... sense.
Yes, precisely because logic exists.

[Anonymous No.20782197]

>>20782186
Do you think agnostics are lying about not knowing?

[Anonymous No.20782201]

>>20782193
>If you accept your ideas are basically religious and you have nothing to offer other than dogma
No, I hold my beliefs because of reasons

[Anonymous No.20782202]

>>20782182
>there'd be no sensory information
Not required for suffering. You can lose an arm in battle and feel no pain, meanwhile you can shoot a nail into your boot and feel great pain even though the nail passed harmlessly between the toes. Suffering is ultimately decided by the brain, or whatever metaphysical content of consciousness to which you subscribe. This is why you have things like phantom limb pain.

You don't need nerves to feel pain, just a mind.

[Anonymous No.20782207]

>>20782153
>In what way is the interaction non-reciprocal?
The way you phrased the question suggests that you still don’t understand what I said, if the relation between them is non-reciprocal, then by definition it’s *not an interaction*. A non-reciprocal interaction is a contradiction in terms. The right description would be one thing influencing another in a non-reciprocal way, which isn’t the same thing as an interaction.

How is this influence non-reciprocal? It’s simple, consciousness reveals thoughts, sense-data and other mental processing to us, while non-consciousness does not effect consciousness and does not reveal it to us, our consciousness instead directly and continually reveals itself to itself/us and it does so without relying on anything else.

>Phenomena of consciousness, mental disorders are all subject to changes in brain activity.
This argument involves erroneously conflating alleged neural correlates of consciousness with consciousness itself, which is just begging the question

[Anonymous No.20782209]

>>20782201
begging the question

[Anonymous No.20782211]

>>20782195
>because logic exists
as a language game among humans?

[Anonymous No.20782217]

>>20782179
How would it not be a guess if you had no way to confirm it? Being unable to observe your own absence does not equal confirming your own absence.

[Anonymous No.20782218]

>>20782209
Do you think I hold my beliefs just because they were written in a book
or do you think that book also provided reasons for holding them?

[Anonymous No.20782221]

>>20782217
Are you moving away for "total guess" now?
are you admitting that there is (good) evidence for my position?

I will not continue this conversation, if you do not concede any points

[Anonymous No.20782224]

>>20782065
>Where exactly is this future and past? I only find them in imagination.
Quite literally, in the future and in the past respectively. They merely describe the polarity of the time-component of a given point along a specific axis of space-time, they are locations themselves. You can apply this same argumentation to asking where a given region of space is. Your senses being both linked to time and space, any point not immediately observable may only be perceived by imagination.

>at what point does the thing come into being that thing and not the thing it previously was
Measurements are made by comparing two vectors, a reference point and an observation. Given both, your answer is trivially the difference between the observed moment and a given reference point or origin moment. Can you define a given thing? The more concretely you can do so, the finer the range on the temporal axis your answer can become. You may find that a concrete enough answer thoroughly and complete describes a world-line. To ask where something is and when it is are substantially indistinct questions, semantically an elision of what we consider to be "spatial" axes and what we consider to be a "temporal" axis.

[Anonymous No.20782225]

>>20782192
>The fact is pain states outnumber relief states
That’s totally irrelevant, just the obvious existence of moments where we are not experiencing pain shows that it’s not inextricably linked to consciousness, nothing else needs to be done to show why that’s a dumb idea

>I posit that what dualism implies is the existence of possibly unyielding hell-states.
sounds like a non-sequitor cope that a materialist invented to feel better about themselves

[Anonymous No.20782229]

>>20782224
>Quite literally, in the future and in the past respectively
statement dreamt up by the utterly deranged

[Anonymous No.20782231]

>>20782221
>Are you moving away for "total guess" now?
No, your position isn’t based on anything, and its contradicted by our experience like that we can hear a loud sound in dreamless sleep and be waken up by it:

>are you admitting that there is (good) evidence for my position?
No, because there is none whatsoever

[Anonymous No.20782235]

>>20782168
This retardation again. I've already refuted it by pointing out that the consciousness does return when a man wakes up and hence he can reason the absence of his consciousness for 8 hours despite never having experienced that absence(since he was not conscious during that time)

Even a high school kid can see this is true because everyone sleeps everyday. I'm sure your Dunny Kruger mind thinks it has cracked some deep code when you make this same retarded myopic argument again and again. But its really not that hard anon.

If you were to put your nose out of your philosophy books(or maybe theology books) and actually use your mind for once you'll see it too.

Or are you arguing that there is magical experience going on while we sleep that our later conscious mind has no memory, context or reason for. (I wonder if I'm experiencing getting blowjobed by Sasha Grey every night and I don't even know it). If you actually believe this then it is a pure pressumption on your part and the same category of uncritical attitude that leads you and others to believe in God(don't even deny it, I can smell the unjustified assumptions and dogma from a mile away) .

[Anonymous No.20782236]

>>20782225
I didn't "invent" anything to feel better about myself but I sure am glad materialism is the correct position. For all you dualists know, pain states are a more basic form of experience, and the only possibility for relief states existed when you were part of a living organism. This could also not be the case, but to do away with it because you don't like it is dishonest.

[Anonymous No.20782242]

>>20782145
>I already explained that logic was a language game
How does language work reliably? When I play the games using different physical representations they reliably represent the games without fail, like their behavior is limited by some kind of rules. Any description of those rules uses logic. Human logic is made up but it maps on to something real.

[Anonymous No.20782243]

>>20782202
It seems to me that you're conflating pain and suffering. I define pain as physical or situational, and suffering as negative mental contents about the pain. Suffering occurs when the ego believes it is inflicted with pain, that it is bad, and tries to resist it.
Maybe consider it like this:
Suffering
>I am in pain
Pain
>There is pain but I'm not in it
So the question I see following that is, "is this current sense of self/ego intrinsic to consciousness/awareness?" I don't believe it is, but again whether or not that identification naturally falls away at death I can't say.

[Anonymous No.20782244]

>>20782186
This is unironically the kind of retarded word play arguments theists make when they simply can't prove their God's existence without reasonable doubt.

Thanks for exposing bullshittery anon

[Anonymous No.20782249]

>>20782242
>How does language work reliably?
Do you live under a rock? It doesn't.

[Anonymous No.20782251]

>>20782236
>For all you dualists know, pain states are a more basic form of experience
We do know. We know the physical mechanisms behind these states. They're all high level responses of an animal not fundamental.
We know an identity experiencing pain over time relies on memory, which the brain provides.

[Anonymous No.20782259]

>>20782244
>word play
>the most basic logic is just word play
>but I'll still defer to logic and use it to argue when it supports my religious dogma

[Anonymous No.20782261]

>>20782235
>This retardation again. I've already refuted it by pointing out that the consciousness does return when a man wakes up and hence he can reason the absence of his consciousness for 8 hours despite never having experienced that absence(since he was not conscious during that time)
That’s not sound reasoning at all, because all you are relying on to do so is the absence of memory, but humans have been shown to have absence of memories of when they were still conscious and talking like when they were drunk the night before but dont remember what they did and said

[Anonymous No.20782265]

>>20782243
>It seems to me that you're conflating pain and suffering.
Its not that I am doing that, its that the definite distinction between the two is assumed. We can hope that there are pain states without suffering states, but that's all we're doing, hoping.

When I look at dualist models, or just continuation of the consciousness on metaphysical grounds, I definitely see situations where you can have pain states and enough perception to suffer from them. Again, this is isn't a factor for reductive physicalism, as those states need a well-constituted brain and body to be felt, but the moment you introduce something "beyond," you open the door for these types of nasty things.

>>20782251
Yes. My arguments are directed against dualists.
They like to do away with any nasty consequences of a conscious state not dependent on neural architecture.

[Anonymous No.20782266]

>>20782236
>For all you dualists know, pain states are a more basic form of experience
There is no good reason to assume that when we rely on awareness to know pain and not vice versa, and when this awareness remains when pain vanishes

[Anonymous No.20782267]

>>20782231
Do you think there exist no evidence for consciousness being stopped/paused/whatever, when sleeping?

>we can hear a loud sound in dreamless sleep and be waken up by it
Obviously your ears still exist, holy shit
They are even connected to your brains and stuff
Probably they are functioning and transmitting what they hear to some part of the brain (without you being conscious! complicated, I know..)
what you hear while sleeping is probably not being properly recorded in your long-term memory
but I suppose it goes into some part of the brain that can keep short term memories, and if you wake up and consciousness resumes you can "remember" the noise and be consciously aware of it

how is that for an invented explanation, off the cuff
scientifically wildly inaccurate, I'm sure
but do you get the point? These things, are not hard to explain

[Anonymous No.20782269]

>>20782265
>They like to do away with any nasty consequences
It’s not a nasty consequence but a totally absurd and unreasonable hypothesis that you made up as cope

[Anonymous No.20782271]

>>20782242
It doesn't work with 100% reliability
however, humans spend a lot of time being socialized into using language with success
learning language

it's not magic

[Anonymous No.20782272]

>>20782265
>My arguments are directed against dualists.
I'm a "dualist" in that I understand the fact that physical models don't describe qualia. High level consciousness, a modulation of the fundamental phenomena is not the same thing as the fundamental phenomena itself, qualia or whatever.

[Anonymous No.20782273]

>>20782269
Okay, so consciousness outliving the architecture of the brain is always a good thing? Why?

[Anonymous No.20782276]

>>20782224
My time comment may have been misleading. When I say there are no independently existing things, I'm not implying nothing exists, nor nothing exists outside of our perception. But that reality is a kind of process. We perceive things that do exist, but the manner in which they exist is that they're not discrete entities different from what they were and what they will be.

[Anonymous No.20782281]

>>20782259
well I'm not a theist...
does that make me an atheist?
supposedly I need to prove that some invisible guy isn't real, I don't get it
sounds really hard

[Anonymous No.20782282]

>>20782267
>Do you think there exist no evidence for consciousness being stopped/paused/whatever, when sleeping?
There is no evidence for it being stopped/paused/whatever PERIOD!! not just when sleeping, but yes thats also true of sleep like all states

>and if you wake up and consciousness resumes you can "remember" the noise and be consciously aware of it
People who wale up describe hearing the noise or feeling being pushed, its not a memory of a past thing

[Anonymous No.20782284]

>>20782271
>It doesn't work with 100% reliability
You're talking about interpretation. I'm talking about logic which does work 100% reliably. Interpretation is not an issue in the other examples of physical representations of logic like in computers or when I know that if I add things to a basket the basket will contain more.

[Anonymous No.20782287]

>>20782272
So why are pain qualia and suffering states omitted from non-physical experiences of conscious awareness?

[Anonymous No.20782295]

>>20782172
>The lack of knowledge of a reason
There is knowledge of a reason you're simply rejecting the notion because it's not congruent with your everything is physical world view. Even if it was a mistake and we evolved it, why do the trips people take when they're on DMT have common themes? We can trip about anything but we all have chosen to trip about the same place?
>Not a relevant argument to what is being made
It's a rejection of your claim. Just because you an interact with x doesn't mean the thing you're interacting x with is made of x. Additionally, we should separate feelings (our experiences) from emotions (mental states). You can alter my mood you can't change how I perceive the color red besides taking my eye out at which point you've simply eliminated the observer.
>that stimulate these processes
You should be able to replicate the simulation then, no? We have, with DMT and people who go through this experience often change their perspective and lean towards spiritual rather than material. Why are these anecdotes then not valid as evidence?
>A spiritualist will argue that the immaterial supersedes the material, but the truth is that material supersedes immaterial.
Spiritualist will argue we're all one. If we're all one why is there a hierarchy? Sounds like a materialist is making the argument.
>Dualism posits both exist, but it mistakes immaterial as things and not processes. Movement isn't a 'thing', gravity isn't a 'thing', both of those things exist though
Water isn't a thing, it's just a process of two hydrogen molecules hugging an oxygen molecule. This is very contrived way to perceive the world.
>I think the confusion here is the idea that materialists are arguing everything is matter, when it is more fair to say all things, even immaterial concepts, are derived from matter in some way.
The problem is if everything is material the derivations of material interacting with material ought to be material. It's not. Materialists believe at the end of the day matter is the only reality, however, I see a red apple.
>depending on how you measure it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
The problem is we can't see the collapse of the wavefunction we just know there is one theoretically, however in a physical world we should physically see the oscillation calculated by Schrodinger yet all we see is a deterministic outcome. That's insufficient because there is a chunk of the physical world we don't have the tools to perceive.

[Anonymous No.20782298]

>>20782261
>humans have been shown to have absence of memories of when they were still conscious and talking like when they were drunk the night before but dont remember what they did and said
Maybe there is a reason their memory of their conscious experience, didn't enter into their long-term memory
like the alcohol you mentioned

[Anonymous No.20782301]

>>20782273
I didn’t say that it’s a good thing, Im a moral relativist. But I say that relative to human problems and values it can be considered a relatively good thing (when you realize that your consciousness is unharmed, peaceful, complete and unaffected it can free you from unhappiness, fear, worry, anxiety, etc which is a relatively good thing)

[Anonymous No.20782305]

>>20782186
>Theist: God IS REAL. HE CREATED YOU AND GOVERNS YOUR LIFE. THIS IS HIS BOOK. IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW ITS INSTRUCTIONS AND DON'T JOIN ITS FOLLOWERS YOU WILL BURN IN HEEEEEEELLLLLL

Atheist: Ok anon. Sounds cool maybe lmao. But I'm not sure. Can you like prove it or show me this God that is oh so powerful and knowledgable so I may submit to him too.

>Theist : FILTHY PEASENT HOW DARE YOU ASK FOR PROOF OF THE ALL MIGHTY. HE'S IMMATERIAL. BEYOND EARTH. HE'S A CONSCIOUSNESS. HE CAN'T BE PROVED MY METHODS OF MATERIAL REALM.

Atheist: Uh okay yeaaah. So no proof. Alright got it. But if he can't be proven or observed or experienced in the material realm how do we know its real????

>Theist : MATERIALIST BASTARD!!!! YOU THINK ONLY THE MATERIAL EXISTS . CAN MATERIALISM PROVE ITSELF. SHOW ME THE DATA THAT SHOWS EMPIRICAL DATA IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE!!!!!! MATERIALIST OOOOWWWWWWNNNNNEEDDD

Atheist: To tell you the truth anon that sounds kinda dumb. I'm like, can you give meme one reason to take you seriously at all? You want everyone to upend their beliefs and think that your story is the right one. You expect so much of us but can you atleast show how what you say is true?

>Theist: CHDJIFNDJDIDNFBDINCJWODHBRNWKPQMDNCHHGDBCJVURJFBFIFNFB F CIRCULAR PHILOSOPHICAL WORD PLAY BULLSHIT ARGUMENT #68499374748 FHFUIDNFJFIELEPFKFBBFHFHWODPC

Atheist: *slowly backs away then proceeds to walk

[Anonymous No.20782311]

>>20782287
Not him, but we experience in waking life already that awareness persists even in the absence of pain

[Anonymous No.20782313]

>>20782281
All you supposed "materialists" keep conflating everything because you're simply brainwashed burger retards desperately holding on to resentment toward certain ideas and everything you associate with them. I did not mention God even once in the thread. If your reason for rejecting logic is because it leads to a prime mover which you can't conceive of except in the terms you've been brainwashed with that's representative of a serious problem with you. The only issue here is your fucked up propaganda riddled mind.

[Anonymous No.20782320]

>>20782298
It doesn’t really matter what the reason is, as it still demonstrates the fallible nature of that kind of reasoning either way

[Anonymous No.20782324]

>>20782287
They're not omitted they just have no meaning like I already explained. You could be tormented eternally between each moment and "you" wouldn't notice unless it's incorporated into your memories, the narrative that your sense of identity emerges from.

[Anonymous No.20782325]

>>20782301
>when you realize that your consciousness is unharmed, peaceful, complete and unaffected it can free you from unhappiness, fear, worry, anxiety, etc which is a relatively good thing
So how is this not wishful thinking? What specifically in dual theories of mind-body prevent the opposite from being the case; That non-physical components of experience can give rise to a state that will perceived as negative?

>>20782311
This makes no sense to me. Not being a dick, but I'm going to need further explanation.

[Anonymous No.20782333]

>>20782259
That's the thing tho. Word games is literally all you have to offer for your unjustifiable beliefs. Simply because they were unjustifiable to begin with. Nothing remotely logical about it. And not worth engaging at all

[Anonymous No.20782341]

>>20780646
>it is consciousness
So your entire argument is a grammatical tautology

[Anonymous No.20782345]

>>20782282
>its not a memory of a past thing
It most certainly is. What else would it be? If you have knowledge of an experience you had in the past, that's a memory!

Conversely, what's your hypothesis?
That we are fully conscious always, but forget about it when sleeping?
what do you think causes the electrical wires connected to peoples heads in the hospital, whatever it's called
why do they measure different stuff when people are sleeping, etc?
My model accounts for this, because I think brain activity is casually connected to being conscious

[Anonymous No.20782348]

>>20782324
So I get the point that memory is a key component of conscious suffering, but there are some dualists that would argue a non-physical component to memory. I mean we're really getting at the meat of the problem here even without my pain bullshit; Awareness without memory cannot be said to be awareness.

In a certain since, pure awareness is no different than annihilation.

[Anonymous No.20782356]

>>20782313
The picture at the top of the reply chain did
use a tripcode or something, if it makes you that upset

[Anonymous No.20782359]

>>20782348
*sense

[Anonymous No.20782361]

>>20782333
You're presenting this as factual using the same kind of "word games".
>Nothing remotely logical about it
You call everything word games but then you don't even understand how words work. You're saying using logic is not "logical".
How you propose I justify anything without logic?

[Anonymous No.20782372]

>>20782320
Look, I'm trying to explain why we don't have memories of being asleep
it think not being conscious is a very parsimonious explanation

I'm not trying to explain why drunk people don't have memories of their conscious experience. I got another explanation for that. (the alcohol)

[Anonymous No.20782387]

>>20782348
>In a certain since, pure awareness is no different than annihilation.
I did state this repeatedly very early on.
There are still weird conclusions to consider like non-human processes that can have all kinds of memories. If they have "awareness" it's a very bizarre form of it

[Anonymous No.20782396]

>>20782261
>That’s not sound reasoning at all, because all you are relying on to do so is the absence of memory, but humans have been shown to have absence of memories of when they were still conscious and talking like when they were drunk the night before but dont remember what they did and said

As I said before. Pull you nose out of your books and actually use your brain before speaking. That way atleast what you'll say make sense. There's literally 100s of ways in which what you said can be known and reasoned. Whether its loss of memory or whatever. Anyone over the age of 8 knows that.

Do you have like any experience of reality at all? Were you born yesterday or something. Because you do talk like an adult who appeared out of thin air with no understanding of human experience and a very rudimentary and shallow understanding of how logic and arguments work.

Not to say that youd didn't even address my last argument because you simply can't

[Anonymous No.20782398]

>>20782325
>So how is this not wishful thinking?
It’s not wishful thinking because it’s confirmable for oneself in one’s own experience, and when you fully realize it and confirm it true for yourself it thereafter is your self-evident natural state that is present at all times. It already is for everyone, but most people don’t notice it.

>What specifically in dual theories of mind-body prevent the opposite from being the case
I never said “X prevents this”, just that there is no reasonable process that can justify assuming that its true, the opposite is true since certain things about our experience contradict it (see below)

>>20782311
>This makes no sense to me. Not being a dick, but I'm going to need further
explanation.
1) We are aware and happily walking down the street with no pain
2) We feel a pang of pain in a body part
3) The pain vanishes and we keep walking while remaining aware but without pain
4) Thus awareness persists in the absence of pain despite being required to know that temporary pain, indicating that awareness is more fundamental than pain; since it can persist in the absence of pain
5) When awareness doesn’t require pain and is not inextricably inseparable from it, to say mind-body or consciousness vs body automatically results in cosmic metaphysical pain is retarded

[Anonymous No.20782406]

>>20782361
You are not proposing anything at all let alone justifying it with logic. I was responding to that other anon's retarded meme.

They have zero proof for their beliefs. Hence they fall back on word games to drag the critical process through dirt. That's literally the entire game that's been played here.

Just because you have adopted the aesthetics of philosophy doesn't make your claims any more reasonable or immune to critique and scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.20782409]

>>20782345
>It most certainly is. What else would it be?
Knowledge of that sound or touch occurring in that very moment

>Conversely, what's your hypothesis?
Advaita Vedanta’s model
>That we are fully conscious always, but forget about it when sleeping?
Sort of, memory is a function of the mind which is quiescent in dreamless sleep while unchanging partless consciousness remains, there is no change in consciousness before and after waking up, the only change is in the mind and body

>what do you think causes the electrical wires connected to peoples heads in the hospital, whatever it's called
why do they measure different stuff when people are sleeping, etc?
what the body is doing is reflected in the brain and its electrical activity, neither are consciousness
>My model accounts for this, because I think brain activity is casually connected to being conscious
But materialism has been totally BTFO and is philosophically unserious (I assume thats your model)

[Anonymous No.20782413]

>>20782348
>Awareness without memory cannot be said to be awareness.
a non-sequitor

>In a certain since, pure awareness is no different than annihilation.
another one

[Anonymous No.20782419]

>>20782387
This all goes back to dualist hope. When people advocate for dualism, there is usually some form of self-protection bias going on. I really started this dialogue to challenge why dualism is always either a positive or neutral thing.

>>20782398
This is a very wishy-washy take using discomfort or mild pain as the example. What about 2nd degree burn, or stage 4 cancer pain? You know migraines don't exactly help one think, and there isn't much awareness there outside of the awareness of pain. If it were as simple as "extending beyond," trigeminal neuralgia patients wouldn't hang themselves so often.

We need to start with an honest appreciation of the existence of intractable suffering states.

[Anonymous No.20782431]

>>20782406
>they fall back on word games to drag the critical process through dirt
You're doing that by refusing to acknowledge the incoherence of your position.

[Anonymous No.20782433]

>>20782409
my model is that sleeping people are not conscious

[Anonymous No.20782438]

>>20782419
>there is usually some form of self-protection bias going on
But your heuristic observations about motivations don't engage with any arguments or help anything really. All they did for you so far is stop you from being able to read simple statements because you assumed they implied a bunch of things based on these heuristics of yours.

[Anonymous No.20782439]

>>20782348
>Awareness without memory cannot be said to be awareness.
Guess I was a p-zombie when I supposedly got blackout drunk and puked all over my mate

[Anonymous No.20782444]

>>20782419
>This is a very wishy-washy take using discomfort or mild pain as the example. What about 2nd degree burn, or stage 4 cancer pain?
A braindead response that is utterly irrelevant to the point at hand since it’s not the degree of pain that matters but rather the observable fact that consciousness persists in the absence of pain in our ordinary experience.
>If it were as simple as "extending beyond," trigeminal neuralgia patients wouldn't hang themselves so often.
I never said it was easy to fully realize this or that even .0000000001% of humanity has success in doing so, so people hanging themselves from pain does nothing to harm what im saying

[Anonymous No.20782449]

>>20782409
>But materialism has been totally BTFO and is philosophically unserious (I assume thats your model)
That's fine. I'm not a materialist.
I believe in ghost, I've had serval spooky encounters.

[Anonymous No.20782465]

Prove that we don't suffer in excruciating pain while sleeping, but forget about it
you literally can't

[Anonymous No.20782473]

>>20782449
>I believe in ghost, I've had serval spooky encounters.
so have I

[Anonymous No.20782491]

>>20782438
I really got to where I was going, which is that an honest appreciation of mind-body dualism that doesn't contain possibility for harm states is wishful thinking.

>>20782444
Nothing I can say will harm your position because it doesn't recognize the shared reality in which we operate.

>>20782439
You said it yourself. You not only have no memory, but from your perspective the experience never even happened until reported by others. You may as well have not existed during that episode because you can report no experience.

[Anonymous No.20782506]

>>20782491
Do you think it's more reasoned to think drunks are p-zombies
or
that they forgot
???

[Anonymous No.20782519]

>>20782506
Its not what I think, its that memory is only a component of experience when we try to hold together the narrative of the self. Its not that things you do that you cannot remember never happen, its that at that point you've split identities. The (You) that did the thing becomes as separate and foreign as anybody else from the (You) that you consider yourself to be. Its only consequential aspects that ever unite the two.

[Anonymous No.20782527]

>>20782491
>doesn't recognize the shared reality in which we operate.
Wrong, what I am saying does. This is just you conceding that you have no argument left against the point I made and all you have a are dumb non-sequitors like thinking strong headaches invalidate the demonstrable fact that consciousness persists in the absence of pain (and is hence not invariably tied to it)

[Anonymous No.20782539]

>>20782527
Consciousness necessarily persists in the absence of pain or it can?

[Anonymous No.20782540]

>>20782491
>an honest appreciation of mind-body dualism that doesn't contain possibility for harm states is wishful thinking
I guess that's fine but all coherent states either way need a structure maintaining the coherence.
If we take this to the afterlife stuff which you're implying with the wishful thinking then whatever the underlying state that remains is already being experienced now. You're not going to take anything with "you" there and it won't change by you being part of it.
One interesting part is purely due to framing, if the distinction between the identity of you and your neighbor is the real "illusion" only produced by your memories, that might make you consider your neighbor a bit more.

[Anonymous No.20782560]

>>20780657
>*recycles the same 10 or 5 modes for 250 pages in your path*
get a load of this pseud

[Anonymous No.20782563]

I took DMT, but the ghost I spoke to told me materialism is true
WTF, what gives?

[Anonymous No.20782573]

>>20782563
Demons love materialism.

[Anonymous No.20782574]

>>20782539
>Consciousness necessarily persists in the absence of pain or it can?
I think it does automatically and necessarily; there is no proof the contrary is true; but this is an aside since you were trying to argue consciousness vs body dualism means a good chance of metaphysical pain (and is scary and bad!) which I pointed out is totally unfounded since our daily experience shows that consciousness can be present without pain just fine

[Anonymous No.20782644]

What does it mean for consciousness to not be physical
like, why does a consciousness see through my eyes and not someone else's, how it "lock on" to a body?

is conceivable to have two consciousness that are exactly the same? (why not?)
how would you differentiate between them, when there isn't even a spatial location to set them apart?

if one of them willed to move the body they lock on to 's arm to the left, and the other to the right
what would happen? which consciousness would be in charge

what causes them to exist, are they always around?
how do they interact with the physical body, without being physical? Should the consciousness suddenly willing me to raise my arm, have a measurable effect on my physical body?

It's all so spooky

[Anonymous No.20782677]

>>20782267
>but I suppose it goes into some part of the brain that can keep short term memories, and if you wake up and consciousness resumes you can "remember" the noise and be consciously aware of it
The curious phrase here, even if unintentional, is "consciously aware". If the body can be "unconsciously aware", e.g. awareness of some kind during deep sleep that hears an alarm and boots up consciousness/mind, then is what we are merely the "secondary" consciousness/mind, or are we this awareness that has erroneously identified with consciousness/mind. This awareness being free from the contents of consciousness/mind, which include memory etc. The realization of this would be congruent with how "enlightenment" is described, even if materialism is true. And integrates the intuition there's no awareness during sleep and the belief that awareness remains. You could say being knocked out refutes this but one could argue that awareness persists, but the brain is simply refusing or unable to boot back up consciousness until it's repaired or until the drug is no longer sufficiently impairing necessary functions. Obviously this says nothing about whether awareness continues after physical death though.

[Anonymous No.20782684]

>>20782644
Whatever overarching entity you choose to believe in is conscious whether it's god or universe it doesn't matter. There is a single entity that is conscious of itself. It's conscious through your eyes and mine and it has different experiences because it has different povs which derives different journeys. There is only one consciousness and it emerges in multiple entities.
>what causes them to exist,
Unknowable with our current tools..

[Anonymous No.20782703]

>>20782684
Why would you believe any of that nonsense?
why should I?

[Anonymous No.20782704]

>>20782644
>lock
The self is an illusion created out of a narrative built over time that's stored in memory. The thing observing the illusion is the same thing for everyone.
>will
Rests on memories. You're changing the subject from the observer to will.
>how do they interact with the physical body
They're part of the same thing. How does a physical object "interact" with the rules that dictate its behavior?

[Anonymous No.20782712]

>>20782703
>Why would you believe any of that nonsense?
It makes sense given my current understanding of the world.
>why should I?
Do whatever the fuck you want.

[Anonymous No.20782713]

>>20782703
The basic idea he's presenting is the simplest account and the only account offered in this thread of qualia.

[Anonymous No.20782757]

>>20782677
I could explain this of there being "degrees of consciousness"
if I'm on significant mind altering drugs, or really sleepy, I could be "less" conscious, but still Conscious
where you just start calling it unconscious at some arbitrary level, like during regular dreamless sleep
where there's still enough conscious left to wake you up if you hear a weird sound, etc
this could also be caused by something more like an automated mechanism, that just wakes you at certain stimuli, it may not be related to consciousness at all, no clue

I still think someone sleeping, is more conscious than someone in a medically induced super coma with negligible detectable brain activity
or someone undergoing a grand mal seizure, with a LOT of brain activity

[Anonymous No.20782767]

>>20782713
No, it just being reducible to the physical is much more simple™

[Anonymous No.20782775]

>>20782712
Why do you think it's a single entity, what's wrong with it being multiple entities?

[Anonymous No.20782816]

>>20782767
Depends on what you mean. If everything describable is "physical" anyway according to you the distinction has no meaning. Ultimately I don't even know what you people actually think "matter/material" is or why it has any special significance over anything else like math and logic. You defer to logic to make these descriptions which implies you think logic can be deferred to as an authority but then you say it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.20782846]

>>20782775
Because I don't think ego survives death. Once our current bodies perish I fail to see what would divide us. If we can somehow keep our memories then being able to trace from point A onward would be a way to distinguish different entities, by the journeys they have. Also, there is nothing wrong with it. I just don't see it from where I am sitting right now.

[Anonymous No.20782854]

>>20782816
Physical, you know.. like the stuff we already got good reason thinking exists
like a cup or a dog

Instead of supposing everything is made up of this new kind of conscious-stuff

[Anonymous No.20782874]

>>20782846
If my ego doesn't persist, I don't understand what you mean by "me" being re-joined to an "us"
didn't you just say my identity was gone? Why's that anyway, cuz memories are physical?

[Anonymous No.20782879]

>>20782854
>cup
What is that? Is your claim that everything is made of cups?

[Anonymous No.20782889]

>>20782854
>Instead of supposing everything is made up of this new kind of conscious-stuff
That anything exists beyond your qualia is a supposition that adds "new kinds" of non conscious stuff.

[Anonymous No.20782901]

>>20782431
My position is not incoherent at all. Spooks don't exist. And you or anyone else simply can't prove that it does

All you can do is drag through dirt the myriad of tested and true ways we can acquire knowledge when there is literally no rationale behind your own claims.

[Anonymous No.20782911]

>402 posts
> 46 posters
Wtf

[Anonymous No.20782917]

>>20782901
>the myriad of tested and true ways we can acquire knowledge
None of which you have any grasp on and demand they don't exist.

[Anonymous No.20782928]

>>20782901
I'm applying the methods and you're undermining them. Both with your incoherent arguments and by stating the methods don't exist.
You have no methods, just conditioning.

[Anonymous No.20782933]

>>20782917
>None of which you have any grasp on and demand they don't exist.

Now you're just speaking nonsense

[Anonymous No.20782937]

>>20782879
>>20782889
Why are you getting so hung up on me explaining what the physical is, I didn't bring up that term. I'm only using it in contrast of yours
I would never use it unless you guys didn't double down on saying consciousness (reality? getting idealism vibes) is definitively NOT physical, because it fundamentally mental/souly

>Is your claim that everything is made of cups
I'm just making an inductive case for other stuff, being made up of the same stuff as cups
If I'm going to believe there are other kinds of stuff, I would need reasons for that

>exists beyond your qualia is a supposition that adds "new kinds" of non conscious stuff
I think cups and qualia is made up of the same kind stuff, right? This doesn't trouble me much

[Anonymous No.20782941]

>>20782911
This has been a good thread, far as I'm concerned
my standard isn't exactly high

[Anonymous No.20782942]

>>20782757
I find a lot of these discussions get stuck in failing to distinguish between consciousness and the mind. Some people use consciousness and mind synonymously, some people use consciousness and awareness synonymously but mind differently, some people use awareness differently from consciousness and mind etc.
My point being that I don't think there are different or altered levels, states, or degrees of consciousness/awareness. There are different and altered levels, states, and degrees of mind or mental contents or in other words varying degrees of brain activity, but the consciousness/awareness of them is always the same, it either is or it isn't — and it's possible it always is, for as long we're alive at least. The perceived "lesser" consciousness/awareness when very sleepy is rather the same consciousness/awareness but of "dimmer" or less "defined" perceptions and sensory information, which are then confused as qualities of consciousness/awareness.
There's been repeated studies on psychedelics that show or suggest that psychedelics actually reduce brain activity, rather than increase it. Which seems unintuitive, unless we consider the brain like a kind of filter or set of filters, whether that's for some metaphysical consciousness/awareness or just for the processing of perceptions, and psychedelics turn off or lower those filters. But I still wouldn't say one becomes more or less conscious during these experiences, just that the content of experience changes.
But at the end of the day I have no fucking idea.

[Anonymous No.20782946]

>>20782937
>is definitively NOT physical,
In the meaning that it's not accounted for in physical models but still exists.
>I would need reasons for that
Basic logic, the thing you're appealing to to demand reasons. If you're capable of reasoning anything you understand that physical models rest on things outside those models.

[Anonymous No.20782948]

>>20782928
>I'm just gonna say I'm applying methods even if I have no way to confirm my knowledge

Sure bud. Even everyone started using your methods everyone would believe in anything they want and the world would be chaos absurdum. Sounds pretty trannyish to me.

I can come up with my own retarded version of spooks and offer nothing in their defense besides meaningless rhetoric. But I'll keep that intellectual exercise reserved for /sffg/

[Anonymous No.20782952]

Realizing that there is no such thing as Red outside the mind
(light just got wavelengths and energy levels, there is no redness to it)
it really got me thinking
Red is just the brains internal language of communicating what wavelength your eyes detect to other parts of your brain

[Anonymous No.20782953]

>>20782937
>I think cups and qualia is made up of the same kind stuff, right?
That's not materialism. Qualia doesn't exist according to any physical model. Dannett tries to handwave that away using incoherent nonsense.

[Anonymous No.20782963]

>>20782948
>everyone would believe in anything they want
Why? Engage retard. You're incapable of engaging with anything I say because you have no methods. I explained everything clearly using reason.

[Anonymous No.20782970]

>>20782948
>if I have no way to confirm my knowledge
I only talked about things you can confirm but you specifically don't have any way to confirm anything or make any statement about anything because logic and reason doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.20782985]

>>20782948
How can anything be more incoherent and infuriating than a mindless brainwashed tranny trying to undermine logic itself while accusing others, the people actually capable of applying reason of living in absurd chaos.
There is no creature dumber on this planet than the brainwashed materialist. No cult more harmful.

[Anonymous No.20782988]

>>20782946
>In the meaning that it's not accounted for in physical models but still exists.
I'm not a naïve physicalist. I'm willing to update my model
Materialists hundreds of years ago didn't know what energy was, or how stuff is made up of quantum stuff.
That would make those things incompatible with their model.

What is that you are supposing exist, that I cannot account for on a "physical" model
you make it sound like it's un-modellable, that I'm not supposed to be able to account for it

[Anonymous No.20782993]

>>20782988
You can't map qulia further than account for it. You can account for whatever is the source of the rules described by logic.

[Anonymous No.20782997]

>>20782953
You just don't know what the fuck you are talking about. This is so stupid.
Whatever we mean by the word qualia. Do you think physicalist just are in deniable about having experiences/qualia?
Of course they are not.

>Dannett tries to handwave that away using incoherent nonsense.
I don't care

[Anonymous No.20782999]

>>20782993
I mean you can not account for whatever is the source of the rules described by logic. All descriptions will inherently break down.

[Anonymous No.20783003]

>>20782963
>Engage retard

How about no. Instead of playing the game on your field (that is meaningless philosophical rhetoric) how about we drag it to mine.

How about instead of wailing and whining about the empirical method(because it doesn't suite your irrational beliefs) you actually show evidence for any of your spooky claims. (Whatever they are since you haven't made any assertions at all that could be argued on despite claims of me not engaging with what you say)

[Anonymous No.20783009]

>>20782997
>I don't care
It's the materialist nonsense you're in here defending without understanding anything about it and then admitting you're not a materialist.
>Do you think physicalist just are in deniable about having experiences/qualia?
They, and you retards in this thread frame it as an "illusion" to get away with not accounting for it and pretending your models are reality instead of a limited map of part of it.

[Anonymous No.20783014]

>>20783003
>you actually show evidence
What do you mean by that? Basic logic is not evidence? Why is it evidence when you use it for measuring?

[Anonymous No.20783016]

>>20782952
No, it has to be a special quality because... it just does!

[Anonymous No.20783017]

>>20782993
>You can't map qulia further than account for it
Oh, if you say so. I guess it must be true.
How do you know that? I'm kinda curious.

If I scrapped my physicalism model. And updated to a new kind of model, like the one you know is true.
Could I model qualia on that one?
Call it the Physicalism+Magic model

[Anonymous No.20783025]

>>20782985
>literally believes in spirits, magicor whatever
>mind filled with irrational beliefs
>claims others are not using logic

You are just angry that instead of engaging with the bullshit that you people call "logic" I'm calling it out for what it is.

[Anonymous No.20783032]

Materialists
> "There's only matter in the universe!"
> "well also information, but that's also material"
Lol, what absolute retardation, why are you cunts wasting your time with these fallacies?

[Anonymous No.20783040]

>>20783009
When did I say it's an illusion, whatever that is supposed mean?
I've (repeatedly) said I just think it's reducible to the physical. Same kind of stuff as cups.

I just want to repeat this
>qualia doesn't exist according to any physical model
this is just so deranged
how can we have a conversation if you are allowed to say stuff like that, then go on pretending it's true

[Anonymous No.20783044]

>>20779930
Then why am I pure SPIRIT.

[Anonymous No.20783051]

>>20783032
Therefore, ghosts exist

See! I can do it too.

[Anonymous No.20783055]

>>20783017
>How do you know that?
You can't even imagine a possible description that hypothetically describes how it works. It don't even need the right idea, just any idea and you prove the claim that it can't be described wrong.
>Could I model qualia on that one?
You can just account for it. You can't model the mechanisms.
>>20783025
>or whatever
>Doesn't actually read what anyone says they believes, just assumes based on his own religious dogma that's based on nothing.

[Anonymous No.20783064]

>>20783040
>I just think it's reducible to the physical
And I told you that depends on what you mean. You seem to just define "physical" as anything you can describe instead of what physical models actually describe.
>how can we have a conversation if you are allowed to say stuff like that, then go on pretending it's true
Correct it retard. Actually engage. Reference any physical account of qualia.

[Anonymous No.20783065]

>>20783051
Lol, where the fuck did I say that?

[Anonymous No.20783069]

>>20783014
>What do you mean by that? Basic logic is not evidence? Why is it evidence when you use it for measuring?

1. Anyone can come up with fiction that is internally logical. (This is not to say that your claims are logical to begin with)

2. I ask for what claims you make and what evidence you have for it and all you can come up with is more rhetoric.


Immaterialists have literally deluded themselves into thinking that their claims are logical. They think if they can dress up their rhetoric as "logic" and keep using that word logic again and again it would give their beliefs any kind of legitimacy. Of course they need that tinge of feel of legitimacy since they can't prove and have zero evidence for any of their claims at all

[Anonymous No.20783070]

>>20781472
Of course. Again, to anyone WHO HAS ACTUALLY READ THE ACTUAL LITERATURE, this is crystal clear as day. To 15 year olds who just discovered materialism, who think "omg brain chemistry lol, lmao even", and who haven't read THE ACTUAL LITERATURE on NDEs, they just assume "it must be hallucinations lololololol". So predictable and I have seen it too many times already.

>>20781449
>>20781739
Very impressive, because everything you said was wrong. First of all, they are universal. They happen to all kinds of people, of all ages, from all over the world. Indeed, the whole point of the book that was mentioned in the post you replied to - >>20781449 - is that NDEs are equal opportunity experiences, and NDErs are representative of the population as a whole. And everyone is convinced when they have them. So 100% of the population agrees that there is an afterlife when they have an NDE themselves.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

And everybody has them. When a person comes close to death, it is entirely random who will have one and who will not. So even atheists, skeptics, neuroscientists, etc, have them at the same rate are everyone else. And it does not matter how much of an atheist, antitheist, or materialist you are. You will be convinced by the NDE regardless.

And they are not entirely subjective either, because they see real events that are later confirmed during their OBEs.

[Anonymous No.20783075]

>>20783055
How does me being unable to describe how qualia works on physicalism prevent such a thing from being possible?

[Anonymous No.20783078]

>>20783069
>come up with fiction that is internally logical
And your vague general claims have nothing to do with anything I said. It doesn't engage with anything.
The existence of qualia is apparent despite no empirical tests being able to measure it outside your own experience of it.
Any other claims about the existence of anything including anything material rest on more assumptions than the claim qualia exists.

[Anonymous No.20783084]

>>20783055
>>Doesn't actually read what anyone says they believes, just assumes based on his own religious dogma that's based on nothing.

Well then go ahead. Make a claim for the existence of something immaterial that you believe in, that is not simply an abstract concept or process but an entity. And actually prove that it exists in the real world using something more than rhetoric.

>oh but its immaterial by definition so it cannot be proven at all

And hence it is dismissed as spooks

[Anonymous No.20783086]

>>20783064
>J-just solve the hard problem of consciousness? Do it now, be a champ
This is just poor rhetoric
you are not fooling me, who are you trying to fool?

[Anonymous No.20783091]

>>20783075
The fact that you're unable to conceive of even a hypothetical description means it's likely impossible. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give a wrong but imaginable description of how the phenomena might work.
I think there are other reasons that make it more definite based on more complex logic but you would call them "empty rhetoric".

[Anonymous No.20783096]

>>20783084
>And hence it is dismissed as spooks
But you still rely on those spooks. You build your houses on them as if they're solid so what significance does calling them spooks really have?
>>20783086
>This is just poor rhetoric
You're the retard that claimed
>qualia doesn't exist according to any physical model
Is some insane statement. Correct it retard.

[Anonymous No.20783097]

>>20783065
I'm misrepresenting you on purpose

I thought you were misrepresenting materialists on purpose
maybe you are just retarded

[Anonymous No.20783109]

>>20783097
>I'm a degenerate subhuman subversive that actively undermines dialogue because I'm triggered by the fact that religions exist.

[Anonymous No.20783110]

>>20783070
Why don't you just post whatever magic hocus pocus NDEs that cannot be explained on physicalism?

I think you are just really gullible
that's my explanation of what's going on

[Anonymous No.20783115]

>>20783070
>what dualism does to an MF

[Anonymous No.20783120]

>>20783091
>The fact that you're unable to conceive of even a hypothetical description means it's likely impossible.
stopped reading right there
this is blatantly false, you are an idiot

[Anonymous No.20783129]

>>20783109
keep digging

[Anonymous No.20783140]

>>20783120
>this is blatantly false, you are an idiot
Why is it false? You can't conceive of a hypothetical description. How could you possibly formulate the real answer when you can't even consider different possible answers? You can't think of a single one.

[Anonymous No.20783139]

>>20782970
>because logic and reason doesn't exist.

Ah the old abstract concepts in mind are proofs of immaterial argument.

This is the level they have to stoop. Next they're gonna say that anger exists and is immaterial therefore immaterial exists therefore I'm absolutely not wasting my time practicing magic with Evola.

[Anonymous No.20783151]

>>20783139
>abstract concepts in mind
According to you based on nothing. Makes no sense at all when these "abstract concepts" apply to physical objects like apples.
Physical objects operate according to rules that are not contained in our models of the objects themselves.

[Anonymous No.20783171]

I'm not taking either side here, but why do materialists and physicalists seem to think that it's so obvious that matter or physics inherently makes any more sense than everything being consciousness or something like it.
Arguing about what everything is or appears to be I get, but materialists especially seem to overlook HOW it came to be, yet imply that their paradigm has explained this. But in either case no one knows. Shit just is, the fuck is up with that?
The materialist must contend with the, at least apparent, fact that the physical universe just somehow appeared out of nothing. Consciousness-only ontologies whether old or new have this in their favor, it seems to me that that "no-thing" in/of/from/as which everything appears is what consciousness is, the void. How does a materialist refute this sincerely? Real question, not bait.

[Anonymous No.20783181]

>>20783097
Find me one materialist who doesnt accept that information exists, or doesnt give it the same ontological status as matter, but then insist matter is primary for no reason whatsoever.
I'll be waiting.

[Anonymous No.20783186]

>>20783140
Do you want me to make something up?
it can't just be anything, it would have to fit with the rest of my model
That's really really hard. That would be a hypothesis of how qualia works.
You are being a retard badgering me for something like that

There exist so much stuff we don't know how works, that doesn't mean they are magic
as far I'm concerned that's what you think they are
unless you help me out with a hypothesis of your own

[Anonymous No.20783192]

>>20783181
So what's your take on this?
That it's just a huge plot-hole but that the materialists didn't realize?

[Anonymous No.20783199]

>>20783078
>qualia
>subjective experience

Literal emergent phenomena emanating from the brain.

The same subjective experience that disappears when the brain shuts down(sleep, full coma or death).

The same subjective experience that is incomplete when certain parts of brain are off. Like how there is little to no smell and only muted colors and low details in dreams.

The same subjective experience that can be altered with drugs. Literal chemicals designed to alter brain chemistry.

Do spooksters even?

[Anonymous No.20783205]

>>20783186
>Do you want me to make something up?
Yes for the sake of argument. You can disprove my claim by providing any imaginable description that actually describes the mechanism that results in the phenomena, not just describes that it's there.
Even if the description is completely wrong you disprove my claim. The only limits is the description has to be logically coherent, axioms that lead to conclusions.
>badgering
If you never thought of this you should be thanking me for pointing it out.
>unless you help me out with a hypothesis of your own
The point is it's impossible to provide any attempt. We can't conceive of possible answers so it's absolutely impossible to find the actual answer.

[Anonymous No.20783207]

>>20783199
bro, you don't got a model

[Anonymous No.20783212]

>>20783199
>Literal emergent phenomena emanating from the brain.
We already addressed all this over an over in the thread.
Emergent from what? Just the physical parts we already describe in our models? No. Empirically false.

[Anonymous No.20783216]

>>20783205
>For the sake of argument... solve the hard problem of consciousness
can't make this stuff up

[Anonymous No.20783218]

>>20783216
>can't make this stuff up
Provide any imaginable solution. Don't actually solve it just give a hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.20783226]

>>20783212
>We already addressed all this over an over in the thread.
Please just repeat the 1 strongest argument addressing the point

[Anonymous No.20783227]

>>20783216
You're the one that claimed it's possible to solve. I'm pointing out how we know it's not. Tell me how we can since you know we can.

[Anonymous No.20783229]

>>20783199
Not that guy but you're describing changes in mental content, changes of the "object" in "consciousness of an object". You're overlooking the most obvious and familiar part which is the "consciousness (of)".

[Anonymous No.20783233]

>>20783218
Whatever your hypothesis is, except the spooky stuff is actually physical

[Anonymous No.20783238]

>>20783226
I already referenced it in the post you're replying to. You don't understand anything and are too lazy to even read the thread you're subverting based on resentment.
>>20783233
My hypothesis is that it's impossible to provide a description. How can you possibly be this braindead and incoherent. You forget what was posted two posts ago on purpose just to subvert any chance of actual productive dialogue?

[Anonymous No.20783243]

>>20783227
>I'm pointing out how we know it's not
Again. How does me being able to solve the hard problem of consciousness.
How does that mean the problem doesn't have a solution. (on physicalism)

It just doesn't follow. And you should know that, you are just being a dishonest retard at this point.
bringing nothing to the table yourself

[Anonymous No.20783250]

>>20783238
>I will pretend the point has been addressed
Okay, fun
I will pretend I won this exchange. Bye.

[Anonymous No.20783269]

>>20783243
>How does that mean the problem doesn't have a solution.
You can't imagine a hypothesis to test. You can't begin the process. You prove me wrong as soon as anyone in the history of humans provides a hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.20783272]

>>20783238
>hypothesis is that it's impossible to provide a description
Lazy!
Well, at least you don't have to do any work


Can physicalism be true, yet consciousness be indescribable?
Is your hypothesis even incompatible with physicalism.
I don't really know what physicalism is. Seems plausible to me.

[Anonymous No.20783275]

>>20783229
If you move the goalpost of counsciousness far enough, yes, it becomes safe from all criticism, but also becomes a useless abstraction. According to this train of thought even a rock is counscious, it just lacks the "mental content".

[Anonymous No.20783281]

>>20783272
>Can physicalism be true, yet consciousness be indescribable?
It depends on what you mean but like you admit in this post in your mind it doesn't mean anything. It's just another way to sperg about your resentment against religion.

[Anonymous No.20783283]

>>20783269
>You can't imagine a hypothesis to test. You can't begin the process
What follows from this? Tell me

You show me the spooky stuff. Imagine a hypothesis to test the spooky stuff.
Am I not allowed to ask for this? A blatant double standard in this discourse

[Anonymous No.20783291]

>>20783275
>goalpost
It was never moved. You're just unable to grasp the difference between the processing the brain does and qualia or you deliberately pretend you don't.

[Anonymous No.20783293]

>>20783281
I resent bullshit artists

[Anonymous No.20783299]

>>20783283
>What follows from this? Tell me
I told you about 8 times now. Why don't you read? Why do you even post if you're just going to live in your own fantasy world and not engage with anything?
What follows is you can't begin the process we normally use to find anything out and describe anything.

[Anonymous No.20783301]

>>20783275
The claim is not that a rock is conscious, but that a rock is consciousness. As is every apparent thing. But desu I'm lost as to whether people in this thread are arguing mind-body dualism or nondualism, no one seems to have specified.

[Anonymous No.20783302]

>>20783291
There is no reason for qualia not to be fully physical events in the brain circuit

[Anonymous No.20783305]

>>20783207
Its actually funny how its always the frontiers of human understanding and beyond that find themselves the breeding ground for spookster nonsense. The brain is complex, yes, we don't know everything about it. But from what we know(the things I mentioned earlier) reasonable conclusions could be drawn. Though I can come up with ridiculous claims too based on our lack of understanding of human brain(but again more of that in /sffg/)

You must miss the days when we actually didn't know how lightening worked and you could thump your chest and proclaim "Zeus is angry"

>>20783212
>Empirically false
Really? Show me.

>>20783229
If you're referring to the ego or "I" then there is no reason why it shouldn't itself be emergent. I already provided an example by showing that there is no "I" in a deep dreamless sleep to which some anon responded with nonsense that could only be said by someone with no real human experience. I don't even want to go there again

[Anonymous No.20783306]

>>20783293
Why not actually engage and demolish the actual points instead of jerking off about your dogma that's already been discussed over and over in the thread?
If I'm a bullshit artist you should be able to demolish every point, instead you don't even begin to engage. You just sperg indirectly about associations with some religious shit. Like a trained animal which you are.

[Anonymous No.20783309]

>>20783281
Physicalism just means that there is one kind of stuff, the stuff that cups and dogs are made out of.
Now that we've settled that it's okay to have indescribable stuff in our models. I'm just going to say anything that is hard to make sense of is indescribable. Thank you.
This is so easy.

[Anonymous No.20783312]

>>20783306
Engage with what?
You got nothing, your hypothesis is that we can't understand this stuff
What's there to engage with?

[Anonymous No.20783315]

>>20783302
>There is no reason for qualia not to be fully physical events in the brain circuit
That would been it evolved specifically and p-zombies are possible. There's no reason it should evolve and you've made a much more complex model with more exceptions for no reason except conditioned resentment.

[Anonymous No.20783317]

Rember when quatum was spookster teritory?
I remmeber

Spookters kinda gave that one up at some point
qualia, the spookster's last refuge

[Anonymous No.20783320]

>>20783315
>p-zombies
Sorry, those are inconceivable

[Anonymous No.20783323]

>>20783305
>Really? Show me.
Show me a physical model that accounts for qualia.
>>20783312
>What's there to engage with?
You didn't even read the thread. That would be a start. Then you ignore everything I say to you to replace it with some horseshit about ghosts. Explicitly like you've said with the goal of undermining dialogue because you resent groups associated with these ideas.

[Anonymous No.20783325]

>>20783305
Not sure if we're disagreeing here but the ego is also mental content, because it's merely thoughts, feelings, beliefs, memories etc that are reified into "mine" or "I". I don't believe consciousness is like an "I" in the sense us unenlightened folk conceive of it. But admittedly this by itself doesn't necessarily disprove materialism.

[Anonymous No.20783326]

>>20783315
You're completely incoherent

[Anonymous No.20783332]

>>20783306
>You just sperg indirectly about associations with some religious shit.
I just don't think there are good reasons to believe in soul stuff, unless it's for religious reasons.

[Anonymous No.20783336]

>>20783320
Why? You never say anything. You just restate your braindead dogma and pretend you're better than the religious. You're the most dogmatic and conditioned cult that has ever existed.
If they're inconceivable the rules that dictate the emergence of consciousness are external to our descriptions of the physical objects, just like all the rules that dictate their behavior.

[Anonymous No.20783338]

>>20783323
>Empirically false
Why can't you just answer the question asked to you?
Now suddenly there is a new question I have to answer, lmao
this is nonsense

[Anonymous No.20783340]

>>20783309
This isn't true for dualism, but for consciousness-only ontologies or Idealism there is also one kind of stuff, that cups and dogs are made out of, the only difference is that this stuff is consciousness.

[Anonymous No.20783341]

>>20783332
Nobody is talking about any "soul stuff" except you because you're unable to think about anything in any terms except conditioned associations. Why not try thinking? Just try it and see if it's something you like?

[Anonymous No.20783344]

>>20783336
imagine a fish that was indistinguishable from a regular fish, except when it inflates it's swimming bladder it doesn't float
that's CONCEIVABLE, right? Therefore, buoyancy is magic

bravo

Me? I just can't conceive of such a fish.

[Anonymous No.20783355]

>>20783338
>Why can't you just answer the question asked to you?
This is the fucking answer retard. You have no models that account for it. It's empirically true that none of the physical models account for it. There's no empirical test because there's no model saying what to test. If you have one just reference it.

[Anonymous No.20783361]

>>20783344
>that's CONCEIVABLE, right? Therefore, buoyancy is magic
Why can't you just try thinking sincerely and honestly instead of always playing this retarded game you've been conditioned to play where everyone suggesting any critique of your dogma is le evil christian trying to stop you from cutting your dick off?

[Anonymous No.20783364]

Okay so I actually googled what a p-zombie is since everyone is throwing that word around.

As I understand its a hypothetical being that reacts to stimuli just like normal people would but doesn't have a conscious experience of it.

Here's the problem

1. Its completely hypothetical thought experiment. For an actual p zombie to exhibit all the human behaviour and reactions in real world a complex system would be needed. And who says that such a complex system cannot emerge into conscious experience.

2. Bacteria can be considered p zombies since they lack brains yet have chemical processes that can give response to stimuli. But the thing is their mechanisms are nowhere near as complex as humans and bacteria evidently do not mimick humans

[Anonymous No.20783365]

>>20783340
I'm very partial to idealism
something about there fundamentally only being 1 kind of stuff, it really gets me off

It's just that I don't really understand realism.
If I get someone to explain it to me with as little woo as possible. It just sounds like physicalism, or whatever I already believe

>What does it mean to be physical?
I just want to ask the idealist the same thing. What does it mean to be mental?

Whatever exist is mental, by definition
ewww. Don't like it when physicalists just says it's definitionally true about whatever exist

[Anonymous No.20783371]

>>20783341
Ok. Spookster.
So, like, if you don't believe in soul stuff
what's wrong with physicalism
what are you adding to reality that physicalism doesn't have. To make more sense of it?

[Anonymous No.20783372]

>>20783364
>And who says that such a complex system cannot emerge into conscious experience.
Is the fucking point you shithead. You could have thought about the subject for even two minutes before posting your google results.
It could well be the bacteria has some kind of experience/awareness/qualia. It's more reasonable to assume it does unless we know otherwise. It's how the world we really experience works despite the physical models ignoring it.

[Anonymous No.20783374]

This was a fun thread but honestly I have nothing more to say, I'm only still here because I want to see 500 replies before I leave.

[Anonymous No.20783375]

>>20783361
Persecution complex, much?

[Anonymous No.20783379]

>>20783323
>Show me a physical model that accounts for qualia

Already given examples of how changes in brain affect subjective experience

Plus this

>Its actually funny how its always the frontiers of human understanding and beyond that find themselves the breeding ground for spookster nonsense.

But you can go on beating that dead horse like a special ed kid that repeats the same few sentences again and again

[Anonymous No.20783383]

>>20783371
It depends on what you mean by "physicalism". We already established you don't mean anything except finding any excuse to whine about people you hate.
The biggest problem is the complete lack of thinking materialists display. You're conditioned religious cultists deferring mindlessly to dogma and shutting down all thought that goes against or beyond it.

[Anonymous No.20783388]

>>20783379
>Already given examples of how changes in brain affect subjective experience
That's not the fundamental phenomena, that's how the phenomena is modulated by the brain.
Your accounts could be describing p-zombies and there would be no difference. You don't account for the difference.

[Anonymous No.20783399]

>>20783372
So you're agreeing with me that complex physical phenomena can take shape of experience? That means the experience is not immaterial?

[Anonymous No.20783404]

>>20783364
I think physicalism is true, right?
That consciousness is reducible to the physical.

So if you arrange physical matter in a way the would cause consciousness, it's literally inconceivable for that not to happen

there is also an explanatory problem
if the person is conscious and the exact zombie copy is not. What explains that?


that said, I don't really know what it means for a thing to be inconceivable or not
I can't conceive of a 1000 sided die, it's just too complicated for me to hold as a concept in my mind
does that mean they can't exist? Obviously not

[Anonymous No.20783405]

>>20783388
>Your accounts could be describing p-zombies and there would be no difference. You don't account for the difference.

P zombies are not real. And if they were no reason to assume they wouldn't be conscious as well.

[Anonymous No.20783411]

>>20783383
Why are you pretending to be persecuted?

[Anonymous No.20783414]

>>20783375
He admits that's what he's doing just like the other guy in the thread that did the exact same thing. As soon as I tell them explicitly I'm not arguing for any specific theology or whatever they change completely. This shows they don't engage with the content or logic of anything said, they operate purely on conditioned associations.
>>20783399
>complex physical phenomena can take shape of experience
The phenomena is already there in some form and modulated by the material structures to produce the coherent perception.

[Anonymous No.20783417]

>>20783405
>P zombies are not real. And if they were no reason to assume they wouldn't be conscious as well.
That they're not real is the point. Your description doesn't account for the difference between something made . You're describing a p-zombie not reality as it actually appears.

[Anonymous No.20783418]

>>20783388
How do you account for the p-zombie not being conscious
what the non-physical difference that explains this?

[Anonymous No.20783424]

>>20783418
By acknowledging the existence of qualia and accounting for it. The simplest account is universal just like we account for everything else. If you model the phenomena like we model basically everything else including magnets the physical structure modulates a universal phenomena.

[Anonymous No.20783428]

>>20782874
>If my ego doesn't persist, I don't understand what you mean by "me"
It is possible to separate a self from ego and be alive therefore demonstrating you are not your ego.
> being re-joined to an "us"
As far as I understand it it's tfw love.
>didn't you just say my identity was gone?
Yes, because your memory doesn't persist. You have no anchor, no frame of reference to start from. All you know you've been in a cycle of getting reborn as the same person adnauseam which woud explain all that deja vu
>Why's that anyway, cuz memories are physical?
Don't know.

[Anonymous No.20783441]

>>20783424
Why are zombie-magnets not a thing?
That's conceivable
a magnet that is physically indistinguishable from a regular magnet
except it causes no attraction to other magnets

How do you explain that
Magnetism spooky now?

[Anonymous No.20783448]

>>20783441
>How do you explain that
The same way. The electromagnetic field is universal. Perceived phenomena like magnets reaching large distances comes from the physical structures modulating the underlying phenomena.

[Anonymous No.20783451]

>>20783428
>It is possible to separate a self from ego
How? You can't just say stuff like that, and except it to persuade anyone

I just think I'm the sum of my memories, desires, thoughts and feelings, etc
I'm super sceptical of it still being me with the memories removed

[Anonymous No.20783454]

>>20783441
>Magnetism spooky now?
According to you everything is including magnetism. You can't account for the things physical models rest on like the fundamental forces or fields or whatever abstraction you use so they're "spooks" according to your definition. You don't understand physics at all so everything must be "spooks" to you including chairs.

[Anonymous No.20783457]

>>20783448
I don't understand
are you saying that makes p-zombies and zombie-magnets are possible or not?

[Anonymous No.20783465]

>>20783454
What are you talking about, I just believe in things that exist?

[Anonymous No.20783467]

>>20783457
>I don't understand
Try. You don't try. If you're really trying you're severely mentally disabled.
I don't know if p-zombies or zombie magnets are possible for sure. I work from the assumption they aren't because there's no reason to think they are.
If you try to describe a human using current physical models the description won't include any reference to or explanation of qualia. So you're describing a p-zombie, describing fantasy instead of reality. That means your model is missing something.

[Anonymous No.20783479]

>>20783465
>what are you talking about
Materialism. The subject of the thread. Why are you here? Why would you ever post anything when you don't understand anything?
>I just believe in things that exist?
But you have no clue what that means and haven't thought about it at all. You say a cup exists but any description you can give of it that's testable and based on materialistic premises will rest on non materialistic premises. Then you still state incoherently that nothing exists but the material.

[Anonymous No.20783480]

>>20783451
>How? You can't just say stuff like that, and except it to persuade anyone
Well, the way I've done it is I've read The Power of now By Eckhart Tolle. In it he talks about a tool he used where he would observe thoughts as a 3rd person and evaluate them in a detached manner. I tried that and I found that at least my brain was running wild with thoughts and I put each one under a spotlight until I could draw a clean life between self and ego. It was a lot of reflection, self-evaluation, and working through childhood bullshit by examining each feeling in a similar manner. It's a process that took me several years..
>I just think I'm the sum of my memories, desires, thoughts and feelings, etc
You're not wrong, majority of people think this. You don't know what you don't know.
>I'm super sceptical of it still being me with the memories removed
I think it will be a meat sack that will continue to live out your habits.

[Anonymous No.20783493]

>>20783479
>You say a cup exists
Holy shit, dude. "Cup" is just a word. I never said there was such a thing as cupness
Humans can participate in language with degrees of success