[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 124 KB, 602x541, ef7c73d3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21578280 No.21578280 [Reply] [Original]

Which Philosophical/metaphysical framework(book) explains what's the deal with phenomenal consciousness(or inner experience)?
It makes no sense for neural activity to give rise to our experience of visual perception and sensations.

>> No.21578386
File: 846 KB, 400x222, Behold_gentlemen!_The_Zoomer_brain!.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21578386

>>21578280

>It makes no sense

To the waste of neuronal tissue between your ears perhaps.

>> No.21578397

>>21578280
Answer is that no one fucking knows so stop asking. We could have souls for all we know for christ sake. The only thing about consciousness that is empirically not true is solipsism. Thanks to Wittengenstein

>> No.21578409
File: 203 KB, 900x900, QRI.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21578409

>>21578280
Principia qualia

https://opentheory.net/principia-qualia/

>> No.21578413

Not a book, but Justin Riddle's quantum consciousness podcasts are worth listening to.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLThyP2r9cqozvJuRYSnmz2doYm43SJWtH

>> No.21578414

Are there any philosophical works that can provide answers to Benj Hellie's vertiginous question? Why am I me, and not someone else?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question

>> No.21578417

>>21578280
https://qualiacomputing.com/

>> No.21578489

>>21578397
What do you mean is not true regarding solipsism? Surely if we mean solipsism a la Descartes, it still works anyway? The only solipsism that is untenable is solipsism about your conscious perception of objects, which has been shown to be false by BRENTANO

>> No.21578495

>>21578409
>PQ begins by considering a rather modest question: what is emotional valence? What makes some things feel better than others?
Fuck, how come I'm late to the party??? I'm also investigating this, now I can't lay claim as the sole researcher in this "what I assume to be" pristine fields...

>> No.21578516

>>21578489
Solipsism as in "I am the only conscious being around me" or in the world is demonstratably false.

>> No.21578534
File: 293 KB, 943x1504, 171256.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21578534

This

>> No.21578572

>>21578516
no it isnt. what was Wittgenstein's argument anyway?

>> No.21578706
File: 6 KB, 157x204, 8757634.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21578706

>>21578280
hylomorphism

>> No.21578875

Consciousness is a solved problem. If you want to understand it, you need to study math though.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610717301207

>> No.21578919

>>21578572
He goes through the linguistics how a man is born into language and how it imprints his own thoughts and you have no choice in the matter. When phrases like "Why do I exist, how do I exist?" etc already exist in your language before you. There is no other way that others are not conscious.

>> No.21578942

>>21578409
> Integrated Information Theory of consciousness is an attempt at a fully quantitative theory of consciousness.
galactic level cope hahahaha

>> No.21578962

>>21578409
IIT was a huge failure. Definining consciousness via information theory yields ridiculous results such as various household objects being conscious, e.g. toaster, dishwasher or housewife.

>> No.21578967
File: 89 KB, 1200x1200, image-20170208-11440-rfqqhz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21578967

>>21578875
>consciousness is solved because math
>implying math itself isnt totally flawed and represents nothing about reality
Read Godel and Klein

>> No.21578975

>>21578967
You have no idea what Gödel's incompleteness theorems mean, do you?

>> No.21578993

>>21578495
Literally Plato's entire metaphysics stems from considerations of the Good which has an emotional valence (cf. Diotima).
You are always 2500 years late to the party in philosophy because Plato always already did it.

>> No.21579000

>>21578919
>When phrases like "Why do I exist, how do I exist?" etc already exist in your language before you. There is no other way that others are not conscious.
Is that genuinely the best reconstruction? That's not compelling at all. It definitely is possible to imagine all of that but with solipsism - not plausible, sure, far-fetched, sure, ridiculous, sure, but certainly not proven "demonstrably false".

>> No.21579016

Nagel's Bat. You might be looking for a material explanation for the metaphysical. If you are, you've already wandered down the wrong path.

>> No.21579119

>>21578962
>various household objects being conscious
They are. They just have no memory so there's no coherent sense of an identity or narrative.
>>21578875
That solution also says everything is conscious. All coherent accounts do.

>> No.21579147

>>21579119
>everything is conscious
This statement has been debunked by fact checkers. NPCs do exist.

>> No.21579311

>>21578993
Dunno, I believe Marx developed something new that isn't discovered in Ancient Greece. Also, the framework to describe this phenomenaI believe is more useful using phenomenological framework instead of metaphysical. I believe Husserl was onto something when he warned us to not fall into the temptation of reducing consciousness to materialism which to see today's state of affairs kinda sad, since evolutionary psychology is so popular.

>> No.21579431

>>21578919
>solipsism not real because... you use language!
What a retarded argument

>> No.21579489

>>21578280
Literally almost all of it? The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers is probably one of the better ones in recent decades.