/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22791629]

Which philosophers should I read if I want to solve the hard problem of consciousness?

[Anonymous No.22791661]

>>22791629
Adi Shankara

[Anonymous No.22791666]

>>22791629
What do you think solving the problem would look like? What would we do with such a solution? What even is the problem?

[Anonymous No.22791668]

>>22791629
Alfred North Whitehead

[Anonymous No.22791670]

[Anonymous No.22791747]

>>22791629
a biology textbook. stop coping faggot

[Anonymous No.22791769]

>>22791629
There is trully no defined criteria for what is satisfactory answer to the problem.
Meaning, we dont even know what we are looking for if we accept ontology behinde the peoblem.

[Anonymous No.22791771]

>>22791747
Which one? I've read a lot of biology textbooks but none explained qualia and free will.

[Anonymous No.22791783]

>>22791666
1. Work out the laws of the mental world.
2. Explain how it interacts with the physical world.
3. Create a unified theory of physics and consciousness.

Simple as.

[Anonymous No.22791812]

>>22791783
It sounds as cognitive psychology + neurology.

[Anonymous No.22791955]

>>22791812
Except that those never address the hard problem. Cognition is a soft problem and can be explained algorithmically and simulated by AI. Qualia and free will just aren't amenable to the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.22791984]

Bergson

[Anonymous No.22792013]

>>22791984
retroactively refuted by Guenon (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.22792020]

>>22792013
holy kek that's based

[Anonymous No.22792182]

>>22791629
oh cholera, czy to freddy fazbear?

[Anonymous No.22792208]

>>22791629
None. It will never be solved. It cannot be comprehended.

[Anonymous No.22792222]

>>22791955
And what does this fact tell you? This fact that this concepts cannot be anchored in mechanisms which scientific method focuses on?

[Anonymous No.22792352]

>>22791783
If we assume qualia is fundamental to reality we've resolved all this. The "problem" is that certain ideologues want a different answer, like a mechanical explanation, ignoring that any mechanism for anything also has to eventually appeal to similar assumptions. Mechanisms need parts.

[Anonymous No.22792379]

>>22792352
>If we assume qualia is fundamental to reality we've resolved all this.

But we dont.. we just push the question in realm of "we cannot know". Iow. we reduce it to same level as questions "How and why do quarks pare with each other at all?", "How and why do massive objects curve the space at all?"
What i am trying to say is, if we place it as fundamental aspect we will be left with same options as if we accept physicalist explanation or idealist explanation. It changes nothing and only leaves us with impression that we solved it. This allways brings me to the point that whole debate about the "nature" of things is useless since we are allways left with only thing we can do, namely, explain things via mechanisms.

[Anonymous No.22792384]

>>22791629
Don’t read philosophers, read physicists

[Anonymous No.22792400]

>>22792352
>If we assume qualia is fundamental to reality we've resolved all this.
"It just is, okay?"

[Anonymous No.22792408]

>>22792379
>But we dont.. we just push the question in realm of "we cannot know"
We know to the same degree we know the fundamental physical forces you want to use exist, so not at all, all we know is the description relates to reality on some level.
Explaining it in terms of physical interactions won't resolve anything. The physical interactions still rest on fundamental parts we can't have mechanical explanations for. Thinking a mechanistic explanation is better is a result of materialistic brainwashing where your brain expects things to always be explained in the terms it's used to. We know with more certainty than anything that the world isn't simple and easily conceivable by humans like legos but your mind wants it to be so you call that fact a problem.

[Anonymous No.22792442]

>>22792400
No, it's fundamental and universal. That's a description that accounts for the phenomena and affects how we model anything physical.
Saying it "just is" doesn't give any account and predicts nothing. If it's universal potatoes have some kind of qualia. If it's truly universal then it doesn't rest on anything physical so purely logical processes may modulate qualia in reliable ways, as in a computer simulation of a brain has a similar experience to the real thing.

[Anonymous No.22792454]

>>22792408
And how do we explain this fundamental forces?

[Anonymous No.22792458]

>>22791955
>Qualia and free will
First prove it exists.

[Anonymous No.22792520]

>>22792442
>potatoes have some kind of qualia
Not even all humans have qualia.

[Anonymous No.22792580]

>>22791629
You, quite literally, have to start with the Greeks. Will it help? Not fully. You have to work your way to Heidegger. That may take years of confusing and, at times, contradictory reads, so you could opt to read books on the history of philosophy, get a surface understanding of most thinkers, and further study the works of anyone you think is closer to the truth.

[Anonymous No.22792585]

>>22792580
>Heidegger

[Anonymous No.22792594]

>>22792585
The man wants to learn about qualia. Heidegger sounds like a good place to aim for. OP may find his answers earlier than that. Probably.

[Anonymous No.22792596]

Obviously picrel

[Anonymous No.22792602]

>>22791629
Waste of time. Solved problem since the time of Christ. The only people concerned with it are rabid atheist analytitard determinists like Dennett (baby mind).

[Anonymous No.22792642]

>>22791629
Martin Heidegger unironically

[Anonymous No.22792651]

>>22791783
You start with the idea that there is a split between the mental and the physical world.
Until you dissolve Cartesian dualism you will never find a solution, because the split itself is the problem
Want a "solution", look into Heidegger, enactivism, neurophenomenology, Francisco Valera Evan Thompson etc

[Anonymous No.22792658]

>>22792585
Go actually read Heidegger, Rorty and Gödel, and you'll understand the actual issue with the problem

[Anonymous No.22792672]

>>22792658
>Heidegger
Out of curiousity, does he ever directly address the problem of consciousness or just the peripheral questions that arise from it? Not trying to be snarky

[Anonymous No.22792686]

>>22792454
We don't really, any attempt has to start from somewhere anyway so you would just replace fundamental parts with some other fundamental parts.
We try to come up with the simplest model that fits observations, needing fewer fundamental parts is simpler so as we refine the model we're left with only a few fundamental parts.
If we want to apply the same methods to model qualia we have to add a fundamental part that's not any of the forces we have so far. Qualia can't be emergent, consciousness as we know it is emergent but the fact that anything can experience anything has to be fundamental. Logic itself is a better example than the physical forces of something that's truly fundamental and universal. Our inability to explain the existence of abstract logic as a product of physics is the same kind of "problem" as qualia, so not really a problem unless you're conditioned by materialistic thinking. If you ever come up with a model of logic that's a product of physics that model rests on circular logic since our ideas of physics rest on logic.

[Anonymous No.22792696]

>>22792458
Dumbest shit ever said.

[Anonymous No.22792797]

>>22791629
What's the hard problem? There's only a problem if you're a materialist, because then we'd be robots, but robots don't have an inner experience, boom, there's your "hard" problem of consciousness, an entirely self inflicted problem caused by dogma people adhere not because it's provable and logical but because it's their religious belief.

[Anonymous No.22792814]

>>22791783
Define "physical".

[Anonymous No.22793153]

>>22792672
The problem with German phenomenology (maybe it’s not a problem if you accept their premises) is that they don’t address certain issues but treat them as if they were out of scope or stemming from a misdiagnosis. Heidegger reshaped several already established notions like truth, being, and perception even. Does Heidegger approach consciousness? Yes but also no: he does but not in the way you expect (or may want to).

[Anonymous No.22793186]

>>22792686
>Our inability to explain the existence of abstract logic as a product of physics

Well you are confusing that which describes with that which is being described. Both logic and physics are product of that which is being described. Since logic provides set of rules how to efficiently describe the thing from which it stems, physics using those rules should give good take on how it came to be that that which is being described is being deacribed by it self. I see no circularity there, expecially when you start using mechanistic description on dimensions of chemistry and biology.
Not to mention that physics for past 100 years constantly challenged our "logic" and intuition.

>problem" as qualia, so not really a problem unless you're conditioned by materialistic thinking

Its not problem at all from any ontological framework but the ones that assert dual nature of reallity. If you apstract something from the system and place it outside it, it is logical that you will have hard time seeing how that system leads to such phenomena.

Its perfectly okay to state that consciousness is product of such and such interactions between the brain and reallity satisfying the need for "how it came to be" without ever evoking "why it came to be the way it came to be".

[Anonymous No.22793229]

>>22791629
Unironically, and I'm speaking as somebody who wasted a lot of fucking time on metaphysics and philosophy in pursuit of answers to questions like these, neuroscience.

Just read up on contemporary news about neuroscience, about neuroimaging studies and meta-analyses. Correlative studies exist that show us what the brain is doing when we're performing certain actions, or about to perform certain actions, such that scientists can now build models that predict the behaviour of people across a great many disciplines simply by understanding how stuff like our reward systems confer hedonic value within a given context (how we place "like" or "dislike" value on familiar objects within our environment in order to motivate us TOWARDS or AWAY from certain things/behaviours, and how this adaptation developed over time).

The problem of consciousness is solved. Intervention Studies on certain areas of the brain will motivate people's behaviour in different, predictable ways. This has been proven again, and again, and again.

Now all of this being said, the "how" is all well and good you might say. What about the "why"?

Well good luck with that. You'll only wind up wasting your time like I did.

>bugman, soulless etc. etc.

Yep. Don't give a fuck. Better to know the muck and live in it than to live above it and have nothing to show for it beyond some frail conception of a metaphysics you can't properly interrogate. For all the good it does you, might as well get into Marvel movies.

[Anonymous No.22793396]

>>22793229
>Just read up on contemporary news about neuroscience, about neuroimaging studies and meta-analyses. Correlative studies exist that show us what the brain is doing when we're performing certain actions, or about to perform certain actions, such that scientists can now build models that predict the behavior of people across a great many disciplines simply by understanding how stuff like our reward systems confer hedonic value within a given context (how we place "like" or "dislike" value on familiar objects within our environment in order to motivate us TOWARDS or AWAY from certain things/behaviours, and how this adaptation developed over time).
Empirical observation
> Intervention Studies on certain areas of the brain will motivate people's behaviour in different, predictable ways.
Mostly empirical, but replace motivate with correlate, motivation is not something you can prove.
>The problem of consciousness is solved.
Unsubstantiated metaphysical claim
>Now all of this being said, the "how" is all well and good you might say.
You didn't explain how, the hard problem of consciousness is by nature a metaphysical question, so if your answer to the problem is materialism, that is metaphysics. This doesn't make sense for someone who thinks metaphysics is a waste of time, but it seems like a common trap to fall into. Materialists for whatever reason think that they aren't making metaphysical propositions and just brute fact that appearance is reality with no proof. Someone who was actually unconcerned with metaphysics would just not answer this question in the first place, yet here you are, making claims about the true nature of empirical observations that cannot be proven instead of just sticking with the empirical observations themselves. Empirical observations could only ever falsify a metaphysical proposition, it could never prove it, and nothing you said proves materialism or falsifies matter being an emanation of mind. So either your solution to the problem of consciousness is to not even answer it, which you did, or it's an emergent property of the brain, which is a materialist stance, which is a metaphysical claim, yet you say metaphysics is a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.22793400]

Wittgenstein. Read everything he says about the metaphysical and then move on with your life.

[Anonymous No.22793427]

>>22791629
YOU consciously think consciousness a 'problem,' that is, a mystery? Read poetry; it may behove you to discover what all consciousness can do, first, before you stop to wonder about it. Otherwise, what is it you're really seeking? Some formula? 'Useful' epithets?

[Anonymous No.22793430]

>>22793396
>wordswordswords

Yep, acknowledge all of that. Beyond the brute fact that metaphysical knowledge is necessarily inaccessible, no metaphysical "reasoning" takes place. The claims are not testable beyond this basic scheme:

>thing can't happen without other thing happening
>therefore God (or something 'Ultimate', or something else entirely)

Okay, great. Science takes that as read. Now what?

Like I said, we know the how, not the why. We can NEVER know the why, but insofar as consciousness is an emergent property of interactions within areas of our brain, this has been demonstrated sufficiently time and time and time again.

That means something. You don't get to dismiss empirical observations because we can't discern an ultimate "why" or "truth" from these observations. The observation itself necessitates that consciousness is a property of the human body: dope certain parts of the brain, different predictable outcomes occur. Damage certain regions, we can see what functionality you lose with data, including degenerative conditions like Alzheimer's, whose progression erodes the "self" contained within the deteriorating organism.

This is like saying "well cooling the body might explain why we sweat, but why were we put here on earth to begin with?"

Metaphysics IS a waste of time. Watch a few Jay Dyer debates and you get the gist of how every argument goes. I wasted years on this bullshit, when it really boils down to very florid, endearing descriptions of arguments from contingency. It's the same every single time. It is not impressive, it tells me that this person is not serious.

[Anonymous No.22793432]

>>22793427
You type like you're reciting slam poetry. Make of that what you will.

[Anonymous No.22793434]

[Anonymous No.22793439]

>>22793434

[Anonymous No.22793450]

>>22791629
There's nothing to solve. Consciousness is epiphenominal.
Faggot normies keep insisting their experiences are something separable from the body they inhere in and they and they are absolutely wrong. They will never EVER produce any kind of evidence to support their claim, they'll just keep claiming it's obvious, like 1000000 other retarded intuitions people grow out of.

[Anonymous No.22793463]

>>22793450
Thoughts are perceiveable yet non-physical, they have no physical substance. You can look into a brain and see neurons firing, but the actual thoughts can only be experienced by the experiencer

[Anonymous No.22793484]

>>22793186
>Well you are confusing that which describes with that which is being described.
You are. This entire post is completely deranged, you don't understand anything you're talking about. Physics is a description of observations using formal language and math, both based on human defined rules that seem to us to relate to something real. Formal logic being valid is an axiom of the physics model. A model can not account for its own axioms, that's one of the few things in this world that are actually proven. We can prove such things because they exist within a clearly defined formal system that we created to reflect rules of reality as they appear to us. We can only prove things about the models we make, not about reality.
>Its perfectly okay to state that consciousness is product of such and such interactions
It's "okay" if you're content with ignoring everything that doesn't fit your preconceptions about reality which you clearly are as a stereotypical atheist zealot that only knows how to appeal to dogma. Consciousness needs memory and a constructed identity but none of these factors that are needed for conscious thought give any account for experience itself so that factor must already be in play.

[Anonymous No.22793494]

>>22793432
You type like someone capable of making some adequate response; you're not.

[Anonymous No.22793507]

>>22793430
>You don't get to dismiss empirical observations because we can't discern an ultimate "why" or "truth" from these observations.
I said you can only falsify a metaphysical claim with empirical observation, not that empirical observation is dismissible. Falsification is still useful to deduct what the truth is, but empirical observation can never prove a metaphysical claim.
>insofar as consciousness is an emergent property of interactions within areas of our brain, this has been demonstrated sufficiently time and time and time again.
This is what I mean, when you say consciousness is emergent, that is a metaphysical claim. If you were unconcerned with metaphysics you simply wouldn't answer the question, you would only say these are the correlates and leave it at that, you can not say that empirical observations prove the metaphysical claim that consciousness is emergent. On the other hand, it could falsify other claims so it's still useful. This is very important to note because it can still mean that matter is an emanation, the empirical observations do not falsify this claim.
> "well cooling the body might explain why we sweat, but why were we put here on earth to begin with?"
I don't believe in "why's" either in this sense, a why in that context is a completely pointless, nonsensical question

[Anonymous No.22793522]

>>22793430
>This is like saying "well cooling the body might explain why we sweat, but why were we put here on earth to begin with?"
There's nothing really missing from our model of sweat. Stimuli causes a reaction. Input causes output. There's no glaring missing element like in our attempts to use physics to describe the human experience.
There's no how/why dichotomy here. You're unable to account for the phenomena, you can't tell me how it works. Your model is completely broken but you just desperately want to pretend it's not. That's a psychological response based on wanting to feel in power. You're trying to convince yourself you're in a safe, explored space and there are no unknowns waiting to surprise you. In fact there are plenty of those and you don't know shit about anything.

[Anonymous No.22793559]

>>22793507
You can't invoke a metaphysical claim without a material referent, so why should we presume to test metaphysical claims with anything immaterial?

Metaphysics is a waste of time.

>consciousness is emergent, that is a metaphysical claim
Simple rulesets produce complex behaviour. Empirical studies of the brain have demonstrated the causal relationship between parts of the brain and their functionality. Intervention studies AND correlative studies prove this.

Your concerns re: 'emergence" vs "emanation" are precisely the metaphysical project in a nutshell: pedantic, self-soothing shell games.

No meat on the bone makes people weak, don't you know?

>>22793522
>There's no how/why dichotomy here. You're unable to account for the phenomena, you can't tell me how it works.
There is when an empirical claim can satisfy its aims through the reproduction of increasingly predictive datasets. The best you can give me in response is "w-well it'll never be 100% exactly, so there!"

Boring. "My" model is a process that generates hypotheses that are testable. Metaphysical worldviews do not. Who's the one that's supposed to be afraid of "unknowns", again?

>You're trying to convince yourself you're in a safe, explored space and there are no unknowns waiting to surprise you. In fact there are plenty of those and you don't know shit about anything.
I'll just leave that one to speak for itself I think.

Metaphysics is a waste of time.

>WW-W-W-BLUH BLUH THAT'S A METAPHYSICAL CLAIM!!!!!!!!!

Yep. Deal with it, cowards. Have fun with your tradLARP or whatever.

[Anonymous No.22793582]

>>22791629
>if I want to solve the hard problem of consciousness?
Here, I'll solve it for you: the hard problem only exists when you consider consciousness to be emergent from the material. This is the wrong way around. There is no hard problem whatsoever if you consider that rather, material is emergent from consciousness. You're welcome.

[Anonymous No.22793645]

>>22793559
Hardest most desperate cope ive read this week

[Anonymous No.22793666]

>>22793645
Alright, ball's in your court champ.

Metaphysics is necessary and sufficient for explaining the true nature of our universe. Granted.

How do we apply metaphysical thinking to these investigations, such that the metaphysical is communicated to us in a reliable way? How do we discover metaphysical facts, and how do they help us explain our universe?

I'll presume you're agnostic about the nature of this metaphysical conception, but if it's a God of some kind I'd also like an explanation as to why it's that one in particular and not another.

[Anonymous No.22793672]

>>22793559
No matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't prove anything, only falsifies.
>You can't invoke a metaphysical claim without a material referent, so why should we presume to test metaphysical claims with anything immaterial?
And this is exactly why materialism is contradictory and self-refuting, you make metaphysical claims that aren't even meta-physical, a materialist will always refute themselves on that basis alone. If you think metaphysics is a waste of time, stop talking about what the nature of things actually are.
>inb4 there isn't nature of things as they actually are
Still a claim on the nature of things, just that it doesn't exist, if you think it doesn't make sense that should tell you something about how contradictory your thinking is. Just say this correlates with that and leave it there, instead you have to come to this thread to talk about the deeper nature of things is that there is no deeper nature to things. That's what I'm trying to tell you, you keep making unsubstantiated claims about the nature of phenomena from empirical observations, which by the very nature of empiricism cannot be done. If you truly believe that empirical observations PROVED that consciousness is emergent and that anything that couldn't be empirically observed doesn't exist, you would have to believe your own consciousness isn't real since it can't be empirically proven. Is it not completely backwards to think the consciousness of, that being matter (we are conscious OF matter), is somehow real, but the consciousness itself, is an illusion?
>Empirical studies of the brain have demonstrated the causal relationship between parts of the brain and their functionality. Intervention studies AND correlative studies prove this.
You say these things back to back, that empirical studies demonstrated a causal relationship, and that correlative studies prove this, correlation does not prove causation. A model can work, be predictable for the most part, and still be wrong. All it takes for something to be wrong is to be falsified. Nothing you've said falsified matter as an emanation of mind, yet mind as an emanation of matter can be falsified logically and through paranormal phenomena, with reasonable certainty. It would do you good to contemplate on actual metaphysics instead of christcuck and atheist babble.

[Anonymous No.22793688]

>>22791629
Aristotle
Plato
Plotinus
Proclus
Aquinas

In that order

[Anonymous No.22793689]

>>22793672
>No matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't prove anything, only falsifies.
And metaphysics doesn't even do that much...

>If you think metaphysics is a waste of time, stop talking about what the nature of things actually are.
Y'see? "Stop investigating reality because you won't submit your reasoning to the unconstrained, untestable hypotheses generated by quacks and religious zealots!"

Boring.

>wordswordswords

This is all the same shit I've addressed already.

>A model can work, be predictable for the most part, and still be wrong.
This is what I mean when I say metaphysics is useless.

Even if we could generate a machine that was able to predict the outcomes of human behaviour with 99.9999999999999% accuracy, the fact that that a 0.000000000000000001% chance exists that the human "mind" (brain) might choose otherwise is enough to satisfy your intellectual curiosity.

It stop there, and goes no further. The rest is rhetoric. Unproductive, no results. Nothing testable, nothing proven.

As we speak, algorithms examining behaviour generated by parts of the "mind" (brain) are achieving higher and higher degrees of accuracy and explanatory power. And what's the big, grand metaphysical response to all of this?

>w-w-well... uh.... t-technically you can't REALLY have a 0% chance of something...

Great. Fantastic. Meanwhile this facile observation becomes highjacked and leveraged by pseuds so as to bolster some insecure part of themselves that needs to be seen as a person tarrying with some quandary, piercing some "truth" that us plebs just don't have the minds to comprehend.

People like you, and I mean this, are very boring people. People like you are the real bugmen. Your thoughts all terminate in ponderous, self-serving stuff.

This is every single metaphysical argument there is. Every single one.

>thing cause other thing
>thing must have first cause
>therefore metaphysical stuff

Metaphysics is a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.22793695]

>>22793689
Why is your brainlet ass in a metaphysics thread if it is a waste of time? You‘ve done absolutely nothing to show how neuroscience could even potentially address the hard problem. You are furious because you are aware of how contradictory your position is, and you want to make money more than you actually want answers.

[Anonymous No.22793704]

>>22793689
Can I assume that you also think mathematics and theoretical physics is a waste of time? Or is there a reason in particular you're railing against metaphysics while simultaneously making metaphysical claims?
>People like you are the real bugmen
Reddit-spacing hylic, it may be true that you are a mindless, mouth breathing, automaton who's consciousness is an illusion but it's not true for me.

[Anonymous No.22793706]

>>22793559
How surprising that a deranged religious zealot can't even consider alternatives to his religious dogma. The ability to explore hypotheticals is needed to expand any model and learn anything about any subject.
>it'll never be 100% exactly
You're not even capable of discussing the subject. The subject is qualia yet you endlessly rant about a completely different subject, how brains react to input. If you would have a 100% complete account of that process it wouldn't say anything about qualia. It wouldn't address anything I've raised.

[Anonymous No.22793725]

>>22793704
Number is a fact and feature we ascertain through material analysis.
Theoretical physics produces testable hypotheses with falsifiability.

>Or is there a reason in particular you're railing against metaphysics while simultaneously making metaphysical claims?
Okay let's run this all the way back:

If metaphysical properties are necessary and contingent features of our world, that necessarily makes any combination of matter a "metaphysical" expression, no?

At which point you get to claim that any inquiry into the physical is actually "metaphysical", and so metaphysics isn't a waste of time.

I can agree with that, and also submit that it is a complete waste of time to interrogate a metaphysics that concerns itself with "truths" such as these that cannot be grounded in any way, much less falsified. It is an aesthetic exercise at that point.

Logic itself may be tautological, but let's agree that mathematics is a "metaphysical" system then for that reason.

Math, in this case, is still testable, whether invented or discovered. Claims about the primacy of metaphysical properties apart from our material universe, however, will always remain untestable. It just "is" in the same way mathematics just "is", but people who specialize in math don't pretend their worldview doesn't rely on tautology to generate measurable observations.

This is, and I've said this again and again, every single metaphysical argument there is.

>hylic
I would gladly take a fucking redditor over some tradLARPing faggot any day of the week.

You're a very special person for pointing out that math is incomplete. This is the one useful observation metaphysical inquiry provides, and it goes no further than this. It stops there, and starts up again wherever the person wants to claim some field "entails" metaphysical presumptions, and so redeems metaphysical inquiry on the whole.

Like I said:

>thing cause other thing
>thing must have first cause
>therefore metaphysical stuff

It is not compelling, it is not insightful. It is easy, it is the bare minimum.

[Anonymous No.22793738]

>>22793706
I do not give a fuck about proving the content of other minds. It cannot be done. More metaphysics, doesn't dispute a thing I've said. Does not matter one bit.

Now contend with the rest of what I've written.

[Anonymous No.22793874]

>>22793738
Your descriptions are not reality. If you can't describe what's happening inside my house that does not mean the inside of the house is an empty void.
You haven't even started discussing the actual subject you're too dumb to say anything about so what am I supposed to "contend" with? Even your choice of words reveal your inability to think, you believe we're having some kind of contest instead of sincerely trying to understand reality.

[Anonymous No.22793877]

>>22793874
Gayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[Anonymous No.22793935]

Keith Frankish. Francois Kammerer.

[Anonymous No.22793936]

>>22792814
Opposite of mental

[Anonymous No.22793938]

>>22793229
OP asked about the hard problem, not about the soft problems. How does neuroscience close the explanatory gap?

[Anonymous No.22793942]

>>22793450
How can it be epiphenomenal if it clearly has effects such as e.g. us talking about it?

[Anonymous No.22793946]

>>22793582
Solipsism doesn't explain shit. It merely reverses the question. How does the material "emerge" then, huh?

[Anonymous No.22793965]

>>22793946
That's not solipsism and we don't know where everything comes from either way. The physical, mechanistic facet of reality is the part we understand but those mechanisms don't allow consciousness. The idea that the mechanisms emerge from the irreducible is coherent but the opposite, saying the irreducible emerges from the mechanisms is not.

[Anonymous No.22793979]

>>22793965
"Emergent" is an empty weasel word. Instead of desperately clinging to the illusion that one "emerges" from the other, we should acknowledge that mental and physical both exist and influence each other. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.22793982]

>>22793688
>ending with Aquinas
straw.

[Anonymous No.22794003]

>>22792182
AR AR, AR AR AR, AR AR AR AR AR

[Anonymous No.22794150]

>>22793725
>Claims about the primacy of metaphysical properties apart from our material universe, however, will always remain untestable. It just "is" in the same way mathematics just "is", but people who specialize in math don't pretend their worldview doesn't rely on tautology to generate measurable observations.
I just happened to come across a quote that perfectly explains your logic and what I was trying to say but was worded much better
"Materialism, then, is a metaphysics of the rejection of metaphysics. It is an of faith-assumption that nature is a closed system whose every feature is caused by and explainable by matter alone, and that nothing exists beyond the physical order. Naturalism is a picture of the whole of reality that cannot, according to its own intrinsic premises, address the being of the whole; it is a transcendental certainty of the impossibility of transcendental truth, and so requires an act of pure credence logically immune to any verification… Naturalism’s claim that, by confining itself to purely material explanations for all things, it adheres to the only sure path of verifiable knowledge is nothing but a feat of sublimely circular thinking: physics explains everything, which we know because anything physics cannot explain does not exist, which we know because whatever exists must be explicable by physics, which we know because physics explains everything."
- David Bentley Hart

[Anonymous No.22794169]

>>22794150
and another one
"Moreover, the Materialist ought to be asked what is the exact nature of that consciousness which he supposes to be exuded from the elements. For he does not admit the existence of any other principle apart from his four (or any number of) elements. He will perhaps try to define consciousness as consisting in the mere fact that the elements and their products are experienced. But then they would have to be its object, and it could not be a property of them at the same time, for it is contradictory to suppose that anything can act on itself. Fire may be hot, but it cannot burn itself, and not even the cleverest acrobat can climb up on his own shoulders. And, in the same way, the elements and their products cannot form objects of consciousness if consciousness is their property. A colour does not perceive its own colour or the colour of anything else. And yet there is no doubt whatever that the elements and their products are perceived by consciousness, both inside and outside the body. Because, therefore, the presence of a consciousness which takes the elements and their products as its objects has to be admitted, it follows that it has likewise to be admitted that consciousness is distinct and separate from them."
- Adi Shankara

[Anonymous No.22794175]

>>22793484
>completely deranged

You literaly just repeated what i have stated ._. apart of adding Godels part.

>It's "okay" if you're content with ignoring everything that doesn't fit your preconceptions

No, its just okay since wether you like it or not there must be certain interactioms between human brain and reallity for experience to arise.

>which you clearly are as a stereotypical atheist zealot

Well i am not.. but its typical for stereotypical stereotype hunter to make such faulty conclusion.

Those are easy problem yes.. and then we have a hard problem. But whar do you mean "It must allready be in play?" i presume in a sense of what we talked about fundamentality

[Anonymous No.22794195]

>>22791629
Andrés Gómez Emilsson

https://qualiacomputing.com/

[Anonymous No.22794199]

>>22791629
Principia Qualia is worth reading.

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

[Anonymous No.22794242]

>>22793965
You just did 180 on the problem...
You cant call upon "we dont know" when you are asked how does mental result in physical but require such an answer when you are presented with how does physical result in mental.

Its same shit... there are two aspects that need to be bridged. Can they even be bridged? Even if we assume we know that what bridges A and B is C we are left with question, okay but what does bridge A and C and A and B? Oh another thing D... and so in infinity.

[Anonymous No.22794596]

>>22793982
Bah, Aquinas is a master and offers the best systematic account of reality from the Neoplatonic viewpoint. Which is the only correct viewpoint, I would add.

[Anonymous No.22794598]

>>22794596
>Which is the only correct viewpoint, I would add.

And what criteria do you use to determin what is "correct" if you dont mind me asking?

[Anonymous No.22794605]

>>22792520
We are just saying shit now huh?

[Anonymous No.22794726]

>>22792651
>You start with the idea that there is a split between the mental and the physical world.
>Until you dissolve Cartesian dualism you will never find a solution, because the split itself is the problem

This

[Anonymous No.22794733]

>>22794199
Nice image btw. I like that particular qualia

[Anonymous No.22794754]

>>22794726
Whole of the problem has its roots exactly in Cartesian Dualism because it bares whole subset of problems.

[Anonymous No.22795143]

>>22793706
>deranged religious zealot
>posting biological fact
nonono atheistsissies.... what have we become

[Anonymous No.22795157]

>>22791629
You can solve the problem without ever reading anyones work, I'll solve it for you right now ready:
Ask anyone if they believe in magic. If they say yes, acknowledge that they're being honest with themselves and congratulate them. If they say no, then ask them why they don't kill themselves. When they react with confusion, just keep pressing: if you don't believe in magic, then why not kill yourself? What is your reason for staying alive? They might not ever understand, but that doesn't matter as long as you do.

[Anonymous No.22795266]

>>22794242
>how does mental result in physical
NTA but it's because we know the mental before the physical. We cannot let the mental unexplained when it comes before the physical, while the opposite is legitimate.

[Anonymous No.22795331]

>>22795266
That is indeed the case but i do not see why would we skip the whole step of showing "how does mental result in physical" just because of that fact.

Wether A is from B or B from A we still have to show how does one arise from other because there are still 2 instances that are not reducible to one another.

[Anonymous No.22795344]

>>22795331
#Edit
>that are not reducible to one another

or reducible. (What ever sparks your joy).

In case of reducibility, very fact of reducing is a problem.
In case of nonreductionistic perspective you again have to show relationship between two instances.

[Anonymous No.22795416]

>>22791629
Chalmers and Nagel

[Anonymous No.22795461]

>>22795344
I see what you mean and I agree that it makes no sense if we just reverse the answer. I think what the first anon meant was that what is physical is merely sensations found only in consciousness, and thus isn't distinct from it (the word "emanation" is confusing), so it ins't an independant instance but rather another mental level. I do believe it is reducible to it because consciousness is the only thing we really know. It's the condition of everything for us, so the physical would only be a sort of degree of it. However, I don't think that it is something mental, which I believe is another degree of experience (feelings, thoughts), which is also known through consciousness.
I'm not saying this is the final truth, but it seems ths most reasonable to me.

[Anonymous No.22795484]

>>22795461
Honestly past months i grow ever closer to such stance also. Only problem that i have is explaining "observer" without falling into infinite refress.
And then again there is this relationship between mental and observer.

[Anonymous No.22795517]

>>22795484
Honestly, I think the very first post in this thread may interest you. Good luck anyways anon.

[Anonymous No.22795549]

>>22791771
the qualia are explained in the illustrations

[Anonymous No.22795732]

>>22795157
Survival instinct obviously. Easy answer.

Or they could just enjoy living whether magic exists or not. There are 'simple joys' in this life, some experience more often than others.

[Anonymous No.22795849]

>>22791629
I saw one of those bins earlier today
nice lad

[Anonymous No.22795879]

>>22791629
Philosophy like pic related or the books by Bernardo Kastrup, because they show that the solution will never be found in materialism anyway. Indeed, NDEs are irrefutable proof of life after death, because anyone can have them if they come close to and survive death. And they are so undeniably real to those who have them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

As this NDEr described their NDE:

>"I saw how life never ends. I remembered the process of reincarnation is endless, wonderful and truly eternal. I witnessed my own spiritual evolution and saw that I had existed long before this present incarnation (where I am now a male human). For me, watching the process of living life, after life, after life unfold, was mind-blowing! I undeniably observed that I had lived an innumerable amount of lives. My NDE clearly showed me that these bodies (we now inhabit) are not the first and only time we have existed! I saw that our soul and spirit is ancient! I also observed that there is no such thing as death."

And importantly, even dogmatic skeptics have this reaction, because the NDE convinces everyone. So anyone would be convinced if they had an NDE, we already know this, no one's skepticism is unique. And the book in pic related is known to convince even hardened skeptics that there is an afterlife.

>muh brain chemistry

Neuroscientists are convinced by NDEs too. What do skeptics think they understand that neuroscientists do not?

>muh DMT causes it

Scientifically refuted already, and NDErs who have done DMT too say that the DMT experience, while alien and really cool and fun, was still underwhelming to the point of being a joke when compared to the NDE.

[Anonymous No.22795893]

>>22795732
survival instinct? Instinct? What is an instinct? Where does that come from? Where do I find the location of an instinct in the body?
Joys? Enjoyment? What is that? Where is it located, where does it come from?

Do you see how you do believe in magic?

[Anonymous No.22796395]

>>22795893
Nta, but your argument is retarded. The reason most people are still alive is inertia. NPCs simply exist. They follow their deterministic programming and don't think about life or death at all. Just like a computer doesn't shut itself down unless explicitly instructed to do so.
Perhaps try to invert your argument. It is extremely unnatural actions which require free will. Suicide for example, or transitioning your gender.

[Anonymous No.22796397]

>>22795879
>Bernardo Kastrup
Cringe

[Anonymous No.22796400]

>>22796395
>Nta, but your argument is retarded. The reason most people are still alive is inertia. NPCs simply exist. They follow their deterministic programming and don't think about life or death at all. Just like a computer doesn't shut itself down unless explicitly instructed to do so.
Oh no sorry, that's not actually true, that's a meme that propagated in some corners of the internet disproportionately occupied by people with moderate to severe personality disorders, generally narcissism, because it plays to their image of themselves as "different" and "insightful" and "not like the other people." Basically, you're an extremely small person on the inside who needs to believe things like that about other people, to keep yourself from facing the reality of who you are and what you've become. Basically, so you don't put a gun in your mouth.

[Anonymous No.22796412]

The “problem” presupposes that which is in fact not the case in order to pose the question. In reality, there is no problem.

[Anonymous No.22796436]

>>22796400
Nice projection, but none of this applies to me. Being one of the few conscious persons in a majority NPC society doesn't give me a sense of superiority. On the contrary it makes me feel helpless. I am surrounded by unempathetic, soulless, amoral automata who are immune to truth and blind to aesthetics. It feels like having your life depend on a computer full of buggy, dysfunctional software.

[Anonymous No.22796441]

>>22796436
ok buddy. you keep riding that helltrain to fucktown, obviously no one's going to have the ability to wake you up.

[Anonymous No.22796451]

>>22796400
>THE greater part of mankind may be divided into two classes; that of shallow thinkers, who fall short of the truth; and that of abstruse thinkers, who go beyond it. The latter class are by far the most rare: and I may add, by far the most useful and valuable. They suggest hints, at least, and start difficulties, which they want, perhaps, skill to pursue; but which may produce fine discoveries, when handled by men who have a more just way of thinking. At worst, what they say is uncommon; and if it should cost some pains to comprehend it, one has, however, the pleasure of hearing something that is new. An author is little to be valued, who tells us nothing but what we can learn from every coffee-house conversation.

There are many more historical examples of similar diagnoses. Get your head out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.22796455]

>>22796451
Source?

[Anonymous No.22796820]

>>22796412
Based Blake reader

[Anonymous No.22796838]

>>22793936
Define "mental" (without referring to physical).

[Anonymous No.22796924]

>>22793645
Coping about what?

[Anonymous No.22796935]

>>22796451
>THE greater part of mankind may be divided into two classes; that of shallow thinkers, who fall short of the truth; and that of abstruse thinkers, who go beyond it. The latter class are by far the most rare: and I may add, by far the most useful and valuable. They suggest hints, at least, and start difficulties, which they want, perhaps, skill to pursue; but which may produce fine discoveries, when handled by men who have a more just way of thinking. At worst, what they say is uncommon; and if it should cost some pains to comprehend it, one has, however, the pleasure of hearing something that is new. An author is little to be valued, who tells us nothing but what we can learn from every coffee-house conversation.
so your source for this being true, are the words of privileged men who thought they were important because rich people told them they were? Your argument against the normalfag/importantfag dichotomy being closeted narcissism, is to quote narcissists being narcissistic?
That's fucking wild bro. Get MY head out of my ass? Damnnnnnn

Diogenes and Henry David Thoreau were right; people are faggots, but none of them are more faggoty than the ones who think they're exempt.

[Anonymous No.22796986]

>>22795893
>>22796400
You're extremely dumb. Never post again on this board or site

[Anonymous No.22797008]

>>22796986
stop me from doing it, seeing as how you are a superior human being and all that jazz
use your inherent superiority to stop me

[Anonymous No.22797808]

>>22796838
Just like physical can't be given a full explanation, I'll not attempt to do so for mental. I can give a few examples of purely mental phenomenology though. Qualia, free will, truth, aesthetics, morality. Since none of these can be reduced to physical, the mental must be independent of the physical.

[Anonymous No.22797829]

>>22797808
>none of these can be reduced to physical
Everything we now call "physics" was once assumed to not be reducible to physical. The moment someone measures it the definition of "physical" is expanded to include it.

[Anonymous No.22797844]

>>22797829
The interesting thing is that the above mentioned cannot be measured. They are behind some metaphysical event horizon. Just like it is physically impossible to determine whether a quantum mechanical wave function was in superposition prior to collapsing it.
But yes, ultimately we must extend the standard model to account for consciousness and its interaction with the material world.

[Anonymous No.22798210]

>>22797808
>free will, truth, aesthetics, morality.

Because they are concepts representing something and not concrete things..
You cant expect to have physical messurement of something that is not a concrete thing.

Only thing that actually is geting away from physical messurement is qualia (and the best part is only one defenition of it is doing so -the one assuming qualia is quality of a feeling).

[Anonymous No.22798216]

>>22797844
>behind some metaphysical event horizon

As i said here >>22798210
They are not things.. entity.. concrete beings. Its not metaphysical horizon, its chain of thoughts which serve as criteria to name something beautifull, truthfull or moral.

[Anonymous No.22798281]

>>22797844
>cannot be measured. They are behind some metaphysical event horizon
All action at a distance was once "behind some metaphysical event horizon". Now it's measurable and we just call it physics.

[Anonymous No.22798324]

>>22791629
Not philosophers. Youtubers.
Watch every video on this channel, starting from this one :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kko-hVA-8IU

Hell, read "My Big TOE" from Tom Campbell.

Also, realize that the fact that we don't know about consciousness after all this time is not a bug, it's a feature. You are here, now. This is what matters. The "Why", you make it your own eventually, like you are doing right now by putting focus on unsolvable problems (from our point of view)

It also helped me to think about the problem myself :
>What would I do, if I were anything that were, with nothing more outside of me ?
>How would I know myself if I were everything ?
>How would it feel ?

Think about this and you realize that life is not so dumb after all. After a while, you kinda understand why people like this are happier. >>22793229

[Anonymous No.22798369]

>>22791629
Nagarjuna

[Anonymous No.22798513]

>>22798210
>Because they are concepts representing something and not concrete things..
The issue is not abstraction. We have many abstract concepts which work perfectly fine with science. Force, energy, fields ... all of these are "concepts representing something" and we have no problem investigating them by inference from measurements. The issue with the aforementioned capabilities of consciousness is much deeper. They are a priori in a sense that precedes all thinking.

[Anonymous No.22798779]

>>22798513
The issue is very much abstraction.
Take Gilbert Ryles take on Renes conception of mind called "Ghost in the machyne fallacy" or fallacy that shows it better called "Reification fallacy".

Take for example concept of space. Many think of it as concrete entity and when you tell them there is space time first thing they ask you is "what is it made off?". The answer is: Its not made off anything.. because its mathematical model and not a concrete thing. It represents what is happening and how is it happening.

The same thing occures with concepts we are commenting. People miss to see that those concepts refere to what is happening and how is it happening and not to a concrete thing that hass propertys.

Asking for physical messurement of goodness is implying that certain interaction denoted as good is entity such as sun or rock or human being.

[Anonymous No.22798897]

>>22791629
I got your hard problem right here faggit

[Anonymous No.22799324]

hard conscious problem cucks were so jealous that I solved the problem that they mass reported my thread and had it deleted

[Anonymous No.22799373]

>>22799324
Which thread?

[Anonymous No.22799535]

>>22799373
the "if i took a shotgun and shot you through the head, would you stop thinking" thread

[Anonymous No.22799740]

>>22799535
I'm glad I didn't see that thread. The argument is stupid and has been refuted so many times.