/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11684956
>You claim subjective human experience is different from objective physical mechanisms without explaining why.
Because I'm not neuroscientifically omniscient. My thoughts and experiences are direct observations. If qualia and the neurologiacl mechanisms that cause it are ontologically the same thing, I should be able to directly observe the neurological mechanisms that occur in my brain. Yet I cannot directly observe those mechanisms. If qualia has characteristics like direct observability that neurological processes do not, you must conclude that they are ontologically different.

>>11608992
Qualia being caused by chemical reactions in your brain doesn't mean they are ontologically the same thing.

>>11595360

>>11571277
That's where you're wrong, faggot. Interactionist dualism makes a lot more sense than reductive physicalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX-_G_9kww
http://cogprints.org/6613/1/Dualism0409.pdf

>>11566118
>no consciousness threads

>>11519404
Give me a TL;DW

>>11513463
>Read "The egg" by Andy Weir for some intuition, short story.
"The Egg" just seems like a glorified form of Closed Individualism with reincarnation. If The Egg is true, you still have to concede that "you" are some entity that "moves" from lifetime to lifetime. The Egg doesn't seem particularly compatible with reductive physicalism or a block universe view of time, so you would probably have to concede some form of dualism.

>If you want a rigorous proof of OI read a serious treatment of it, like Daniel Kolak
I read the first few chapters of it, and none of Kolak's arguments made any sense to me. Would you mind giving a TL;DR? I've asked Open Individualists how they reconcile OI with the fact that I can directly observe being this particular human at this particular moment, and I've rarely gotten anything deeper than "It's just an illusion bro".

>>11510573
>while maintaining a materialism view of the conciousness/mind-brain problem
Why would you want to be a materialist?

>>11487656

What's the correct theory of consciousness, /sci/?

How far down the consciousness rabbit hole have you gone, /sci/?

>>9625967
The truth is we have no idea what's going on with consciousness. Anyone who claims otherwise is talking out of their ass.

Can science ever solve the hard problem of consciousness, /sci/?

It poses the question of why it feels like anything to be you from the inside. Why all the functions of the brain emerging from every molecule interaction doesn't just happen without a phenomenological subject there to experience it. To pose it in a slightly different language: Why there is an "I" present? An "I" does not need to be present, hypothetically, for you to exhibit the exact same behavior.

>>9455510

Just a reminder that this infograpgh is horribly inaccurate, unhelpful, and misleading to someone who haven't heard about these positions before.