/sci/ - Science & Math

ask people what they think about free will

>>10377100
what is solipsism

>>10377100
consciousness doesn't exist, we just act based on our environment and our previous thoughts. We're all just biological machines

>>10377155
My NPC radar goes crazy

>>10377100
Consciousness is a result of our biology (unless you believe in magic)
All humans share similar biology
I experience consciousness
Thus, all humans experience consciousness

>>10377299

what about black people?

>>10377326
5th reply aint bad i guess, usually its sooner

>>10377155
Settle down, Bill Nye.

>>10377100
Nobody is an NPC.
It's just a joke.
Why?
The proof is simple.
Try going down the NPC road and see where that leads.
I'll tell you where it leads.
It leads to solipsism.
And solipsism leads to madness.
The fact that solipsism leads to madness means solipsism is wrong.
If it wasn't wrong it would lead to enlightenment, not madness.
So if solipsism is wrong, it means NPCs theory is also wrong.

I know exactly how you feel. Literally everyone next to me feel like cardboard cutouts of each other, even my friends start feeling like NPC’s

>>10377100

>More and more I feel like people are NPC's. They are basically robots. I used to think that maybe 50% of people are NPCs but now I think closer to 95%.

This is a reflection on you. People aren't getting less expressive / humane, you are. If the only engagements with people you have is boring small talk, thats on you.

>>10377419
>>10377446
>>10377100
ultimately if you're seeing people as NPCs, its an issue with you're seeing people. People aren't turning into robots, you guys are just less capable of empathizing with people.

>>10377455
its an issue with HOW* you're seeing people

>>10377410
Solipsism doesn't cause madness, it's only when you use it as an excuse to doubt the world rather than to explore it that you become insane. And even if that were the only avenue, there's no way to know what enlightenment is and how that's any different from madness itself.
The logic of the NPC idea is an observation that can't be disproven, the goal is not to legitimately doubt whether people are human but to compare their behavior to digital creations either as a way to poke fun or to make a comment on social trends.

More and more I'm beginning to think that maybe I'M not conscious. Sure I perform complex operations, have memory, some inputs and outputs. Computers have that too, are they conscious? I think it's just a matter of the complexity of the logic circuit. The more capacity for calculation the more alive it will be.

>>10377100
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7DmA3yWwa6AT5jFXt/zombies-redacted

>>10377539
It's impossible to lack a conscious from a first person perspective since you need the conscious thought to be able to determine whether or not you do
Computers as they are now do not have the architectural support for a consciousness. Even if you had infinite time, I doubt you could program any computer on Earth to function like a brain (at least in real time). At some point it's likely that a new way to compute will become mainstream and we can all have AI buddies, just not today or the next.

>>10377541
I miss the old chad
when the format wasnt just "bad person" vs "good person"

>>10377100
I think this is a question that should be posted in /lit/, not on /sci/. Do you anons have any understanding at all of what Science is proper and how to define it's boundaries? What you're talking right now is exactly pure philosophical speculation and there's and maybe never will be a scientific answer as this lies completely outside of its scope. Honestly, mods should just delete OP for posting a thread non-related to the board.

I'd define consciousness as just the ability to acknowledge one's own self/being. Now, that only happens when some sort of external influence forces you to do so like when you look in a mirror, feel pain, or when some fag tells you that consciousness does/doesnt exist.
Or something internal such as when the idea of consciously randomly pops into your head and then you think about yourself. I'd also argue that self balancing robots are conscious in some sense because they are able to know their current position and make certain adjustments based on some feedback loop algorithm

>>10377100
You have an extreme mental illness and are becoming a solipsist. Check yourself into the local mental hospital.

>>10377114
Disproven by basic physics.

>>10377693
>I'd define consciousness as just the ability to acknowledge one's own self/being. Now, that only happens when some sort of external influence forces you to do so like when you look in a mirror, feel pain, or when some fag tells you that consciousness does/doesnt exist. Or something internal such as when the idea of consciously randomly pops into your head and then you think about yourself
That's really stupid, so you're saying a person isn't consciousness when he isn't thinking about his own consciousness? Don't you realize that there are many moments during the day where one's conscious but not even thinking about oneself?

Why is everybody on /sci/ such fucking brainlets? Lit is times more intelligent and knowledgeable than any of you fucking pseuds. Fucking hell. You don't even have any idea of what consciousness is and you come here talking bullshit like this.
>pic unrelated

>>10377747
>you're saying a person isn't consciousness
>Why is everybody on /sci/ such fucking brainlets?
Pot, meet kettle

>>10377762
You shut your fucking mouth. What you had just said was retarded. Consciousness and qualia are a mental phenomena that defies a proper definition, as it has many inherently subjective qualities to it. But your definition is really a stupid one because all of the time we are thinking, doing, perceiving and having a qualia sense without our actually acknowledging or abstractly thinking of it. What you said would be as if we were 99% of our life unconscious unless we said to ourselves continuously "I am conscious" all the time, which basically does nothing. Consciousness is a phenomena that's happening all the time and is not just a simple assertion you make to yourself once in a while, you dumbass. If you want to talk about consciousness at least have some basic understanding of philosophy of mind, and if you don't, then at least have some knowledge of neuroscience and discuss consciousness having that as basis. If you don't, then you can just fuck right off, you enormous fucking brainlet.

>>10377944
For one thing dude, that wasn't me, I was just pointing out two of your multiple grammatical mistakes
Here are some more:
>times more intelligent
>a mental phenomena
>having a qualia sense without
>99% of our life unconscious
>is a phenomena

This is a question like 'how do I even know that world isn't simulation'. Any proof can be described as part of simulation/program of your NPC.

>>10377957
Go fuck yourself dude, this isn't a fucking english class.

>>10377971
It is when you act like you have any right to call people brainlets, you catatonic fuckface

>>10377586

>>10377410
>appeal to consequences
>proof
Try learning a little more about proof before using the word "proof".

>>10377985
I just realized that chad doesn't bother to use a chair
Truly epic

>>10377695
i have a serious question for you anon.
i had one of those random enlightenment experiences and was basically a carefree solipsist for a while until money ran out.
honestly it's been pretty difficult trying to figure out how to take part in society again.
i'm not lazy, if anything i'm one of the most self-motivated ambitious people i know. but i just struggle, beyond anything i ever expected, to be motivated to take part in a world i know is a figment of my mind. trust me, i try.
treatment at a mental health facility is not an option. have you ever tried having a cogent discussion about ontology and similar topics with a fucking doctor?
i've actually worked in research at the biggest such facility in canada and i can tell you the actual psychiatrists who run the place are borderline sociopathic (ok, being a little dramatic here) opportunists.
wat do??

>>10377628
seriously anon, take your micromanaging bullshit elsewhere. on a board filled with threads about youtube celebrities, toilet practices, and edgy faggots trying to justify pedophilia, you pick this thread to make your stand? hang your head.

>/pol/tards learn the concept of solipsism for the first time through a dumb meme
>babby tier brains can't handle it
wew

>>10377100
>How do I even know that other people are even conscious
You dont "know," you make the assumption because the alternative is solopism and solopism is retarded. Brainlet.

>>10377410
>The fact that solipsism leads to madness means solipsism is wrong.
>If it wasn't wrong it would lead to enlightenment, not madness.
Wrong. The only distinction between madness and enlightenment is an arbitrary, subjective one. Madness is a mental state with deleterious affects on either an individual or others around them, which results in ostracization from their peers. Enlightenment is a mental state in which an individual gains a greater or deeper understanding of an aspect or principle of the world around them, and can be extremely liberating. These definitions are not mutually exclusive, but are highly subjective. What's more, enlightenment often results in ostracization from peers if it's is great enough to shift one's worldview far enough out of sync with what is socially or culturally acceptable, and since ostracization is always deleterious to an individual's social standing, this means that sufficient enlightenment is indistinguishable from madness.

>>10378146
Please read my post >>10378129
to elaborate further, after a random experience made me realize certain things and gave me a peace I had never experienced before, i went down the rabbit hole and started to realize that everything i ever thought i "believed" or took for granted was an illusion. after more rational thinking and analysis, my perceptions started to shift to the point that i stopped perceiving a difference between my"self" and everything else.
i know i slowly drifted from my friends, some of whom probably thought i went off the deep end.
it's been a little difficult trying to readjust to everyday reality.

Why do the biggest retards type the most?
>muh existential crisis

>>10377100
Do you have any good reason to assume that other people aren't like you?

>>10377944
Screeching "you can't define that!"is baseless and unhelpful. Qualia in particular is defined as subjective experiences. It doesn't matter that the subject matter is by definition inaccessible.

>>10378164
Don't "reintegrate" into society, that's just newspeak for "changing yourself to become an asset" for society. Instead, try and hone that intuitive grasp of holistic causality that I know you had a some point, and then use it to help you shape society, your environment, the world around you to better adhere to your ideals. Simple example would be identifying key points of power in your local community, places which have a strong influence on the flow of events, people or groups that have their fingers in lots of pies, places where you can easily aquire certain information and resources, and then once you understand how it all works, simply...leverage it all to better yourself, your life, and the community, in whatever ways you see fit. But do keep in mind that you will not be the only one doing this, the only one with a comprehensive grasp of systems, and keep an eye out for such groups and indivials. In time, you'll understand how to leverage any and every resource to achieve or obtain any outcome. Use it for good.

>>10378210
i don't know what your story is anon, but i just want you to know how grateful i am for your reply. this is the first time i've ever had a mature conversation about this thing.
i now remember being extremely motivated at one point to do something like what you mention. i guess i just lost sight of the forest for the trees for a while, but this has helped me refocus.
thank you.

>>10378255
No problem, anon.

this thread has stopped because a couple of you managed to turn it into a fagfest about "spiritual experiences".
go fuck yourselves.

>>10377100
>More and more I feel like people are NPC's
We're all being brain damaged on every front.
-Early umbilical clamping
-Vitamin K
-Vaccines
-More vaccines
-Wireless
-Fluoridated water
-Poison food
-Massive amounts of aluminum in the air

This is man's final moments. It's up to us whether it's a bang or a small, pitiful little whimper.

>>10378615
>what are chemtrails, what is flat earth, what are aliens : the post

>>10378605
why the hate anon? come join me in my spiritual experience :)

>>10379212
ur an asshat

>>10379215
guve me a recap

>>10379324
tldr; love you anon ;)

>>10377100
>>>/his/
sage

This is really no way to truly know if anyone but yourself is phenomenally conscious, ie that it feels like something to be them. You're locked into your own mind and all you can observe from the external world are behaviors.

But just because you can't know doesn't mean there isn't good reason to think others are conscious. You can make pretty good inductive arguments from the fact that your brain structure is very similar to others, and they engage in the same kind of behavior you do in regard to their own consciousness, ie "I'm conscious, I feel things", so it's a safe to assume they actually are feeling things.

You can make inductive arguments in the other direction as well, and I'm not sure why you believe some people aren't conscious, but I've had similar thoughts about people who don't have any concept of phenomenal consciousness, who deny that they themselves are conscious, and can't seem to understand what the hard problem of consciousness is even getting at. It could be that these people aren't conscious, or it could be that the phenomena is so hard to get at with language and misunderstandings happen.

>>10381546
but what exactly is thr difference between them "feeling" things and their neural machinery carrying out those computations that are equivalent.

>>10382424
Because unless you want to completely eliminate the phenomenal aspect of feelings (and by that I mean that it feels like something for you as a subject to feel pain or see the color red) it can't really be reduced to mere computation or complex particle behavior in any conceivable way. A physical explanation of how your brain works and what neurons fire only tells you about its behavior, but nothing about what makes it feel things as a subject, or why that happens. This is what's so puzzling about consciousness. To put it in a more formally, phenomenal properties are not necessitated by physical properties, so an explanation of phenomenal properties can't be found in the physical properties. From this one makes the argument that consciousness can't be the same thing as neural machinery carrying out computations, for the same reason the actual letter A isn't identical to the meaning of the letter A (Don't take the analogy too direct, it's hard to make any perfectly coherent analogy since phenomenal consciousness seems so different from any actual thing in the external world).

>>10382542
>it can't really be reduced to mere computation or complex particle behavior
but then where is this supposed missing phenomenal information?
the feelings are driven by and explained physically by the neurons. where is the extra information for the feeling part?

>>10382699
>the feelings are driven by and explained physically by the neurons
This is what I contested in my post. You can explain the behavioral aspect of a feeling (e.g the act of screaming while being in pain), but not the phenomenal aspect (experiencing the feeling of pain).

>where is the extra information for the feeling part?
We don't really know right now. One popular view right now is panpsychism, which postulates that phenomenal consciousness is a fundamental property at the lowest level of physics, which means there is something it's like to be an electron on a very simple scale. This gets around the problem of how something phenomenal could emerge from non-phenomenal stuff since it was there all along, but it has some problems too, like explaining how individual parts of phenomenally conscious particles come together into the sort of unity that our phenomenal experiences seem to have.

>>10382732
>You can explain the behavioral aspect of a feeling (e.g the act of screaming while being in pain), but not the phenomenal aspect (experiencing the feeling of pain).
yes but theres no doubt in the physical universe there is only the neural activity anad that is physically the same as what someone feels subjectively even if you cant explain why.

>>10382787
I mean I've spent 3 posts now outlining what I think are some pretty good reasons to think these two things aren't the same. I'm not sure what to tell you.

>>10382787
How could the neural activity possibly be physically the same as what someone feels? I don't envision my own neural activity when I feel pain. I simply feel pain. How does the neural activity result in a first person experience? We have no solid answer to that question. It's easy to see how input into a system results in a response from the system, but why does the system experience this? And why should it? What's the evolutionary value of consciousness?

>>10382807
well they arent the same conceptually but if you agree that everything that exists is in a physical universe then there cant be anything other than the neurons themselves. so where is the extra information which defines the feeling.

>I don't envision my own neural activity when I feel pain.
but you are your neural activity.

>What's the evolutionary value of consciousness?
there cant be any if there is no extra information in existence for survival value to be added.

>How does the neural activity result in a first person experience?
i dont get this. its structured to be your first person experience. it isnt separate from it.

>>10382843
>but if you agree that everything that exists is in a physical universe then there cant be anything other than the neurons themselves

Correct, maybe I should have been clear and prefaced that all the arguments I've outlined are really arguments against Physicalism (the view that everything that exists is physical). I think the problems that come with trying to fit phenomenal consciousness into a Physicalistic framework are severe enough to abandon Physicalism. I think consciousness is a non-physical property in that it's about something completely different than the structure and behavior of fundamental particles.

>>10382843
>but if you agree that everything that exists is in a physical universe then there cant be anything other than the neurons themselves

Correct, maybe I should have been clear and prefaced that all the arguments I've outlined are really arguments against Physicalism (the view that everything that exists is physical). I think the problems that come with trying to fit phenomenal consciousness into a Physicalistic framework are severe enough to abandon Physicalism. I think consciousness is a non-physical property in that it's about something completely different than the structure and behavior of matter.

>>10382861
i dont think the problem is that severe when you consider that the problem is about explanations and not necessarily the things themselves. im not sure they should be conflated. I also think our limited understanding of the brain too is a factor. i dont think its worth abandoning physicalism given its simplicity.

>>10382923
Yes, an epistemological problem is not necessarily a metaphysical problem, but I think it serves as a good guide. We rely on similar inferences in other domains all the time.

Free will doesn't exist, brainlet. Everyone is equally 100% programmed. Just because you're programmed better than literal sub humans does not mean you have control.

>>10384100
this is different though.

the fact that someones attitude to the hard problem can be predicted purely by the behaviour of their neurons completely undermines the validity of the phenomenal component. it makes it redundant.
it makea it more likely the problem is in the behaviour of the neurons rather than some metaphysical problem.

>>10384124
woops thought this was the other conscious thread

>>10384124
>the fact that someones attitude to the hard problem can be predicted purely by the behaviour of their neurons completely undermines the validity of the phenomenal component
You're begging the question that it can be predicted though. We're very far from being able to run experiments that can mechanistically analyze and predict the semantic content of our mental states.

But even if it were the case; even if thoughts like "the hard problem is so puzzling! " can be predicted perfectly according to the laws of physics, that still leaves open the metaphysical question. One could simply hold that phenomenal properties are somehow interwoven into some fundamental physical behavior of particles, behavior that is already modeled in our physical models. My thoughts about the hard problem would correspond to our models of physics, but the nature of the underlying causes that make the particles behave as they do is something the model either misses or is neutral on.

Isn’t there?

Sometimes when I'm in public I look at all the people around me and they really do seem like NPCs, they don't seem to have that much awareness and they look like copies of each other

But maybe I look the same way, maybe everyone just likes to think they are unique but they're not

>>10384507
>You're begging the question
its logical... the brain structure is the key. given the same brain structure and same environmental influences youll get the same outcomes. doesnt matter if we can do it yet, it follows. its why people are similar to eachother.

>One could simply hold that phenomenal properties are somehow interwoven into some fundamental physical behavior of particles
but my point is that those properties are unnecessary to trigger the brains thoughts. and my point is if this is so, the problem is more likely with how the brain works and we perceive the world rather than some ontological metaphysical problem.

>>10378146
Wrong.
The difference between madness and enlightenment is completely objective and does not depend on the individual but on others perception of him.
If people think you are mad, then you are mad.
If people think you are enlightened, then you are enlightened.
Every rambling schizo think they are enlightened. They aren't because nothing they say makes sense to others.
I'm sorry anon. You are not enlightened. You are just crazy.

>>10385014
>its logical...
Yes it's logical if you presuppose the very underlying metaphysical framework that I'm arguing against.
"A is true because A is true."

>but my point is that those properties are unnecessary to trigger the brains thoughts
They wouldn't be though, not if those properties do have a causal effect and make fundamental particles behave in a certain way. If you were God and you were to reside in a possible world in which this was the case, then particles would start to behave differently, and maybe people would stop saying things like "consciousness is so weird". The reason this behavior isn't "detected" or distinguished is because it's already baked into our models, we just don't know what's causing particles to behave the way they do on the fundamental level. The light in the room comes on, but we don't know who pressed the light-switch. All the physical models can tell us is that the light came on, when it comes on, and what effects it has.

>>10377410
bad attempt. You should've presented it as a functional perspective rather than trying to make it seem like a logical certainty, because then you would've probably been right

>>10377100
no. Some of them are dumb and lack curiosity but for many of them you probably just don't interact with them enough in the proper contexts to get an idea regarding the depth of their personality

>>10377135
The last step before realizing determinism

>>10377410
>Solipsism is wrong because it hurts me head
Is this the same mindset people have for the idea that dark matter might not exist and we just have an incorrect understanding of physics

If only you were conscious, with everyone else being an "NPC", wouldn't that make you a kind of God?

The reason people resemble NPCs is because they have been programmed by a society that takes advantage of this. We all display NPC traits to some degree, but those who have ingratiated into mainstream society the most, will likely be the most NPC-like.

>this thread

>>10385133
>Yes it's logical if you presuppose the very underlying metaphysical framework that I'm arguing against.
yes i do presuppose that the world behaves according to physical laws including brains... and that if you repeat the same conditions, the same thing should happen (atleast when it comes to macroscopia). This is atleast how the world seems to me through science.

>They wouldn't be though, not if those properties do have a causal effect and make fundamental particles behave in a certain way. If you were God and you were to reside in a possible world in which this was the case, then particles would start to behave differently, and maybe people would stop saying things like "consciousness is so weird". The reason this behavior isn't "detected" or distinguished is because it's already baked into our models, we just don't know what's causing particles to behave the way they do on the fundamental level. The light in the room comes on, but we don't know who pressed the light-switch. All the physical models can tell us is that the light came on, when it comes on, and what effects it has.
not sure what youre getting at.

>>10377410
let us EMBRACE madness

>>10385594
>yes i do presuppose that the world behaves according to physical laws including brains... and that if you repeat the same conditions, the same thing should happen

I guess we have to distinguish between posing that two systems with identical states subjected to identical conditions will act the same (which I can agree with), and posing that it's possible with the laws of physics as we know them right now to not only predict that David Chalmers will go on about his hard problem, but also explain from the bottom up why he does so. It could be that if we ever get around to running that experiment, the prediction/simulation you run of David Chalmer's brain won't correspond to what he actually says, because the laws of physics as you know them lack the phenomenal aspect. There is simply no way for you to deny this a priori.

>>10385594
>yes i do presuppose that the world behaves according to physical laws including brains... and that if you repeat the same conditions, the same thing should happen

I guess we have to distinguish between posing that two systems with identical states subjected to identical conditions will act the same (which I can agree with), and posing that it's possible with the laws of physics as we know them right now to not only predict that David Chalmers will go on about his hard problem, but also explain from the bottom up why he does so. It could be that if we ever get around to running that experiment, the prediction/simulation you run of David Chalmer's brain won't correspond to what he actually says, because the laws of physics as you know them lack the phenomenal aspect. There is simply no way for you to rule this out a priori.

It's pretty simple really. Some people have inner monologues some don't/never use them. Mental mutes. If you know this one thing then everything about these people makes so much more sense.

>>10385730
Not everybody requires an inner monologue to think. You translate your thoughts to words, which takes time. It's therefore actually quicker to not use this tool.
While the inability to use it at all does make your mental state questionable, complete reliance on it is just as bad if not worse.

>>10385741

>You translate your thoughts to words, which takes time.

Spoken like a true mental mute. If you had an inner monologue you would know that it is instantaneous, and the thoughts are the words.

>>10385641
>r/philosophy the post
thank you for your contribution esteemed sir.

>>10385774
>If you had an inner monologue you would know that it is instantaneous, and the thoughts are the words.
>and the thoughts are the words.

Are you not able to think without language?

>>10385774
Spoken like a true retard who can't think without words

>>10385786
he's saying that some thoughts appear to him as verbal expressions. I don't know about him, but I experience that all day long as well. I also think while I'm playing an instrument, jerking off, driving, etc. and these thoughts rarely take on verbal form

I mean I rarely think with words
when doing maths I smosh and push stuff around in my head like imagining myself lifting the column matrix of unknowns and pushing it down over the matrix of coefficients

most of my thoughts are just extremely chunked to the extent I struggle to actually put them into words in an uncompressed form I guess
which means it is tricky to put my feelings into words too which sucks a bit

>>10385788
>>10385786

No, you mental mutes, possessing an inner monologue does not mean that one only think in words. Again, you would know that if you had one. The proof that you don't have an inner monologue is that you have to translate your "thoughts" into words. Of course, due to your conditions, you are unable to do the self-reflection needed to process the information I'm giving you.

>>10385824
>No, you mental mutes, possessing an inner monologue does not mean that one only think in words.
Then you're just a regular retard who couldn't understand my original post

>>10377541
less wrong is about as far from chad as it gets

>>10385824
>>10385826
this is what happens when people who lack the cognitive faculty for purely verbal thought try to engage in verbal debate with those for whom language isn't a scary intermediary, but a natural form of expression.
topkek
>oops! forgot to translate for the retards!
tldr; if you don't have an inner monologue you are dum dum

>>10385885
>>10385885
>>10385824
>>10385774

>>10377100
open your eyes and see people doing shit they wouldnt do if they were npcs

>>10385292
You are right. I think (some) people might come to the conclusion that you are either an NPC or not an NPC, because of this whole inner-monologue thing.

The way i perceive the NPC meme today, is almost like a western version of buddhism in the most crude sense. A major point in eastern philosophy is the idea that "you" are not your thoughts/emotions. Buddhism posits that the "buddha nature" is within everyone. But I am really struggling to believe that everyone is capable of realizing this. Maybe when you die, you'll have a sudden realization of this grand illusion, or maybe not. I dont know.

Point is the way we have evolved, we are merely just machines that are programmed through the constant information that we are constantly receiving.

And i think society's programming is what makes it even more harder to see this programming. We are conditioned to identify with certain things, and that these certain things are who we are! I am a male, I am a female, I am transgender! etc..

Thats also the funny thing with the stigma attached to mental illness. I think some people might experience moments where the realization of the whole game comes upon them, but the idea of this grand delusion is just too strong for them to handle.

basically, NPC's struggle to let go. and maybe thats because they dont know how to? but in the end we are all still NPC's. maybe?

>>10377410
>The fact that solipsism leads to madness means solipsism is wrong.

>>10377944
btfo

>>10378146
>>10378164
based and fuko-deleuze pilled

>>10377100
At the end of the day you can't prove anything, you can only act on what's useful. It's useful to believe that other people are real because that forces you to be nice to them, and you need them to better yourself.

>>10377410
The difference between enlightenment and madness is just a matter of opinion, though.

>>10377100

Congratulations, anon. You have craweled out of the primordial amphibious muck of Science, to begin to ask real questions of Ontology. You are, for the very first time in your tiny little mind's life, glimpsing a much larger vista: Philosophy.

Some philosophers refer to your problem as the Zombie problem because, in a definite sense, it is always impossible to know to a certainty that others, who appear to be as you are, really do think and feel in a similar way as you do.. It (the problem) is also called solipsism.

>>10377100
you're hard projecting lmfao

>>10385672
>David Chalmer's brain won't correspond to what he actually says, because the laws of physics as you know them lack the phenomenal aspect
theres no evidence for this. this is bad speculation. given how we know roughly how neurons work there is no reason to believe what you say.

this is extremely fucking bad grasping at straws and its a terrible theory anyway since it adds absolutely no explanatory power to anything since we know nothing about phenomena except that we "feel".

go sit in the naughty corner for your terrible idea.

>>10385672
given that brains can be broken down into constituent bits such as cells or molecules or even atoms (which we understand reasonably well) which we dont posit phenomena for then id say theres no reason to give them phenomena arbitrarily just by adding them up. you could argue that maybe all matter has phenomena needes to abide by physical laws but then again none of our physical models which work well now require phenomena so its doubtful. youre basically positing god.

>>10378020
that is actually pretty epic

>>10386612
i know