/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10465562
how the fuck are we suppose to answer that when we don't understand consciousness?
closest i can say is.........................maybe.............maybe not

>>10465562
This is a silly question, but I'll bite. Why wouldn't it? Complexity? It's nature?

No, but physicality can be explained in consciousness terms....

>>10465564
fuck off retard nobody asked you
>>10465570
this

>>10465563
It boils down to the hard problem of consciousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

That it feels like something to be you from a first person perspective, what it's like to experience the color red, is just something that evades any mechanistic physical explanation, since any mechanistic explanation you outline one can imagine those mechanisms simply playing out without any of the qualia. Because qualia seems like something entirely different compared to physical behavior of matter, it seems impossible to ever explain qualia with behavior.

>>10465562
>Could consciousness ever be explained in physical terms?
define "consciousness"

>>10465562
Is there anything "physical" about consciousness?

neurons tau proteins
done

>>10465573
bitch, you don't know shit
this >>10465570 is just him saying we are able to think

>>10465595
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

>>10465601
I think he's making the case for idealism, that everything is ultimately mental.

Langan sucks.

>>10465625
well i ain't dippin my toes into that philosophical clusterfuck

>>10465639
this

>>10465562
The physicalism metaphysics might hit a dead ends before that happens. Neutral monism might be the next big bandaid fix to save face

>>10465562
No

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

>>10465837
Also substance based dualism/monism/idealism might be a dead end

>>10465562
Pain

>>10465562
no.
physicalism maybe the framework extending from the pragmatism we use to avoid sollipsism - in a world that can be strongly argued (a la Berkeley) to have an idealistic ontology - to interact with others and enforce regularity onto mental concept.
but is physicalism the ontological basis of your interactions in the world? let me ask you that. Is physical knowledge a necessity?

>>10466920
cont.

just check these out to see how illusory our perception of the world. its regularities etc. completely illusory. the feel of your feet on the ground is illusory.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/10-viral-optical-illusions-broke-the-internet-cognition-perception/amp

>>10465562
I don't think consciousness is real. Everything I do is controlled by my limbic system.

>>10465562
No because there's no such thing as consciousness or sentience, at least in the way we typically think of it.

>>10466933
heres an interesting question: can one be an idealist and not believe in consciousness?

>>10465641
Cringe and yikespilled. Is this what the typical denizen of /sci/ is like?

We'll have artificially replicated it in less than 100 years. My guess is about 30 years, though

>>10465562
yeah its just like a big muscle go boom boom boom and then there was dance

>>10465562
Sure.

>>10465582
“Seems”

What a scientific term.