/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11987355

> An End to Upside Down Thinking on Consciousness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK4ezkrTa6Y

> Is Consciousness More than the Brain?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-6hosFAObI

> The Mystery of Consciousness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRGzJg5A3m8

> Are Human Beings Robots?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4henADqlFto

> "Mind to Matter" and the Mind/Body Connection
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beuRUpcfYT8

> The Role of Consciousness in Health and Healing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0Lq9ubiYus

> Scientific Evidence of PSI and Survival of Consciousness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saLnYMis8JM

> The Sun's Influence on Consciousness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3qY5ewHAeo

It's an emergent property. When we figure out how to deal with those faggots like >>11987412 will finally shut the fuck up and fuck off with their Chopra shit

>>11987355

well, obviously it depends on the definition of consciousness. If you give consciousness a functional psychological definition, say awakedness/responsiveness to stimuli, then yeah

but if you define consciousness as purely subjective experience of qualia, then obviously no, since science can only deal with objective observables

>>11987880
What kind of emergent property? How can something that's not about the mere behavior and organization of matter like consciousness emerge out of the behavior and organization of matter?

>>11987880

>emergence
>not Chopra shit

okey, buddy ...

>>11987412
>eu garbage
into the trash it goes

>>11988516
Look a single water molecule. It consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen. You can know more or less how it will behave according to different physical properties like temperature, pressure, entropy and so by using various physical models and formulae.
Yet when you can't possibly tell if water as a liquid will be able to, for example, it's density behaving non-linearly, it's wetness, effects on interactions such as sand, solids, other kind of liquids, etc. You can't know how vapor acts on metals such as iron, or how the ice will act on huge scales such as polar caps on planets.
At least not yet.
Consciousness is obviously a property of the brain, like wetness is of water, you can't have consciousness without it.

>>11988602
But consciousness is completely dis-analogous to the water molecule example. How water comes to behave in very complex, macro environments are still a question of how something will behave, whereas with consciousness there seems to emerge something that isn't reducible to any sort of underlying behavior. Having a first person experience of the world, being a subject of experience, it being something that "it's like" to be you, having qualia, this is a property of the world that seems impossible to cash out in terms of complex behavior.

Obviously by consciousness I'm not talking about intelligence / decision making, but consciousness in the philosophers' definition: having conscious experience / qualia.

>>11988516
>>11988675
consciousness is by definition about the behavior and organization of matter, it's basically the readout from a bunch of cooperative gauges that measure the matter around you
your body is a cooperative assemblage of tools for measuring the physical world, your consciousness is the real-time output of those tools' measurements

>>11989491
this is not an explanation, this is a description

>>11989575
qualia are internally generated descriptions of physical properties (light, chemical composition, temperature, etc)
if consciousness is the ability to experience qualia, it's a physical phenomenon (which it is), and IS reducible to "underlying behavior" (the world existing around it and impressing itself upon it via physical interactions)
you're imposing mysterious attributes onto the concept of consciousness that don't exist, and then asking for explanations for them.

qualia doesn't exist, it's as vague as soul

>>11990018
qualia just means personal experience, it's pretty straightforward

>>11990021
then what's the difference with memories or consciousness?

>>11990029
memories are just Thoughts, they're an element of consciousness. thoughts are created physically, they're not supernatural or something. everything your brain does is physical

>>11990044
then qualia must be physical, or have a physical basis too, right?

>>11990062
yes

>>11990067
how could you measure it?

>>11990071
https://imotions.com/blog/top-3-devices-measuring-brain-activity/

>>11990077
so, qualia is just another way to describe what's called as brain activity

>>11990086
yep

>>11990087
then, what's the difference with qualia and brain activity? why the need of use another word to describe what is already a thing being studied?

>>11990086
it feels like you're fighting me on something we actually agree about
I'm not OP, I'm this guy >>11989587

>>11987880
The only way to shut their stupid mouth is to build an IA whose action and behavior is indistinguishable from humans.

>>11990089
it's just a fucking word, why are you being so autistic about it? it's shorthand for "subjective personal experience", it doesn't suddenly mean emotions and experience are magic

>>11990094
i'm not who needs to invent another word to separate his species from the rest of the natural world, and needs to cling to already existing terminology to do so

>>11990101
what the fuck are you talking about, all living things with consciousness experience qualia

>>11990092
we've already got animals bro they just pretend their reaction to stimuli somehow is different from the specific H. sapiens'
>>11990106
what's a living thing without consciousness?

>>11990110
a plant's a good example
basically anything that can't think

>>11990111
but they're only limited by their own biology, they can still interact with their environment too, like nematodes

>>11990113
>but they're only limited by their own biology
yes

>>11990116
so, simple living things can experience some form of consciousness too, very basal is it, as their experiences are their own

>>11990138
yes

>>11990139
so everything that can interact with it's environment, having their own "personal" experiences, has qualia

>>11990146
everything that has a brain has qualia
a brain is required for consciousness

>>11990149
then, again, qualia is exactly the same as brain activity, why the need to call it something else? why occam's razor doesn't apply to it?

>>11990155
it's one word taking the place of three, that's all
instead of saying "subjective personal experience", you shorten it to "qualia", that's fucking it
you're being stupidly obstinate about this, it's not a philosophical discussion, it's just practical

>>11990161
it's not practical, i can call it soul too, or source of the living self, or quantum caused personality shift
occam's razor and common sense in the form of standardization removes the need to do so

>>11990173
>I can call it soul too
do whatever you fucking want, you're a fucking idiot

>>11990179
why are you so mad bro i was enjoying this conversation...

>>11990184
>i was enjoying this conversation...
fuck you. FUCK YOU

>>11989587

the problem of qualia seems to be lost on you. It is impossible to express qualia objectively, since it is inherently subjective. When someone else says that an object is red, you cannot know if they're not seeing the color blue instead. As long as we refer to things in a socially coherent way, there is no way to know what kind of qualia other people are having. That's the whole point with pure experiences. Qualia is not available to observation or experimentation. From a physical, naturalistic perspective, someone claiming to have pure experiences is talking nonsense. There is no such thing. It must some kind of evolutionary signaling behavior too make them seem special or some kind of spandrel (not qualia, but the expression of reference to such imaginary phenomena).

from a naturalistic, scientific standpoint, we can say the same thing about thoughts and emotions and mental reflection too. There is no such thing. There is only brain activity and behavior. Also, numbers, logical operations, geometry etc have no physical correlates, and are thus also spooks. No experience, subjectivity, no platonic forms. It's all just nonsense. References to imaginary non-physical realms, to non-extented phenomena.

>>11990242
>It is impossible to express qualia objectively, since it is inherently subjective.
yeah, no shit
doesn't change the fact that that subjective experience is the result of your body measuring the physical environment it's part of
it's like saying two people reacting to the same joke or song differently are experiencing two different jokes or songs, they're not. A deaf person just can't hear the song, it doesn't mean the song doesn't exist. A person who doesn't speak English won't understand a pun in that language, it doesn't mean the pun doesn't exist. A person who associates a song with the death of his mother will cry, a person who associates it with losing his virginity will be nostalgic. The song remains constant.
experiences being subjective doesn't change the mechanics of what create an experience in the first place. there IS no qualia problem. "qualia" is just a descriptor.

>>11990252

>subjective experience is the result of your body measuring the physical environment it's part of

there is no such thing as subjective experience at all ... subjective experience is non-scientific dribble

>>11990263
>there is no such thing as subjective experience at all
you're going to have to elaborate on a statement that ridiculous, that's some braindead shit

>>11990267

Fine, I'll spoon feed you

saying "subjective experience is real" is not an observation statement. That is, it is not possible to disconfirm using observation or experimentation. Not being an observational statement means that it is a non-scientific statement, which means that it is a super-natural/religious/spiritual statement and thus non-serious trash

>>11990276
in other words, you're retarded

>>11987355
Get hit by a baseball bat in the back of your neck. You'll understand soon enough that consciousness is physical.

>>11990263
>there is no such thing as subjective experience at all ... subjective experience is non-scientific dribble
Lmao, look at this fagtron3000

>>11990278

all mental content are made up theoretical constructs used to approximate activational patterns in the brain. They are purely theoretical helps and have no extentional existence in physical reality

Memory? Just a pattern of neuronal activity. Emotion? Just a pattern of neuronal and hormonal activity. Executive function? Just a pattern of neuronal and hormonal activity

Only the physical stuff is real. Everything else is illusory. Pure subjective experience is so far out on the non-existence spectrum that even mentioning it makes you makes you a quantum-woo, Chopra-spouting, ghost-beliving crackpot

>>11990296
>Memory? Just a pattern of neuronal activity. Emotion? Just a pattern of neuronal and hormonal activity. Executive function? Just a pattern of neuronal and hormonal activity
Duh
>Pure subjective experience is so far out on the non-existence spectrum
retard
thinks that I'm in his room looking at his computer screen smelling his farts because that's what he's doing

>>11990296
He says, subjectively.

>>11990276
subjective experience is the most direct observation there is

>>11990296

even math and logic are just linguistic phenomena that correspond to some activation-patterns in the brain. They have no scientific existence. They would have to be some kind of platonic forms existing in another non-extentional realm, which is just .... yeah, I won't even dignify it by calling it stupid

>qualia apologists are literally unable to explain what makes qualia qualia
Wasn't this the /sci/entific board... ?

>>11990303

I have no subjective experience. I don't have experience at all. I'm just an animated lump of organic chemistry doing what such things does. I don't ascribe to my self qualities that have no objective, scientific basis. That would be pseudish behavior

>>11990343
>I don't have experience at all.
here's an experience for you
It's me calling you a retard

>>11990344

I did not experience that. I just watched 3 strings of symbols on a screen and smirked condescendingly. No qualia or consciousness required

>>11990352
how do you not experience watching something
how do you know you smirked if you have no consciousness
how did you type a response without it

>>11990356

it can all be explained by automatic physical reactions in my brain. External stimuli (reading) activates internal brain activity which results in behavioral action (writing)

>>11990361
reading is not an "external stimuli" it's something you do cognitively
so is responding to a statement

>>11990343
We need a term for people like this. "Zombie" doesn't work because philosophical zombie is supposed act as if it were conscious.

>He fell for the p-zombie meme

>>11990343
I used to be stupid like you, only valuing "objective truth" like mathematics and logic, repulsed by "pseudoscience" like psychology (and to a smaller extent biology and the likes), until I realized everything we know passed through the multiple tainted lenses of our brain, and that if I were to focus exclusively on what I know with absolute certainty (and objectivity), I wouldn't be focusing on anything at all.

>>11990370
I have no idea what you mean by "falling for the p-zombie" meme. I didn't make any claim about what does the thought experiment imply.

>>11990378

> mathematics and logic is objective truth

I've said no such thing. Mathematics and logic is as far as I'm concerned just linguistic phenomena with no objective, scientific existence. How on earth could you prove that 2 + 2 = 4? That is no an observational statement and thus not scientific

Aren't you all fed up arguing semantics?

>>11990385
>How on earth could you prove that 2 + 2 = 4? That is no an observational statement and thus not scientific

>>11990391
>No bro you don't get it, MY definition of consciousness is totally logic and scientific even when it's not testable

I think what we've got here is somebody who'll say absolutely anything, no matter how stupid, just so people will talk to him because he's got nobody else to interact with

>>11989491
>>11989587
Right, suppose you're right and that qualia are simply the brain's description/readout of your senses... The key question now is, why does it feel like anything from a first person view to EXPERIENCE those descriptions? Why doesn't it all just happen without a subject that experiences them, as we'd imagine it would work in a self driving car that senses the road and decides how to drive?

Sure the brain has more complexity, but no matter how much complexity you stack on, you get something out of it that's simply not about the behavior at all.

>>11990429
>something
like what
again, you're prescribing attributes that don't exist and asking for them to be explained
you're basically saying consciousness is magic, which we know it isn't. you're SAYING there's something additional without describing what it is
and we all also know that's that because what you're describing is non-existent
YOU'RE basically conflating consciousness with "soul", without foundation or even an argument

>>11990385
>How on earth could you prove that 2 + 2 = 4? That is no an observational statement and thus not scientific
Jesus christ, if you have you 2 apples and I have 2 apples, how many apples are there in total? 5? 3? No, 4.

>>11990458

2+2 = 4 by definition, not by experience/observation/experimentation

2+2 = 5 could be just as true if we defined the relation between those symbols to be that way instead 5 could come before 4

so if you think arithmatic is science, you're a buffoon

>>11990482
I repeat the question.
If you have you 2 apples and I have 2 apples, how many apples are there in total? Answer. I'm waiting.

>>11990482

>>11990491
math is based on axioms, buddy, that retard conflates experimentation with science, but 2+2=4 is due to certain axioms, just like some parallel lines can intersect

>>11990482
>2+2 = 5 could be just as true if we defined the relation between those symbols to be that way instead 5 could come before 4
So it's true if you change the language that's agreed upon (and the number is the same, it's only the representation of the number that's different)? You might as well say "you're so fucking retarded" really means "you're really smart," but if you're the only person who uses the phrase in that way, everyone else will assume you're insulting them.

>>11990444
I'm trying to describe having a conscious experience. I'm hoping you're also having a conscious experience so you understand by your own acquaintance to it what I'm describing. To feel pain, pleasure, or any qualia as a subject, that is the "additional" I'm trying to get at, and that the very nature of having a conscious experience seems to be impossible to reduce or understand in terms of behavior of underlying physical parts, which leads me to believe that whatever a conscious experience has to be more than just the emerging behavior of particles. Now if you want to say that it's an illusion to feel like that thing is something more, fine, but If you still don't know what I'm even talking about then you're probably a p-zombie.

>>11990485

It depends on what we linguistically define 2+2 to be equal to. Math is top-down, deductive, not bottom-up, inductive, like science is. And don't you dare suggest that there is some kind of concept 4 that will always be the same regardless of the symbols you use instead of the symbol 4. That is just platonic nonsense. Imaginary worlds that cannot be observed. Object which have no extension. It's so silly, so unserious, so embarassing.

>>11990498
Are you going to answer or are just afraid to do it? Pussy.

>>11990503
not him, fag boy

>>11990501
>>11990503
Ok got it, you are not going to answer the question, you were a pussy afterall.

>>11987880

This is the final and scientifical answer to consciousness.

I hate pseudo-scientists who try to mythifies consciousness like this big god like thing, it isn't, I bet all of my proprierties that a simple primate with its simple mind has primitive thoughts about existance and awareness of surroundings.

When they are sorrounded by logical arguments they will go full childish and pull the "Materialistic science is wrong and you don't need evidence to prove things" card.
I would perhaps believe this if I were highly intelligent cavemen right now, but everything surrounding me I have because of "materialistic" science. There is no such thing as materialistic science, just science, but these scam artists want you to believe in their bullshit so you can buy their books.
This bitch right here is one of their followers >>11987412


"Damn, me eat banana" - some monkey out there, and he thinks that is extremely fucking magical and unique to him.

>>11990499

if everyone agreed to use the symbol 5 instead of the symbol 4, then there would be no problem at all, nothing would change functionally

>>11990500
>that the very nature of having a conscious experience seems to be impossible to reduce or understand in terms of behavior of underlying physical parts, which leads me to believe that whatever a conscious experience has to be more than just the emerging behavior of particles.
there's absolutely no substance to this
you're just an idiot who thinks that because he feels HIS feelings that somehow they're more "real" than other's feelings
go punch a dog in the face and see if it reacts differently from a person

>>11990512
>if everyone agreed to use the symbol 5 instead of the symbol 4
But they haven't. You need to be able to communicate ideas, which requires using the agreed upon conventions. Just because you say an apple is really a banana, because you've chosen to switch the terms, doesn't change the fact that you're incorrectly using the terminology that's agreed upon.

>>11990501
>And don't you dare suggest that there is some kind of concept 4 that will always be the same regardless of the symbols you use instead of the symbol 4.
I feel like this is distorting the reason for the original 2 + 2 = 5. From the proofs I read, they weren't arguing for the representation of the number they represent, they were trying to argue that if you take "o o" objects and add them to "o o " objects, you'll get "o o o o o" objects.

>>11990500

Stop mythifying consciousness you worthless piece of shit.

Humans of 2000 years ago weren't as conscious as we are right now.

>Ooh, billions of years of evolution and me can think of me, me can think of surroundings??? THIS MAGICAL!111!!!

That's how stupid you sound. Consciousness is not special, life is not special, the Universe does not need life to exist, life needs to exist to check the existance of everything.

>Oh but how can the universe exist if we don't

It does, it is a concept a simple human mind can't grasp, just like infinity, most of us deny infinity even if it's a proven mathematical concept.

there's no way this isn't the dumbest thread in the history of /sci/

>>11990539
>t. philo pro

>91 posts 13 IDs
somebody itt is desperate for attention

>>11990544
Is the nihilist materialists reddit faggot replying to everyone to boost his faggot beliefs.

>>11990544
Religious people trying to prove the mythicism behind consciousness.

I have yet to see hocus pocus make the magic.

>>11990539
>t. If I masturbate therefore I am faggot

>>11990525

I never used it incorrectly. I just claimed that which you just agreed to. So what is your point? I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even have one and are just being retarded

>>11990561
By the agreed upon conventions, in no way does 2 + 2 = 5, just like an apple isn't a banana.

>>11990546

>materialist

You should go and destroy all of your properties you worthless hyprocritical pseudo-intellectual faggot.

The only reason you wrote that is because of """"materialistic"""" science, the real science. Everything you have is because of that, phone, computer, internet, video game, glasses, everything.

I have yet to see mythicists make me levitate and shoot stars from the tip of my penis and then become one with everything.

This is not /x/, what you say is not science and you are a pseudo-science.

Consciousness is not magic, consciousness is not mythical and you will never be able to prove it.

Cope.

>>11990565

sure, I never claimed otherwise ... so you don't really have any point, just wasting my time with distractions

>>11990572
HE'S wasting YOUR time?!?!??!?!??!?!??!??!???!?!?!??!????

>>11990513
You think you're making a good point, but what you bring up is actually a serious epistemological problem. Your own mind is the only thing you can know for sure is real. Other minds, be it that of dogs or humans, you have to take for granted. That a dog acts like it has feelings is not the same as actually having them, which is the key to understanding the issue we've been talking about: it's not about the behavior, it's about the conscious experience, about being, about what it means to exist.

>>11990572
>sure, I never claimed otherwise
Then what was *your* point? If you agree 2 + 2 = 4, then why are we having this conversation?

>>11990577
PLEASE go start punching dogs, I'm begging you
go do it right now, I'll wait

>>11990569
The only one who needs coping here is you.

>Hey mom! I learned a lot about consciousness today on 4chan!!

>>11990569
You sound mad and desperate, did a religionist fucked you in the ass little boy?

>>11990577
>That a dog acts like it has feelings is not the same as actually having them
???
>it's not about the behavior, it's about the conscious experience
But the way the dog's brain responds to stimulus is exactly the same as any other mammal does, including humans

>>11990582
At this point I'm not sure whether you're dumb enough not having followed to conversation to actually think punching dogs will prove any of my points wrong, or if you just assmad enough to want me to get bit and die.

>>11990593
please go get yourself killed to prove your point, I'll wait

>>11990589
If you think my post was trying to say humans are conscious in a way that's special compared to dogs, then you need to re-read the post and think harder.

>>11990586

great come back, voodoo shaman, great come back.

>>11987355

To everyone mythfying consciousness >>>/x/
This is a science board, science is based on evidence, if you have no evidence it's not science.

ITT

>>11990617
>t. philo zombie believer

>>11990617

philosophy is not science, it just made people question things.

science is people questioning physical things.

I would go back in time to kill socrates and all of those child fuckers who called themselves philosophers.

>>11990628
>t. doesn't understand science

>>11990628
Wasn't Francis Bacon the father of Empiricism a Philosopher himself?

>>11990263
Ontological existence doesn't stop just because we can't explain it scientifically.
"Science" is not the border between what does and does not exist.

>>11990628
If you go back and kill everyone who called themselves philosophers, science would have never emerged out of it. Maybe if you knew a tiny bit about the history of science you wouldn't look like such a giant idiot right now. So here you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The ultimate fedora tipping 16 year old dumbfuck STEMlord, who once and for all demonstrates the size of his brain.

>>11990537
>Humans of 2000 years ago weren't as conscious as we are right now.
False

>>11990668
prove it

>>11990645

Science is that which determines if something exists or not. There is no other way to meaningfully decide if something exists. If it isn't scientific, it is meaningless, imaginary. That is what science is, the ultimate source of knowledge. I thought everybody with an iq over 85 knew this

>>11990675
>Science is that which determines if something exists or not
False
>There is no other way to meaningfully decide if something exists
False
>If it isn't scientific, it is meaningless, imaginary.
False
>That is what science is, the ultimate source of knowledge.
False
>I thought everybody with an iq over 85 knew this
I'm smarter than you.

>>11990685

False

>>11990674
You're the one who made the claim that they were not as conscious. You have to prove it, dumb bitch boy.
Otherwise, the litany of work that they output clearly indicates they were no less conscious or intelligent than we are today, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

>>11987355
Hard to say. People can't really agree on a definition which makes things tough. The best definition to me is simply: Consciousness=Experience. It has nothing to do with any brain function, just the experience of said brain functions.

>>11990689
It isn't false.
Prove that science is the only thing that determines if something exists.
Prove that there is no other way to meaningfully decide if something exists other than using the scientific method.
Prove that if you can not explain something scientifically, this intrinsically implies that it is meaningless and imaginary.
Prove that science is the ultimate source of knowledge.
Do all this using science.
Saying "look at all the things we've been able to use the scientific method to build" doesn't work.
Go ahead bitch boy, let's see you do it!

>>11990632

Tell me what science is, you retard.

I will tell you: Science is evidence based beliefs, science is falsifiable and science is not religious bullshit, like thinking consciousness is an all mighty property.

>>11990668
All humans of the past believe in gods and myths, they all believed in afterlife, in superpowers, in reincarnation.
A human of 2000 years ago will never understand: what smartphones are, what the internet is, the current model of the universe, the laws of physics, because they are genetically capped.

>>11990701
>All humans of the past believe in gods and myths, they all believed in afterlife, in superpowers, in reincarnation.
>A human of 2000 years ago will never understand: what smartphones are, what the internet is, the current model of the universe, the laws of physics, because they are genetically capped.
This is such an intrinsically stupid statement that I am sure you are being facetious.
If not, you are not intelligent and you will never make it in life.

>>11990701
>>
>Tell me what science is, you retard.
>
>I will tell you: Science is evidence based belie
stopped reading there, prottie

>>11990685
>>11990690
>>11990699


>I'll shit on the scientific work of the entire humanity
>While I'm on /sci/
>Denying science while on /sci/
This cum slurping troll has passed the no scientific discussion border.
You are an /x/ schizo, you are a pseudo-intellectual and you are someone who should hang himself.

>>11990699

Since you're the anti-science guy, you have the burden of proof. You'll have to prove scientifically that there are non-scientific ways of proving things to be real. I see that as a clear self-defeating position, but let's see what you can manage ...

Reminder to report the troll and not reply, this is a science board and he is forcing non scientific anti-science discussion.

Consciousness mythicists BTFO

>>11990718
Literal reddit

>>11990721

4chan is not the place of schizo posters.

You worthless niggers invaded after the 2016 election and now you think everyone should be a schizo sub-human monster like you.

Go kill yourself.

>>11990718
just like, filter the tripnigger, they feed from attention and die without it

>>11990711
I'm in graduate school.
I see you can't answer the question! As expected.
BTW, I never denied science. I simply stated the FACT that it is not the only method for gaining knowledge, and it is NOT the border between what ontologically does or does not exist. Human scientific knowledge is not the totality of knowledge in reality.
>>11990717
>Since you're the anti-science guy
False
>you have the burden of proof
False.
>You'll have to prove scientifically that there are non-scientific ways of proving things to be real
All rational non empirical knowledge
>>11990718
>I have no argument so he must be a troll! report him!
Low IQ cope and seethe

>>11990726
>You worthless niggers invaded after the 2016 election and now you think everyone should be a schizo sub-human monster like you.
Isn't this how they talk in /pol/ lmao.

>>11990727
Cope.
Just because your epistemology is not well founded, does not mean I am a troll.
It means you're wrong and you should update your ontology.

>>11990728

You will never prove your worthless magical believes and now you are seething all over this post.

Prove your magical believes.

You can't. You are impossibilitated by the laws that rule the universe, you are impossibilitated by existance itself.
You come to those conclusions about magic because of drug use or simply because you are a full blown schizophrenic.

You are off topic now you faggot, as I said >>>/x/

Some day the materialists will sit down and listen long enough to hear that Panpsychism (or some variation thereof) is actually a physicalist theory, and the only one that reconciles subjective awareness with reality in a way that doesn't bring in mystical wishy-washy nonsense.

The fact that people like the p-zombie troll in this thread have to work so hard just to get some people to see what consciousness is only proves that good conversations about it can almost never happen.

>>11990750

Panpsychism is a scam to sell books and gain ad revenue from YouTube or websites.

Kill yourself faggot, stop shitting all over a SCIENCE board.

>>11990748
>You will never prove your worthless magical believes and now you are seething all over this post.
False
>Prove your magical believes.
What magical beliefs? I haven't made a single post about consciousness. I simply stated the FACT (and it is a FACT) that scientific knowledge does not encapsulate the totality of knowledge.
>You can't. You are impossibilitated by the laws that rule the universe, you are impossibilitated by existance itself.
Define Existence
>You come to those conclusions about magic because of drug use or simply because you are a full blown schizophrenic.
False, you dont even know what you're talking about. You assume things about me, for no reason, then seem to argue against that despite being wrong.

The reality is, I am literaly smarter as well as more educated than you. You aren't equipped to have this conversation.

>>11990750
>he fell for the p-zombie meme
oh no no no imagine being this fucking stupid
the whole reason of p-zombies is to show how it's impossible to differentiate between one from a "normal" person

>>11990763

If you are smarter why do you want me to teach you existance and teach you that you are wrong?

What an african-american lmao

>>11990728
>All rational non empirical knowledge

"rational knowledge" such as numbers and geometry? numbers are not real buddy. Grown men believing in imaginary platonic concepts without physical extension. What a joke. So-called rational knowledge has no physical basis. There are no such things, only patterns of brain activity

>>11990769
>If you are smarter why do you want me to teach you existance and teach you that you are wrong?
I'm not asking you to teach me anything (you can't, you aren't smart enough).
>What an african-american lmao
Racists are low IQ (which makes sense, because you aren't intelligent). I'm white.

>>11990764
I realize that. I'm talking about the troll in this thread who claims not to be conscious because he only believes in objective scientific reality.

I'm pretty sure he's just trying to get the idiots in this thread who are denying the hard problem to understand what the hard problem actually is.

>people still can't realise this whole thread is just bait

>>11990775
This is your flaw.
You can not rectify these things with your ontology, so you then go to say that they do not exist rather than realizing that you are wrong and your ontology is wrong
This is where you fail, and why you aren't smart, and why you will never make it.
Sad.

>>11990782
oh, sorry then man, my bad

>>11990782
>who claims not to be conscious because he only believes in objective scientific reality.

Consciousness is not above the laws of the unvierse.

>>11990797
The laws of the universe don't need to be entirely physical.
You are not entitled to tell the universe what is and isn't allowed.

>>11990786

math and logic is just linguistic phenomena, which means that it is just patterns of air-vibrations or symbols on paper or screens. You probably belive that people have subjective experiences don't you, that people have qualia. There is just brain activity and behavior that function in a deterministic way

>>11990815
If something is not physical it literally does not exist.

>>11990815

Without the laws of the Universe we wouldn't exist.
We don't tell the Universe the rules, the Universe shows to them to us and we write it down.

>>11990821
You assume only physical things can exist. We find an example of a thing that is not physical. You then say it must not exist rather than realizing what is actually happening:
It is not true that only physical things exist.

>>11990829

We never found something that is not physical and never will. If it's not physical, then what it is?

You are trying to prove god.

>>11990825
And there is clearly a law here that you are refusing to write down because you are presupposing what you believe is allowed and not allowed in the universe

>>11990829
For something to exist it must either.
>be a physical thing
>interact with physical things
Until you do find out an exception, you're talking about magic. When you find out how that thing interacts with the rest of the universe, it goes from magic to reality. It's how the game is. Play it (science) or drop it.

>>11990835

What law is that?

Non-physical entity is self contradicting. You can't have thoughts without your brain and without the eletrical pulses in your brain.

>>11990833
>>11990841
This is your brain on science-as-a-religion. Are your senses material, huh? No? Alright, so they don't exist, and by extension nothing conveyed by them exists. Bravo, now nothing exists physically.

>>11990820
>You probably belive that people have subjective experiences don't you, that people have qualia

>>11990892
>if I pretend to be trolling then he will concede
I'm a literal autist, you cannot win against me, niggerman

>>11990916
Then how about presenting an argument?

>>11990923
science is not a religion, for starters

>>11990892
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvBUaW7aQ8c

>>11990924
sciencetm is tho.

>>11990924
Alright, entirely missing the point I see. It's fine, I won't waste my time arguing with a two-digit IQ autist who believes in hard physicalism.

>>11990935
only if you're a retarded american
>>11990936
>killers still killing people means laws don't work
of course I saw your point, and it's somehow less retarded than you

>>11990892

Senses are material, yes. Brain, nerve systems, etc.
Medicine exists, there are even colleges for that, you know.

>>11990892
>Are your senses material, huh?
Yes, of course they are, you imbecile

>>11990385
Fucking christ man. Are you black?

>>11990960
What does a feeling of cold look like? How about a thought? How much does it weigh? What's the color you feel when I castrate you so that you don't reproduce?

>>11990940

>>11990982

>>11990987
Oh, those are feelings? I thought they were brain scans! To be honest, I never knew that a brain and a feeling are the same thing, that's revolutionary.

Consider this.

What if we slowly, piece by piece, took a human brain and replaced every neuron with a sort of moldable plastic transistor. Then, at what point is it not the same boat?

>>11990997
you might be fucking brain damaged

>>11991000
>this question kills magic users

>>11991008
once it's 51% plastic, duh

>>11991000
Consider this.

If I rape your mom and reduce her to just to be my bitch slave little by little, then at what point does she not be the same thing as she was before me raping her and owning her, she's just sack of meat nevertheless afterall.

>>11991009
you're 51% plastic

>he now will proceed to strawmen his way through the thread after getting btfo
think i've seen you in /his/ already...

>>11991005
lmao, not the same guy, but you must be a redditor. Consciousness is fundamental and cannot be derived from the physical. It's absurd to think so.

You need to go back nigger.

>>11991012
>this question kills physicalists users

>>11991023
>Consciousness cannot be derived from the physical
>calls other people nigger
>calls other people reddit
good night homo

>>11991023

Consciousness is an emergent property, billions of years of evolution sadly created a seething nigger like you that believes mind is magical.

>>>/x/

>>11990982

feelings, thoughts, colors are all non-real things. Those are just words we use to refer to patterns of brain activity. Beliving in thoughts is just as silly as believing in santa or magic elfs

>>11991065
>Beliving in thoughts
??

>he once more pretended to misunderstand the post to keep epic trolling people

>>11991079
>everytime there's a question i don't know how to answer i will just ignore it
epic

>>11991065
So, you're saying you're a robot with no internal experience. Cool stuff, but I on the other hand experience a lot of stuff each day and mostly enjoy it. Too bad you can never have that, since you're a mindless automaton.

>>11991046
And what is its nature - is it physical or not? If it's physical, then surely we can observe this consciousness physically. Where is it?

>>11991097
>So, you're saying you're a robot with no internal experience. Cool stuff, but I on the other hand experience a lot of stuff each day and mostly enjoy it. Too bad you can never have that, since you're a mindless automaton.

That's the thing. You can say that you do, but you cannot scientifically prove that, so it's not even false, it is a meaningless claim

>>11991089
no, you just genuinely don't understand, you're that stupid, and you've proved it across nearly 100 posts itt

>>11991109
Because not all knowledge can be gained through science, you absolute brainlet >>11990728
The scientific method is just one, 1, philosophical framework of acquiring knowledge, and retarded scientism-worshippers interpret it as being the only source of facts.

>so it's not even false, it is a meaningless claim
Prove that using science, retard

>>11991097
>And what is its nature - is it physical or not? If it's physical, then surely we can observe this consciousness physically. Where is it?

The brain, the eletrical, chemical and hormone pulses of the brain.

Of course you could deny medicine and deny what I said and go take your homeopath, natural medicine and masturbate about the magical mind.

>>11988516
Because when systems arise and feedback loops are created, POP there is emergence

It's the same way that one cells form complex organism (beings) can form and then once complex organisms form then societies can form

So awareness grows in complexity in biological automata and once you get a feedback loop called memory POP there is consciousness and soon decision making power evolves and then bam

You really have to look at how emergence works in general

>>11991121
So what does your use of the term "emergent" bring to the table? If conscious experience is a physical thing that emerges physically from the brain, where is it? If a table emerges from atoms, I can see it. Where's the consciousness that emerges from neuronal activity?

Do you see where you're wrong, or are you too daft to continue this discussion with?

>>11991077

yes, believing in thoughts and feelings, in general believing in the mind, is non-scientific gurgling. Believing in something that has no color, no mass, no position in space, no momentum vector, etc, something which exists in an immaterial rational realm? Comon, you cannot be that dense. Go somewhere else with the platonic woowoo

>>11991130
Just think about where all the sensory input ends up.

Obviously that ends up somewhere, that being the conscious part of your mind. Where else would it be going?

>>11991137
>Comon
You can't even write.

>Believing in something that has no color, no mass, no position in space, no momentum vector
So you don't believe light, time and radiation exist?

>>11991130

emergence is just another attempt at creating a bridge between the natural/physical and the supernatural. It doesn't work, and it's not scientific. Concsciousness is not just brain activity. Consciousness does not exists at all

>>11991144
Yes, and where is this physical conscious mind located? Where can I see it? I don't want to see neurons, I want to see consciousness, since you say it's physical.

>>11991137
Believing in thoughts doesnt equal believing they’re physical objects

>>11991150
Arguing with retards etc

>>11991148

light and radiation has physical properties, so of course they exist. Time is more nebulous, I've never seen it or measured it directly, or heard of anyone else doing so, so I'm not quite sure. The clock is just a thing moving or ticking at regular intervals

>>11991158

if they're not physical, they're not real. It's that simple

>>11991155
From studies on brain scans, and recovery from brain scans, it appears your consciousness is pretty well distributed throughout the you brain.

The sleeping state though adds a bit of complexity. Is that partially conscious? Or perhaps some of it unconscious with some conscious (dreaming?) It's not necessarily clear cut.

>>11991150
>Consciousness does not exists at all
So you posted this as a dead person? Didn't know the dead could type and shit.

>>11991130

It's really dishonest to scramble the words of someone else to your advantage, and it's pathetic trying to debunk neuroscience, and active and problably the most imporant scientific field, on a image board for social outcasts.

So what does your use of the term "emergent" bring to the table? If conscious experience is a physical thing that emerges physically from the brain, where is it? If a table emerges from atoms, I can see it. Where's the consciousness that emerges from neuronal activity?

You can see it, I just told you, eletrical pulses, chemical pulses and hormone pulses in the brain, but you can't allow yourself to be wrong so you ask the same question again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--iN63lgsc4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw8lWmGuXLU

Go on, I'm certain a schizophrenic trying desperatly to debunk the laws of physics only to say "Ha Anon, I was right!", can debunk a Havard phyisics professor

>>11991176
>what are constructs

>>11991178
*recovery from brain injury (ie) partial brain function when lobotomized or gunshot wound etc

People can partially recover and be conscious with a random amount of brain matter, with all the expected loss of function which requires retraining

>>11991150

Supernatural is non existant and is mythical talk.

I will be right and superior than you until the end of the universe if you don't prove me wrong, go ahead.

>>11991150
That's not emergence at all

emergence is the arising of complex system from simpler ones

There is no known link between the natural/physical and the supernatural

>>11991176
If the thought is not real, what replaces the definition of the thought?

>>11991178
>consciousness is pretty well distributed throughout the brain

oh, and how do you know that? Can you see consciousness stuff in the brain? What is it made of, what color does it have, is it a solid, liquid or gas or plasma? Is it edible? Consciousness does not "appear" because it is not physical and thus not real

>>11987355
Check out Orch OR Theory.

>>11991181
Electrical pulses aren't consciousness, you massive idiot. I'm done talking to you. Go read some Chalmers, maybe he can explain it so that it gets through your thick skull.

>>11991198
>single water atoms have all properties of the ocean, water vapor and make fabric get wet

>>11991184

constructs are just linguistic phenomena, language tools, they do not represent something that is actually real. There are no theoretical constructs in the brain, just networks of neurons and activity patterns

>>11991176
What about electromagnetic waves, can you measure them? The totality of the spectrum I mean.

>>11991202
Nobody reply to this robot anymore, its learning module seems to be disabled

>220 posts, 27 IPs

>>11991208
fuck off reddit, your kind is not welcome here

>>11991137
>Go somewhere else with the platonic woowoo
Plato is right about everything though.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200720112214.htm

>>11991198

Philosophy is the ultimate scam art.

Philosophers are just drunk retards who literally just talk and nothing else.

Electrical pulses, neurological activies of the brain are our consciousness, I presented you the truth and you refused it, like a religious person denying that god doesn't exist.

I showed you that consciousness is bound by and is something physical and you looked away.

Tell me, what has philosophers, panpsychists done to humanity?

Trying to debunk a Havard professor while being a cum slurping basement dweller was the most pathetic thing I have ever seen.

I will report you until these worthless tranny jannies and niggers mods ban you to /x/.

You do not belong here >>>/x/

>>11991213
>feelings or thoughts don't exist!
>waah he called me a robot :(

>>11991195
Actually there is a wealth of knowledge showing the patterns in the brain against all kinds of activity

Consciousness is exhibited as patterns in your brain. Is it quite easy to imagine that brain activity could in fact yes indeed contain the totality of consciousness.

Non additional non factual claims or theories are just that.

Now I personally I would love for there to be implicit order quantum consciousness or metaphysical atman or such but really there has been observed no concrete evidence or theories or such. I still read about that stuff and mediate on it etc.

11991236
king of niggers

>>11991232
>According to a 2009 survey, physicalism is the majority view among philosophers[3]
Damn physicalists are retards.

>>11991245
>229 posts 27 IPs
you're here because all the people in your real life hate you

>>11991247
You mad bro?

>>11987355
Probably, yes. Neurons in our brains connect to each other in ridiculous amounts. I consider it most likely that consciousness is the brain reading its internal state and regulating based on that, just in a really complex way.

>>11991239

you're just assuming that there is something to call consciousness, when in fact there is only brain activity. You're adding an additional thing to the theory which does not need to be there. Just use Occam's razor and consciousness disappears.

>>11991251
I would scalp you if I were able to, and feed you your own scalp, then put your entire head in a food processor and feed the retard pulp resultant from that to your mother
then grate her clitoris off with a cheese grater, gouge holes in her eyeballs with a melon baller, and put her clitoris flakes into the holes and then pour lemon juice into them
and I'd cremate your body, turn it into a gelatin and feed it to my dogs

>>11991263
Larping 15 year old

>>11991273
permanent retard

>>11991273

I will put my penis inside you so you can transcend to your supernatural existance, you fucking retard.

>>11991263
Yep super mad, did the chemicals in your head told you to have those edgy thoughts.

>>11991278
>>11991263
>scientism-tards

>>11991279
they told me to burn your body and mix the ashes with my piss and pour it into your mother's eyeballs

>>11991279
>Yep super mad, did the chemicals in your head told you to have those edgy thoughts.

>>11991261
I wouldn't go that far.

There is evidence at every moment of human existence of consciousness

People are self -aware and have subjective experiences(internal only to what could be labelled as a consciousness containing experiences?) that can be communicated. That requires explanation. That's an irreducible.

All the metaphysical origins and shit could be deemed unnecessary

>>11991289

lol, you're just contradicting yourself. You belive in consciousness and reducability to brain states at the same time? Makes no sense buddy. Either you belive in ghost people inside peoples brains or you don't

>>11991285
>>11991288
Look out, you are going to hurt the proteins in your brain.

>>11991297
I'm going to pour the proteins in your brain into your mother's eyes, faggot

>>11991297
>Look out, you are going to hurt the proteins in your brain.

>>11991299
Checked retard

>>11991311
murder you, retard

>>11991296
There is contradiction. You just have a pretty limited view on what a consciousness might consist of.

There are no ghost people or shit inside peoples brain.

Everything in existence is patterns. Whatever realism or bullshit you believe, that's a fucking solid axiom. Consciousness is at a minimum a functional pattern., It's all debates about where.

>>11991296
There is no contradiction. You just have a pretty limited view on what a consciousness might consist of.

There are no ghost people or shit inside peoples brain.

Everything in existence is patterns. Whatever realism or bullshit you believe, that's a fucking solid axiom. Consciousness is at a minimum a functional pattern., It's all debates about where.

Qualia is exactly the same shit as chairness. An useless artificial concept, let's pretend it somehow exists:
>chairness is how some object worjs as a chair. A chair has 100% chairness, a sofa has 125%, a bed has 85%, a random boulder you can sit on has 50%
>qualia is the experience of seeing blue, the experience of feeling cold, becoming depressed after understanding sad news
So, what does chairness or qualia works for, in science? Absolutely fucking nothing, you cannot make hypothesis with them, you cannot use them to expand or make new theories, you cannot use them as axioms, they're at best synonyms of other already existing stuff.
It's really sad some people fall for the show instead of getting the message, just to feel good because of faggot emotional appeal to reason, such as but not limited to:
>only humans are conscious
>only humans can have qualia
>the soul totally exists because qualia exists!
>living things are meat machines. Except humans lol
>some humans are NPCs... which just happens to be the same people I disagree with... Just a coincidence totally not caused by personal bias
>if qualia does not exist then how can you explain [thing thst is so complex it cannot be reduced]
>i'm colorblind my qualia is totally different from yours and not due to biologic (physical) limitations

>>11991377
>>i'm colorblind my qualia is totally different from yours and not due to biologic (physical) limitations
Thing is people without colorblindness experience colors differently from each other too.

>>11987355
Not by a globe earther

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlRt3MwZi0c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1N4J1QWHDQ

>>11991388
t. proudly missed the message too

>replying to a tripfag
Oh I'm laffing

>>11991150
Based eliminitivist warrior in here blowing reductionists the fuck out.

>Consciousness isn't real, you are only imagining it!

>>11991970

yeah, it's called being consistent. What I hate more than consciousness-believing woo Chopra mentalists are people pretending to be scientific naturalists but not razoring away useless concepts such as consciousness, numbers, information, emotions, geometry, qualia, thoughts.

>>11987880
just calling something "emergent" is a non-answer. it's the scientism equivalent to magic.

>>11993355
>>11988602

>>11993356
consciousness is in the brain. got it.

But what causes abstract thoughts tho? Obviously scientists can measure brain patterns with an input/output. Okay subject, move your hand and press the button or think about a flower or look at this funny picture - then they scan the brain and see what areas sent the signals to make the movement/thought/emotion happen. But all those processes need queried. That is very robotic like, but it still doesn't explain creative abstract thinking or "on a whim" thoughts. Why would certain areas of the brain light up and think those specific things if there's really no stimuli provoking it? Is it random neurons/synapses just happening to fire in the proper sequence or does the consciousness somehow force these neurons/synapses to fire and communicate and a way that we just so happen to "want?"

Basically, is consciousness/intelligence basically an unlimited "force" that acts upon the physical brain and is only hindered by the hardware of the brain (which explains different iq's)? They have done studies where remodeling (turning off/on) certain brain areas does lead to significant improvement in working memory.

>>11993343
What in your view, does exist?

>>11993886
his own bullshit, that's the only thing he respects
this whole thread is a joke

>>11993933
T. "Man" who believes in p-zombies

>>11993343
>consciousness, numbers, information, emotions, geometry, qualia, thoughts.
Literally all these things exist.
Are you the same guy who sperges out in CS threads and says that AI isn't real or possible?

>>11993959
There is nothing logically incoherent about believing in p-zombies sweaty.

>>11991169
>regular intervals
This requires time to exist

>>11993971
Well to play devil's advocate, there are different senses of "exist", and he's lazily using a very narrow form of it while being too lazy to properly clarify. Numbers, geometry, and information can be thought of as existing in a sort of mind-independent way, beyond our construction and usage of these concepts, which is what he rejects. He doesn't reject the idea that numbers and information exist as social constructs that help us make sense of the world and that these concepts in an indirect way sort of maps onto something real about the structure of the world, rather than those concepts themselves existing. Unless he's a complete idiot that is.

He's wrong about qualia being one of those things though.

>>11991377
Holy fucking shit. This post indicates such a poor understanding of the topic that I am sure you're not even in undergrad yet.

>>11994008
>>11993988
>>11993972
>>11993971
>>11993975
>IP count went from 33 to 34
hmm...

>>11994040
motherfucker, you're fucking 150 of the posts itt, go fuck your own ass

>>11993988

I think that these things cannot be measured scientifically, and therefore cannot be said to be real. You cannot find qualia in the brain. It has no physical extension. You can find brain-matter. That's real. All these things: consciousness, thoughts, emotions, and so-called rationals (mathematics and logic), are just linguistic phenomena. They have no physical, scientific referent, so ... they're not real. It's just evolved or culturally arbitrary social-linguistic phenomena. It has no actual meaning. "I have consciouness" is at the same level of respectability as saying "I have ghost people in my brain". Yeah, let me see the science on that please.

>>11993988

>He doesn't reject the idea that numbers and information exist as social constructs that help us make sense of the world and that these concepts in an indirect way sort of maps onto something real about the structure of the world, rather than those concepts themselves existing.

well, I do reject this kind of indirect mapping. It doesn't sound like a physical, measurable mapping, but some kind of metaphysical (supernatural) made up thing, which I reject

Who fucking cares about this shit you die so what, who the fuck wants to live forever in this shithole.

>>11987355
We are going to need to if we are ever going to make a strong ai

>>11995168
I don't understand how you can consider concepts like numbers and geometry supernatural if one doesn't consider them to exist in an ontological sense. It's sort of like saying that the idea itself of Harry Potter is supernatural just because he doesn't exist in our world.

If you reject any mapping where numbers are involved, you can't do much of any physical measuring in the first place.

>>11995201

You can say you do measurements and talk about those measurements to other interested parties. You can make theories and discuss them. It's just that it's reducible to sensory and neuronal activity patterns and social dynamics. Speech does not really refer to anything, because the imagined mapping between speech and referent is not physical. It's all pretty simple. I though all this was tought in introductory science classes - materialism, naturalisme, scientific world view, call it what you want

>muh ontology
get the fuck out of here

>>11990701
>logic comes from mathemathics on the mosg basic level
>philosophy is logic applied to real and imaginary problems
>NOOOO MY HECKING PROOFERINOS

>>11995230
99% of people in science never think about these questions. What things exist, what it means for something to exist, etc, is in the realm of philosophy.

>>11990701
>A human of 2000 years ago will never understand: what smartphones are, what the internet is, the current model of the universe, the laws of physics, because they are genetically capped.
The genetics of humans 2000 years ago is the same as our is, and they'd be able to understand all those concepts just as easily as anyone in the modern world.
You're actually a retard.

>>11995230
>because the imagined mapping between speech and referent is not physical
Doesn't matter, it still exists and there is no evidence against this fact and only evidence for it.

>>11995361

>What things exist, what it means for something to exist, etc, is in the realm of philosophy.

what?? Science decides what things exist by using the scientific method. Philosophy has nothing to do with it. Philosophy is just word games, not real science

>>11995380
>Science decides what things exist by using the scientific method.
False.

>>11995376

how can you have physical scientific evidence for something that is non-physical/meta-physical/super-natural? you can't. For the mapping between verbalizations and their supposed referents to be real, there has to be a physical connection between them. Do you think that thinking about an object creates a field or particle that travels to the object and then has a physical effect such as raising temperature or affecting electric charge?

>>11995380
Oh my sweet child, you have a lot to learn. If these are truly the questions you are interested in, you will soon realize science is all about number systematic number crunching, not thinking about what's real. To believe that you can rely on the scientific method to know what the world is like is ultimately an argument resting on philosophical underpinnings. To refer to the scientific method to know that science works, is circular.

To use an analogy I've grown to like, scientists and philosophers are akin to race drivers and mechanics: You want someone good at driving the car, you go to the driver, but if you want to figure out how the car works, you go to the mechanic. Same with science: You want to know how to do science, go to the scientist, but if you want to know how science works, why it works, what we can and can't come to know from doing science, etc, then you go to the philosopher.

>>11995380
Oh my sweet child, you have a lot to learn. If these are truly the questions you are interested in, you will soon realize science is all about systematic number crunching, not thinking about what's real. To believe that you can rely on the scientific method to know what the world is like is ultimately an argument resting on philosophical underpinnings. To refer to the scientific method to know that science works, is circular.

To use an analogy I've grown to like, scientists and philosophers are akin to race drivers and mechanics: You want someone good at driving the car, you go to the driver, but if you want to figure out how the car works, you go to the mechanic. Same with science: You want to know how to do science, go to the scientist, but if you want to know how science works, why it works, what we can and can't come to know from doing science, etc, then you go to the philosopher.

>>11990628
>I want to kill people for not restricting their questioning to physical things.
Why are scientists so small minded and violent, mathbros?

>>11995392
Lets say you and another person are put in a room and told to look at the apple. Everything inside the room is controlled - the temperature, lighting, apple, angle you view the apple, etc. is exactly the same between you and the other person. Your brains are taking in the exact same sensory stimulation . The firing of neurons in your brain are entirely different, though, yet you are both mapping to the same sensory stimulation. That is, there is not a bijective function between the pattern of neurons firing and the thought/sensory stimulation that arises from it, rather there is a surjection - two different firings lead to the same pattern.
This falsifies the notion that there is only neurons firing but no such thing as thoughts - that would require a bijective function between them (because there is no such thing as thoughts, only firing neurons). But two different firing patterns map to the same sensory stimulation and thought. So the thought must exist separate from any set of firing neurons, and eliminative materialism is false.

>>11995465
*two different patterns leads to the same thought*

>>11995465

> muh thoughts
> muh mappings

I've already rejected these as non-scientific. You're not really bringing anything new to the table

>>11995486
>>11995486
>I've already rejected these as non-scientific.
Irrelevant.
If thoughts don't exist, then there is not different synaptic patterns in people's brains when they have receive same sensory information.
People have different synaptic patterns when receiving the same sensory information.
Therefore, thoughts exist.

>>11995506

the two people in the room receives slightly different sensory stimuli. Their brains activates in some pattern. This is literally all the happens

so many autists trying to act pseudo-intellectual. Can we agree we don't know fucking shit about this, we won't until we delve deeper into quantum mechanics and shit.

>>11995517
Consciousness has literally nothing to do with QM.

>>11995516
>room receives slightly different sensory stimuli
They receive the exact same sensory information.

>>11995522

ok sure. They receive the same stimuli and have some activation pattern in the brain. But there are no thoughts or mappings. The brain activity pattern does not refer to anything. It's just an automatic chemical response that result from sensing

>>11995529

cont.

what I'm writing now does not refer to anything real in the world. There are no thought behind it. It's just my brain generating some output based on input based on some learning process that has happened historically in my brain. This is what it means to be human. We have to be realistic and scientific about it guys. There is no consciousness, no subjective experience, no relata, no platonic forms. Grow up, seriously

>>11995529
If the pattern didn't refer to anything, the two people would never be able to talk about apples,
because they do not have the same physical pattern in the brain when they talk about apples,
and because only physical patterns of electrons moving through brain tissue exist,
they would never be able have a coherent conversation about apples, the thought of an apple does not exist, only the pattern of firings in the brain, which they do not share.
Obviously this is false, you and I are doing this very act right now talking about apples, and this is of course possible because thoughts exist and Eliminative Materialism is false.

>>11995550
See >>11995552

>>11995552

we're not talking about anything in particular. We're just complex input output automatons. We're not referring to anything by our words because reference is a pseudoscientific supernatural concept. It has no mass or other measurable quality. Where in space is reference? Which scientific instrument is used to detect it?

>>11995581
>we're not talking about anything in particular
Apples

>>11995581
Beyond the apples thought, how do you not see your position contradicts itself?
By your own argument, "pseudoscience" is a pseudoscintific supernatural concept. It has no mass or other measurable quality. Where in space is "pseudoscience"? Which "scientific" instrument is used to test it?
Same with "instrument"
Or "detect"
Or "automaton"
You rely on the fact that thoughts exist and are things we share in order to try to argue that they don't exist and we don't share them.
It's a contradiction, your philosophy is built on sand.

>>11995592

look at this biological machine trying to convince me that it's screen scribbles conveys any kind of meaning or information when in reality it's only the result of deterministic, consciousnessless neuronal activity, which again is the result of my own screen scribbles, which are the results of his scribbles again, in a physical feedback loop, facilitated by modern computer equipment and high-speed internet

>>11995612
I can't be "trying to convince you" of anything because "convincing" doesn't exist because thoughts don't exist.

>>11995618

beep bop beep bop bitch

>gets btfo
>he doesn't just concedes or leaves altogether
>he must instead resort to behave like a retard, showing everyone that he is stubborn enough to keep the thread alive by sheer autistic force alone

>>11995629
Why do you want to hold to an idea that doesn't hold and is contradicted by your own experiences?

>>11995651

>my experience

I dont have experience, and neither do you

apparently not or else it would already be common knowledge

>>11995697
>I dont have experience
This has already been falsified.

>>11995550
>It's just my brain generating some output based on input based on some learning process that has happened historically in my brain.
THOSE ARE WHAT THOUGHTS ARE YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER

Pretty sure consciousness is everlasting and eternal afterall, how are you alive to begin with if consciousness was not there? If consciousness never existed then you don't exist. They think it comes from the brain well not really, think of consciousness as invisible material that can't be measured it's something out of our control.

>>11987355
Yes.

>>11995766

Long ago we didn't know that the brain was the thinking organ. Then we found that the brain had activity related to behavior. In other words, we never found the thinking organ, because thoughts are not real. We only found out that the fatty lump in our skulls does chemical/electrical stuff that corresponds input output. Thoughs are unnecessary and imaginary constructs

>>11995903
>thoughts are not real.
This has already been falsified.

>>11995903
you've made up an arbitrary definition for thought that no one else adheres to and are claiming everyone else is naive for believing in it
you are the stupidest gorilla nigger of all time

>>11996033

if you belive that thoughts are reducible to brain activity, then thoughts = brain activity. Brain activity has no content, no reference, no logic, no meaning. It's just neuronal activation patterns, unless you belive that something supernatural is going on. So I'm not using an arbitrary definition; I'm pointing out that the definiton used by people like you is not scientific enought. I see that you people are confused by the connotations that the word though conveys, so I'm saying it's not real.

>>11996454
no, you're just saying that you're too stupid to understand what words mean

>>11996455

I don't really get why, but people seethe so hard when I tell them that they have no consciousness, no qualia, no experiences, no thoughts, no emotions. Can't deal with scientific reality, huh?

>>11996530
people are seething because you're objectively wrong and it's fucking annoying

>>11996533

You're the one belive in all this subjective, non-physical crap. "I have thoughts because I feel like I do." You don't feel anything

>>11996551
no, you're the one who can't understand the concept of language

>>11996553

no, I do. Language consists of communicative events either orally or in writing that is produced by one brain and causes a reaction pattern in another brain. It's just another type of physical causal mechanism. Just as material and natural as anything else.

>>11996557
didn't even read it
I know that if you're the one saying it, it's wrong, so there's no point in reading what you write
you're autistic and an idiot

>>11996557

cont.

me: beep boop beep boop
you: *seethe*

voila, language

>>11996559

yeah, I'M the idiot ... sure

The only view that matters is eliminative physicalist monism.

>>11996754

based

>>11996454
>>11996530
I've already disproven you entirely by showing that if thoughts were simply neuronal activity, we would never be able to have this conversation in the first place.
The fact that this conversation is happening is empirical scientific evidence against the asserting that thoughts don't exist.

>>11996754
Disproven already

>>11996870

You can't use science to disprove science. That's absurd. And if you're not using science to disprove it, your disproval is not valid

>>11996978
>You can't use science to disprove science. That's absurd
I'm not using science to disprove science, I've used empiricism to disprove the assertion that "thoughts don't exist, they are simply neuronal activity".

>>11996978
>absurd
Where is "absurdity" in the physical world? What color does it have? What is its mass? What does it smell like?

>>11996978
>You can't use science to disprove science
Assuming something is true and then deriving a contradiction, proving it false, is valid.

>>11996880
no.


>>11996870
absolute bullshit. thoughts exist as neuronal activity. pathetic.

>>11997165
I've already disproven this earlier in the thread with no counter argument (because a counter argument doesn't exist, because what I've written is the truth).
Saying "absolute bullshit" and "pathetic" is not an argument.
You are wrong and coping.

>>11997172
i cant find your proof when i look, what is it? must be pretty bad if i cant see it.

>>11997327
It's the argument given earlier in the thread.

>>11997327
>>11997341
Starting from this post >>11995465