/sci/ - Science & Math

>the hard problem is bullshit
Why?

>>14723507
I dunno, failure of language? There's a certain sense where you can reduce "the experience of seeing red" to just another redundant loop we understand poorly. I don't think the hard problem is bullshit. I think it allows wildly ignorant dualist speculation. Its in the meat. The question is just "how?"

>>14723497
Who are you trying to convince if we're all deterministic automata? Oh wait, that's right, you can't do anything else, because you're just a fleshy robot.

>>14723526
Conscious experience is completely inexplicable. It's not just a language game. It's not that we can't define what the experience of red is. It's that we experience redness at all. There is absolutely no mechanism to explain mental states, and any attempt to explain it really just ends up being an explanation for how the brain processes information, with consciousness being handwaved with "emergent." Retards like Dennett say consciousness is an illusion, but who precisely is the illusion fooling?

>>14723526
>There's a certain sense where you can reduce "the experience of seeing red" to just another redundant loop we understand poorly.
How would it be a redundant loop?

>>14723497
If you try to make the hard problem 'disappear' like that, all you've done is expand the definition of consciousness to include all reality, which no self-respecting retarded atheist would ever do.

>>14723552
You either misunderstand or willingly misrepresent the hard problem. This is exactly what I'm talking about. When Dennett or Metzinger allude to the illusory nature of self or ego, they don't mean to say there isn't a robust sense of experience or inner being, they mean to say that it can and is being broken down into constituent brain meat and states; Attention states, if you will.

There's a large gulf between being currently unable to explain the mechanism fully and "conscious experience is completely inexplicable." That's on par with reading interpretations of abstracts from soiince papers and saying "there is no chemical imbalance" or "alzheimers is fake."

I agree with Nagel that we'll never move beyond our own subjectivity, so I do believe there is a hard problem, but its not so much a problem as it is a gap in understanding and reporting that can never be mended.

>>14723575
>Attention states
How is that different from qualia?

>>14723562
Easily, there's a portion of the brain collecting sense data, another part of the network is interpreting, and other parts are deriving and matching it to artifacts in memory, experience, and continued perception. That last part is the one that finds the redness of red to be an isolated quality, unperturbed by all of the nuts and bolts perception work. Its all in the meat at the end of the day.

>>14723580
It isn't. Its just qualia explained through in-house mechanisms of the brain. "What's its like" is just a failure of self reporting and conveying a very mundane phenomenon.

Consciousness is not real.
Let me give you an example:
Consider an opamp with resistor and capacitors in negative feedback mode. The output will then be given by
[math]V_{out} = \int \frac{V_{in}}{RC} dt + c[/math]
Some shitty wires and dielectrics are able to do integration, a thing which can only be done by someone with a very conscious memory and intelligence.
Consciousness is just a result of whatever laws. Maybe a bit of a stretch but, for me, a river is as conscious as humans because it finds the lowest point of gravity no matter where you put it.

>>14723584
>other parts are deriving and matching it to artifacts in memory, experience, and continued perception. That last part is the one that finds the redness of red to be an isolated quality
You're saying we experience the redness of red because we derive the redness of red from experience. You're avoiding the problem of experience itself.
>>14723592
>Its just qualia explained through in-house mechanisms of the brain.
How? How does a quantitative measurement explain a qualitative experience?
>"What's its like" is just a failure of self reporting
What does that mean?
>and conveying a very mundane phenomenon.
Meaningless combination of words

>>14723584
The "Hard" problem is how does it all physically mechanicaly work.

As if you were a cave man brought to a super moder fully automated factory, and asked to reverse engineer the blue prints

the future of qualia and consciousness

>>14723611
No, the hard problem about qualia, not how certain material processes cause certain material effects. You can use a blueprint to explain why a person puts their hand over their eyes when the sun is too bright, but there is no blueprint that shows why or how that person experiences brightness.

Our brain doesn't need our consciousness to use algorithms. Or to optimize them.
But the task of creating them... The power necessary for the task isn't something a piece of meet can achieve.

From the point of view of our body, our consciousness is an additional organ that helps its nervous system with a type of calculations it sucks at.

While in theory a piece of meet can do everything our consciousness does. In reality, to achieve the processing power required, it would need unreasonable amounts of calories.

>>14723497
Our brain is receptor
True consciousness reside in the soul
Cope and seethe, soulless materialists

>>14723497
We only insist that we are running the show because our brain says that we do. And since we trust it with 99% of our memory, we have no way to catch it lying.

>>14723669
>Our brain is receptor
Indeed. But it has an intelligence of its own. And an agenda. Your brain needs your soul for a reason. Never forget.

>>14723609
>You're avoiding the problem of experience itself.
I'm not avoiding it, I've been naming it outright. Experience is a neat feature the thing learned to do in its billionth iteration. I will admit that self-reflection is not terribly useful to the organism as it causes healthy animals with the ability to breed to blow their brains out. That alone tells us its a quirk; A sophisticated hunting computer gone awry. Consciousness is a bug.

>>14723611
Well aware, also aware I could reverse engineer it to death and not pick out the content of consciousness, but as I laid out, this is more a naming problem than some deep mystery.

>>14723629
>why or how that person experiences brightness
What I'm trying to say is that while you can never convey the personal language of brightness, you can posit a perfectly material computational reason of what it means to "experience brightness." It just won't do you a whole hell of good without having their subjective experience.

There is a hard problem, a hard communication problem.

>>14723708
>Experience is a neat feature the thing learned to do in its billionth iteration.
The problem is how do material things produce qualia. Being affected by something and reacting to it is not the same thing as experiencing qualia.
>>14723718
>you can posit a perfectly material computational reason of what it means to "experience brightness."
Science can analyze the material/behavioral processes that correspond to subjective experiences, but it cannot say why it is that a subject should see "redness" rather than simply be affected by and react to the light waves that correspond to redness.

>consciousness - "the consciousness doesn't exist" edition

>>14723965
I've offered gladly these points. The beef lay within the suicidal leap towards non-physical explanations, which are clearly horseshit. The mechanism is enigmatic, but its just another lousy mechanism.

>>14724011
>mfw I can't wait

>>14724011
Daily reminder that there is no such thing as a "non-physical explanation" because "physical" is not a real category in the first place.

>>14723708
>Well aware, also aware I could reverse engineer it to death and not pick out the content of consciousness
Hm, maybe. I was thinking in order to draw the blueprints of every aspect of the brain (fundamentally) you would need to understand what exactly is what that resulted in the concious experience.

There are electron microscopes but are there electron video micro scopes that can be placed in a developing fetuses brain?
>>14723629
yeah yeah.

People saying the body/brain doesn't need conciousness, maybe they are conflating conciousness with self awareness, as maybe an alligator is concious but not thinking "wow I'm so concious right now"

But conciousness allows large scale actions, (we via) our brain sees outside our eyes like they are periscopes, and we see fruit on a tree 50 yards away so then make the decision and active effort to go over there. There needs to be the exact peerer out of the eyes and decider to act.

Conciousness is an incredible extravagant mystery. Likely much to do with how subtle and fast light is, and how versitile electricity and magnetism is, not to mention chemicals, and all sorts of other micro machine soft and hard stuctures.

Nothing even close to something like conciousness should be feasibly possible for any reason ever. It is astonishingly bizarely, some fucking how possible and there is nothing more irritating than an unsolvable mystery, especially one closest to home

>>14723970

>>14723552
>Who are you trying to convince if we're all deterministic automata? Oh wait, that's right, you can't do anything else, because you're just a fleshy robot.
These puerile insults do nothing but embarrass yourself.

>Conscious experience is completely inexplicable.
Proof?

>>14724011
The whole problem is that there aren't any physical explanations for the emergence of qualia. Physicists do not fit qualia into their theories, they set them aside because they can't perform measurements on them.

>>14724076
>that there aren't any physical explanations for the emergence of qualia
No, this is what I'm trying to clear up. This is fallacious reasoning. Chalmers, Nagel, and qualia realists in-general don't by necessity believe there is no physical explanation.

>While describing himself as a dualist, Chalmers nevertheless believes that a Turing machine running the right "program" will have qualia, and since Turing machines are deterministic, I think that the only way to dodge epiphenomenalism at that point is to note that the only place a non-epiphenomenal qualia may hide in a physically implemented mechanical Turing machine is, strangely enough, causality itself (whatever that could possibly mean)

>>14724076
is there something preventing me from measuring my own experiences?

>>14724212
>Chalmers nevertheless believes that a Turing machine running the right "program" will have qualia
Why should I care what this dude fantasizes about? This isn't science.
>>14724227
How would you measure qualia?

>>14724257
Why should you care what the father of the hard problem of consciousness thinks on qualia? Why are you even here?

>>14724266
Same reason I'm not a Freudian

>>14724280
Why are you surprised that unscientific questions, has unscientific answers?

>>14724212
>Chalmers nevertheless believes that a Turing machine running the right "program" will have qualia
What about a Turing machine running a weather simulation, will it be wet when simulating rainfall?

>>14724297
I'm not surprised, I'm just disappointed that /sci/ either misrepresents the problem or rejects it completely.

>>14724316
Yes, the moisture resides in causality itself strangely enough

>>14724322
what would you say to a person that thinks water is necesarry for wetness?

What exactly is the hard problem of consciousness? Bloviating around with a lot of words to say very little isn't helpful, op.

>>14724328
I would tell them to trust the science

>>14724348
what does science have to say about what is wet or not?

>>14724322
no it doesn't

>>14724358
Wetness emerges from an enigmatic mechanical process

>>14724365
lmao, what even is wetness?
It's not like this is an agreed upon thing. To me, it could be whatever I postulate it is

Surely there is no hard problem of consciousness when every action can be reduced to the most root foundations of its physical principle? I don't even see why the "hard problem of consciousness" is even a contention.

>>14724365
>>14724371
wetness emerges from liquid matter

>>14724375
The whole thing is just fucking retarded.
You get the problem by basically just rejecting the premise of whatever you said of consciousness being reducible to the physical.
Proponents of there being a hard problem of consciousness are allowed to do that, in the context of these conversations

But for some reason. Opponents of there being a hard problem, they are not allowed to do the same?
Why can't I just reject the premise of: Consciousness NOT being reducible to the physical?

It's a blatant double standard in the discourse
and no one is sorting this out, it's why philosophy is retarded to me. this is just so obvious
it's also why I'm pessimistic about philosophy. What are you supposed to do at a stalemate where both sides are just going: Nu-uh!

>>14724381
Aha. So back to the Turing machine
does ones and zeroes constitute liquid matter?

This is why I think the physical material actually matters for wetness.
The same could be true for qualia.

>>14724384
I understand the word grifting in all clarity now, thanks to your expressed frustration. :p

>>14724339
>What exactly is the hard problem of consciousness?
A rock is made of atoms.
A man is made of atoms

Why exactly can the man do things a rock can't.

How can the atoms and their arrangement in man, produce your experience of second to second being yourself.

If you had access to all the atoms you could need; how would you put them together to result in making an entity that can experience as you can

>consciousness doesn't exist, it's just an illusion
>illusions are deceptive contents in an observer's conscious mind
Is Dennett a dualist??

>>14724339
1) A person is made up of atoms, a brain of neurons firing electrical signals, and such.

2) A person reality is through the conscious mind, through our conscious mind we can discern "A person is made up of atoms, a brain of neurons firing...", through the conscious mind we can use reason/logic/feelings to discern what is right/wrong, how we perceive things, how we understand things, etc.

The problem is who has authority between the two? In classical physicalist argument, the atomic physical body has priority. However if you're even a little bit skeptical, you'd notice the whole notion of physicalist ideals stems from a conscious mind. Hence the actual authority to decide rests upon the conscious mind. This argument itself comes from the conscious mind.

But really, its a matter of trying to bridge the gap, not so far as to undermine "physically external" reality, however thats the real underlying problem behind the "hard problem" of consciousness.

>>14724386
There is basically no one that denies that physical material matters for systems. The strong church turing thesis is basically disproven at this point, but the modest church turing thesis is pretty well substantiated.

>>14724591
He's probably not articulating it right because he himself doesn't understand his words properly. Or he hasn't read other works on consciousness like the ones from the ancient eastern texts which have influenced the modern discourses that others are debating about.

>>14725551
The hindus are correct over the buddhists about that whole thing

>>14724339
>What exactly is the hard problem of consciousness?
The inherent contradiction in coming up with a testable hypothesis that explains subjective perceptions. The only way to prove such a hypothesis is to create an artificial system with subjective perceptions, but there is no way to prove that such a system does indeed have subjective perceptions, even if it claims it does. The most you can do is to verify that your system replicates the same kind of activity you claim is the cause of subjective perceptions, but that's obviously just begging the question.

>>14725565
Technically speaking Yahwah is correct, not Hindus. Hindus are just channeling Yahwah into through scripture as Christians made their way into India and they corrupted the light of Yahwah.

>Physicists IIT that think their field won't be relegated to the humanities next to gender studies in the next 10 years and STEM won't just because TM

>>14723497
>Marine Biologist
His opinion is as legitimate as a priest harping about dualism

>>14725774
Are you seriously nagging a 100 year old guy for not having gone to school and taken classes in the field he was a part of creating?

>>14723497
>>14723507
>I have no consciousness which means that nobody has
265th episode

>>14726277
Is that the argument you think is being presented?
I'm so sorry, but you are retarded

>>14726335
Not an argument, and that is all that is being provided. Provide more if you think that's not the case. I await your unconcious response.

>>14723497
The hard problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that you have a soul

>>14725774
Watts spends pretty much the whole lecture making that argument himself. What is important is the cases he presents. If you want the academic take, read Metzinger.

>>14726368
I'm telling you, that you are fundamentally misunderstanding the conversation if you think this
>I have no consciousness which means that nobody has
Is what people are saying. It isn't.
So I'm not particularly interested in providing arguments against this.


all this is happening because you are retarded
99% certain

>>14726094
>Are you seriously nagging a 100 year old guy for talking about something he genuinely has zero understanding of
yes
>>14726450
>If you want the academic take, read Metzinger.
I'll look into him

>>14726277
Don't listen to the other idiot, you got the idea. They are trying to avoid talking about consciousness by pretending humans don't actually have qualia (phenomenal experiences). So you are correct in a sense.

>>14726514
What's blocking the road? >>14724384

daniel dennett is an actual fucking retard lmao

>imagine a fish that was indistinguishable from a regular fish, except when it inflates it's swimming bladder it doesn't float
>that's CONCEIVABLE, right? Therefore, buoyancy is magic

>Conscious is separable from the body
Theist-tier faggotry
>Consciousness isn't real
Theist-tier faggotry

>>14724384
"Consciousness NOT being reducible to the physical" is not the premise, it's a possible conclusion. The hard problem is more like "how do we know neurological activity results in experience?". We don't see experience when we look at brains, so where is it?

>>14726521
>Consciousness isn't real
The idea of perceiving being conscious is real, we can detect the moment the brain makes choices and how much it takes for the "consciousness" to become aware of it

>>14726551
>we can detect the moment the brain makes choices and how much it takes for the "consciousness" to become aware of it
No, we can't.

>>14726539
>how do we know neurological activity results in experience?
Is already possible to read and display dreams by reading brain activity, this is clear proof that human experience is completelly brain generated also the way our eyes encode information is similar to digitally recorded ones theres even an information protocol employed and its almost identical to the ones other primates also use

>>14726576
>Is already possible to read and display dreams by reading brain activity
No, it isn't. Why do you people keep lying?

>this is clear proof that human experience is completelly brain generated
No, it isn't.

>>14726554
Brain makes decisions before you even know it
https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2008.751

>>14726585
No, it doesn't. Why do you trust pop-sci drivel?

>>14726599
>nature
>po-sci drivel

>>14726582
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11625

>>14726576
Think of it this way: why does an electrochemical process result in a dream?

>>14726606
Yes, it's the very definition of pop-sci drivel. It's a layman-oriented article presenting some study results in a misleading way false and suggesting a false conclusion.

>>14726607
See >>14726614. Samefag by any chance? I wonder why you have to resort to retarded propaganda to defend your position, if it's so solid.

>>14726614
Sorry but you have no argument here, just face the truth theres no magic, once you die is over , theres no santa claus or dead space jew to save you

>>14726636
I'm gonna ignore your brainwashed, low IQ resposne for now and give you a chance to explain how you think your conclusion follows from the results of the study. Protip: you can't do it.

>>14726539
I think I could reformulated it to a premise if pressed, lmao
Did you have trouble understanding what I meant?

>>14726582
There being a causal connection, would certainly seem like a parsimonious explanation..

>>14726639
Cope

>>14726645
>There being a causal connection
Between what?

>>14726648
So you're unable to explain how your conclusion follows from that vaguely referenced study. Fair enough.

>>14726652
Deep down, you know I'm right. When the machine stops, we stop.

>>14726639
Now you are just being stubborn, It must be very hard for you but human experience is far from magical unlike you learned from early age and still got the nerve to call other people "brainwashed"

>>14726653
Deep down, I know you're brainwashed and probably mentally ill. Why else would you be talking to imaginary characters in your head about things I never mentioned and don't care about?

>>14726585
>Deboonked popsoi article

>>14726655
Notice how you repeatedly fail to explain how your conclusion follows from your study. You will deflect a

>>14726662
One denies aspects of so called free wil and another shows that human experience is material by nature

>>14726676
Still waiting for you to explain how they accomplish that. You will deflect for the firth time now. lol

>>14726682
Because the conclusion doesn't and in that same article the people who undertook the experiment also admit they don't fully know what conclusion to draw.

>>14726689
Well, no shit. I just want to know why he thinks it does. I suspect there is no thought process to speak of.

>>14726695
Either way """we""" do have an unconscious mind and it controls/shapes """us""" in a large capacity

>>14726696
I never implied otherwise, but any non-trivial decision process obviously involves some kind of feedback loop between subconscious processing and conscious reflection. Training people to perform a trivial task that quickly becomes so reflexive that no conscious review is required before the action is taken proves nothing.

>>14726682
Being able to parse visual data from neural activity self evidetly proves neurons are responsible for that kind of human experience, also the "conciousness" being the last to be concious about choises made by the brain proves that "conciousness" at very least does not lives up to its name and points towards it being just some kind of interface

>>14726709
>I never implied otherwise, but any non-trivial decision process obviously involves some kind of feedback loop between subconscious processing and conscious reflection
But thats not the case its mostly "conscious " mind being told what to do in the last steps of choice making

>>14726649
figure it out

>>14726710
>Being able to parse visual data from neural activity
You're lying. They do no such thing.

>self evidetly proves neurons are responsible for that kind of human experience
At most, it would prove that neurons are responsible for the generated imagery, which is completely unsurprising and doesn't explain how or why the imagery is actually experienced.

>the "conciousness" being the last to be concious about choises
Same thing: you start off with a lie and move on directly to a nonsequitur. See >>14726709 for a full refutation in any case. You lost. Discussion closed. You may foam at the mouth and attempt to save face now but your posts will be ignored.

>>14726715
You are subhuman for thinking that way and in any case, your study doesn't even come close to proving your assertion.

>>14726710
>Being able to parse visual data from neural activity self evidetly proves neurons are responsible for that kind of human experience,
Yes
>also the "conciousness" being the last to be concious about choises made by the brain proves that "conciousness" at very least does not lives up to its name and points towards it being just some kind of interface
From the article
>But results aren't enough to convince Frith that free will is an illusion. “We already know our decisions can be unconsciously primed,” he says. The brain activity could be part of this priming, as opposed to the decision process, he adds.
That brain circuit remains a black box and the neuroscientists that looked into this don't actually know what happens along the way between the decision and the neural activity

>>14726718
>I won
Mostly wrong and not refutation of any kind

>>14726539
>We don't see experience when we look at brains, so where is it?
We don't see all the individual electron motions, we don't see the quarks or gluons, we dont see all the facets of the EM field and it's vibrations

>>14726766
He obviously means "see" in the broadesr sense of "detect", brainlet.

CONSIDER THIS:

IMAGINE BEING AN INSANELY DUMB IDIOT, AND TRYING TO TALK AND (HARDLY) THINK ABOUT ONE OF THE MOST COMPLEX MYSTERIOUS TOPICS KNOWN.

>>14726780
There is a reason these threads are always filled with schizos

>>14726769
Yeah, we don't detect all those things I mentioned.

It's like being in a pitch black room, blindfolded, looking for a gold cup, and you don't know what it looks like or it's texture, and you go around feeling things, and you come out and say you made a catalogue if everything in the room but there is no gold cup. And maybe the gold cup is hanging by a string from the ceiling you had to stand on a table to reach, or it's just beyond the cover inside a vent, or in a trap door in the floor, or it's a hologram projection reflecting off smoke and mirrors

>>14726790
Your analogy is profoundly retarded and vacuous. We don't detect subjective perceptions because subjective perceptions are subjective not because we lack the proper instruments.

>>14726798
A fool who is uncautiously aware of how foolish they are is at least a double fool

>>14726798
You do the bare minimum of thinking, if it can be called that, and then proudly galavant your ignorance through the streets like a shit stained whore

>>14726894
>>14726895
I see some butthurt seething but my point still stands undisputed.

>>14726901
You and your stupidity is Zilch, compared to the mechanical miraculous genius intricacies of the engineering, computer science, biology, chemistry, physics, that is inventing and maintaing conciousness on earth.

Your innane blathering blabbering babbling belittles yourself in the face of that which is much more sophisticated than you, that which allows you to be and think and see and do and know anything.

The grossest sort of fool who pretends a problem is solved by pretending there is no problem, grosser still one who does not pretend, but believes it.

>>14726920
You sound like a fully automated spambot. You don't seem to have any idea who you're arguing with and over what.

>>14726923
I know, was just practicing Incase I got in an argument out in town tonight

>>14724011
>materialism MUST be true!!!!11!
>i know this because... i just know it, Ok?!!

No matter how passionate you may be about that though, we already know that every1 changes their mind when they have an NDE.

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Afterlife-Obviously-Exists-Realer-Than-Real/dp/1785359851/

Even extreme skeptics change their minds when they have an NDE.

>>14727139
"""Near death""" experiences are also triggered by psychedelics. They don't prove anything except that the chemistry of dying/almost dying is similar to tripping balls.

>>14727139
>Even extreme skeptics change their minds when they have an NDE.
They don't, you're full of shit.

>>14727139
ndes? Oh, you mean those alive people who are totally fucking alive and never actually died. Yeah I would be convinced too if were a fucking idiot.

>>14727139
>Even extreme skeptics change their minds when they have an NDE.
Pleas, those guys don't believe in consciousness, nothing can change their mind.

>>14727502
>those guys don't believe in consciousness
False.

>>14727307
Woaw, pure gut reaction denial, what an impressive counterargument! ;)

Seriously though, the book that was linked in the post you replied to - >>14727139 - makes a huge deal about the fact that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and that when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Statistics collected ... show that the “deeper” the NDE ... the greater the percentage of those who come away certain of the existence of the afterlife. Among those with the deepest experiences ... 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, “An afterlife definitely exists”

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. And so would you, me, or anyone, because it is VASTLY more self-evidently real than this puny little experience of life on Earth we have now. When you dream and wake up, you immediately realize that life is more real than your dream. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep, deep dream and the NDE world is the real world.

But I know that I am talking to an ideological wall here, so I don't expect to change your mind, and I know that you will never read the literature, just like religious fundamentalists won't study physics and geology to realize that the bible isn't true. It's the same thing here, just on another level. Psychology of ideology 101.

>>14727489
NDErs understand that objection and still maintain that they undeniably experienced a higher reality. In fact, they remembered it, just like we remember everyday life when we wake up. It's not learning about a new place completely from scratch.

So what do you understand about why NDEs ***MUST*** be hallucinations that 100% of the population doesn't?

>>14727161
NDErs say that the NDE was trillions upon trillions of times more everything than the deepest of psychedelic experiences they've ever had, and that it's nothing like tripping or hallucination, that it is vastly more coherent than sitting down and studying physics or logic.

>>14727307
>>14727691
If existence/time is infinite, then logically there is an afterlife.

>>14726458
It's what all the lectures are about. Someone claims to have no consciousness poses himself as the rational guy who tries to explain everyone else howuch they are confused for thinking they do have it. (and typically doesn't actually seem to understand in any clear way what the word even refers to)

>>14727910
>>>14726458 #
It's what all the lectures are about. Someone who claims to have no consciousness poses as the rational guy who tries to explain everyone else how much they are confused for thinking they do have it. (and typically doesn't actually seem to understand in any clear way what the word even refers to)

>>1472645
It's what all the lectures are about. Someone who claims to have no consciousness poses as the rational guy who tries to explain everyone else how much they are confused for thinking they do have it. (and typically doesn't actually seem to understand in any clear way what consciousness even is)

>>14727915
Hi, I'm an NPC. Let me tell you all about why you are one as well. :^)

>>14726458
It's what all the lectures are about. Someone who claims to have no consciousness poses as the rational guy who tries to explain everyone else how much they are confused for thinking they do have it. (and typically doesn't actually seem to understand in any clear way what consciousness even is)

>>14727917
--->>>14727918

>>14727918
Prove that consciouisness exists. Protip: you LITERALLY can't. Imagine being a science-denying chud who keeps babbling about "qualia" and "perceptions" and other schizoshit that doesn't exist. There is no god, there is no afterlife, there is no magic, there are only particles and heckin' peckin' emergent properties. :^)

>>14727926
yes, correct :-)

>something clearly exists
>let's prove that it doesn't exist despite the preponderance of evidence

modern atheist "science" for you

>>14727981
lol where's the evidence of your so-called consciousness? You claim you "see" things? Well my eyes aren't sending any sense inputs into my internal processing loop that correspond to the things you claim to "see", chud. You don't "see" anything.

This is one of the shittiest consciousness threads we've had recently, nothing interesting has been said so far. I have some points to get off my chest though.
- "Something it is like" is meaningless garbage and its widespread acceptance within philosophy of mind shows that most philosophers of mind are daft cunts
- There is a perfectly reasonable materialist explanation for "qualia" right there in the philosophical literature, just almost nobody realizes it. However there is a small problem, namely: even if we were to get a materialist explanation of qualia that everyone can agree on, people will still not accept it as a solution to the hard problem. They would just latch onto something else ("subjectivity" or what have you) and say that actually, THAT is the hard problem now.
- Chalmers is full of shit for not accepting the fact that zombies introspect and talk about their own consciousness is sufficient reason to deem them inconceivable. However, this does not really matter since it's very easy to find common ground with Chalmers: we simply say that we are interested in whatever it is that makes zombies write papers about consciousness. This does not met his personal standard for consciousness but we can just lay that aside for the moment.
- In general everyone should be able to agree that we can at least get a materialist explanation of the meta-problem of consciousness: why exactly do some people talk about consciousness all the time, why are they so puzzled by it, write papers about it etc? People talking about consciousness is without a shadof of a doubt a physical phenomenon and as such can be traced back to its ultimate physical origins (in theory). The fact that this insight is not put to widespread use within philosophy of mind shows that most philosophers of mind are daft cunts.
- A solution to the meta-problem of consciousness would be almost as good and would most likely lead to (or be shown to be equivalent to) a solution of the "hard problem".

>>14728106
Thanks for the "insight", GPT.

>>14726450
>Metzinger
I watched those lectures of him that were posted a few threads back, pretty cool stuff although I'm not really convinced he's on the right track (i.e. trying to find the minimal conscious experience in buddhist meditation practice and then distilling that to an answer to the hard problem). I would rather say that if there is an answer to the hard problem, you will find it in the normal everyday experience just as much as in some ego-death full immersion meditative state.
>>14724384
Very fair point desu.

>>14724384
80 IQ "point". The hard problem of consciousness arises only in the context of *accepting* the premise that consciousness is reducible into particles and their interactions.

>>14728130
>The hard problem of consciousness arises only in the context of *accepting* the premise that consciousness is reducible into particles and their interactions.
What is the problem then? Just wait until we can image the brain with sufficient precision and map the information flows and computations therein. Then wait until we have the information-theoretical tools to abstract these information flows and computations into higher-level components that are acceptable to humans as an "explanation". Then it will probably be solved.
The claim "there is a hard problem" amounts to saying "I already know for sure, even though we haven't even been able to give it an honest attempt, that this is not possible". There seems to be completely no basis for this claim except muh feelings and muh ancient and christian theology.

>>14728145
>What is the problem then?
Shouldn't you ask that BEFORE you spout your hot takes? >>14725570 explains it and renders the rest of your post moot.

>>14728150
There is a specific claim involved in claiming there is a hard problem, namely that it is, fundamentally and in principle, an insoluble problem. That poster just explained why there is a moderately difficult problem (in the colloquial sense), not why this is a hard problem (in the Chalmers et al. sense). The supposed hardness of the problem is the key issue here and it would require rigorous proof.

>>14728159
>That poster just explained why there is a moderately difficult problem
Read that post again. The problem presented there is insoluble.

>>14728145
>Just wait until we can image the brain with sufficient precision and map the information flows and computations therein
This is never going to happen, the compution and molecular dynamics are irreducibly complex.

Consciousness is not physical
Consciousness is not immaterial
Consciousness is not computation

It doesn't exist as a thing. "Consciousness" is just a senses + memory + number crunching put together. Similar to how a bicycle is not a physical "thing." Its a combination of wheels, chains, handles, frames, spokes, tires, functions as a moving vehicle, in a particular way, to a particular time, in a particular society, to a particular person. Just as bicycle doesn't exist outside the mind, the conscious mind doesn't exist outside the conscious mind. The consciousness idea also suffers from the same problem and hence runs through the same recursive process in trying to explain itself.

>>14728213
>consciousness is like a bicycle
>a bicycle is not a physical "thing."
This is probably the most idiotic post iTT.

>>14728192
It doesn't matter if it happens or no. Information and computations are imaginary. They can be used to reason about something real, but they can never constitute something real.

>>14728230
Try reading more

>>14728242
You sound like a 12 years old retard trying to formulate his first "philosophical" thought.

>>14728246
Try harder

>>14728247
You will never be an intellectual, no matter how many Kant For Dummies YT videos you consume.

>>14728192
If a human brain has ~80 billion neurons that fits in a cube with just over 4000 neurons a side. We'll probably get there I'd guess.

>>14728259
>a human brain has ~80 billion neurons
How did you manage to misunderstand his post so badly? lol. /sci/ is a real dumpster.

>>14723507
Because consciousness is the prima materia.

>>14728160
He did not prove that. He merely stated the problem and relied on the reader's (faulty) intuition to assume that it is insoluble by virtue of having to do with human subjectivity.

>>14723604
>let me vomit out a simple mathematical formula and declare that I know the biggest mystery in the universe right now
Biggest airhead on this thread

>>14723497
>if i define consciousness as not real then theres no hard problem
Brilliant dennet, brilliant

>>14728297
Feel free to explain how you'd go about proving that some entity has subjective perceptions. Spoiler: you will deflect in your next post because you can't do it.

>>14723604
you are way of the mark. those shitty wires and dielectrics can do integration due to intelligent design by us.And no , a river is not as consious as the brain

>>14723684
how can dualists like you still exist ?

>>14728213
>Consciousness" is just a senses + memory + number crunching put together.
Right, if that is true
And if that's what some people mean by the word Consciousness, they got no problem

Bicycle is also a word, btw

>>14728337
Exactly the same way they could exist beforehand. Neuroscience explains nothing. And I mean nothing. It doesn't even explain basic brain functions, let alone consciousness. You're not exactly making it difficult for dualists to exist.

>>14728192
Do you think we need to compute every molecule's dynamic to get something useful from a brain simulation?

>>14728351
Yes.

>>14728328
This is the point of my original post
Why am I not allowed to just reject your premise? (that it's impossible)
For some reason, you act like you are allowed to reject mine. (that it's possible)

I've already conceded that I don't currently have a theory (hypothesis, model w/e)
But I've not conceded that such a theory is impossible.
It's just stupid rhetoric to ask me for something I already told you I don't got. Who's that supposed to fool? I know it, you know it..

>>14728359
Why?

>molecular dynamics are irreducibly complex
Btw, what makes this true?

>>14726612
it seems to me that its similar to showing someone wolfram running on your laptop . At the level you are looking at how could ones and zeros produce solutions to equations but they can. Same with conciousness , there are configurations of matter that can facilitate consciousness but we dont yet know what are the ones and zeros

>>14728360
You sound like you're having a psychotic episode. I accept your premise. Consciousness is totally reducible to particle interactions. Now explain how you're going to test any hypothesis about how that works. Spoiler: you will deflect again.

>>14728363
>Why
Because that's what's required to understand any physical system to its true fidelity, the brain is not special here. I don't fully understand this question.

>>14728373
I've already conceded that I don't currently have a EXPLANATION (theory, hypothesis, model w/e)
But I've not conceded that such an explanation is impossible.
It's just stupid rhetoric to ask me for something I already told you I don't got. Who's that supposed to fool? I know it, you know it..

>>14728384
Could you be wrong about molecular dynamics being irreducibly complex?

>>14728390
>don't currently have a EXPLANATION
I'm not asking you for an explanation. I'm asking you how you could possibly test any explanation in principle. lol

>>14727691
Psychedelics allow you to tap into that realm that your consciousness will enter after death while you're still alive

>>14728370
But with a laptop, you get to see the screen, the final output. We don't see the screen when it comes to consciousness

>>14728398
Wouldn't an answer to that just make the problem go away?
Are you asking me to just solve the hard problem on the spot? Or at least significantly weaken it

>>14723497
You will never understand where the "you" part of consciousness is in the brain because it isn't, and has never been, material

Y'all are ultra-retarded

>>14728409
>Wouldn't an answer to that just make the problem go away?
Yes, it would, but you obviously can't, regardless of what theory you come up with, so the problem will never go away. I feel like I'm talking to a clinical retard.

>>14728394
I'm pretty sure a universal quantum computer can simulate any chemical reaction with only polynomial time blowup.

>>14728401
If people on psychedelic thought they were doing that, but were wrong
How could we tell?

>>14728415
Do you think repeatedly asking people to solve the hard problem
is a good argument for the hard problem? Who's that supposed to persuade

I'm obviously content with not being able to solve it myself

>>14728384
We don't need molecular dynamics to explain how a bicycle works to its true fidelity. Abstraction is good enough.

>>14728411
Ok, spookster

>>14728418
You "people" are not just stupid. You are actually mentally ill. I have no other explanation for your reactions.

>>14728421
Yes we do, especially when you're talking about something as complex as a mind.
You will never be able to reduce the abstraction of your mind. It's already in its most compressed form, there is no lesser amount of information or molecular combination that will produce it.
It is not possible even in principle to upload your mind onto a computer

>>14728426
What do you think you've been doing in this conversation?
You just keep reasserting that there is an hard problem. Just being a bit unclear about what you are actually saying.

The argument supporting it being something like this:
Unless I can solve it, RIGHT NOW, you win and I lose

>>14728401
>>14728417
The biggest lie ever told is that nothing happen after death
Satan is the great deceiver... he deceives and control scientists nowadays, they all want to make you look at the wrong materialist part so that you don't fear god and think he doesn't exist, you need to repent right now and declare all "science" wicked

>>14728431
>You just keep reasserting that there is an hard problem
I'm not asserting anything. I'm asking you how you would go about testing a potential hypothesis but this question seems to soft-lock your bot brain. How come you have to plead to some magical future science that no one can rationally conceive of if there is no "hard problem"?

>>14728427
>something as complex as a mind
Why is a mind complex? Don't minds and bikes both reduce to irreducibly complex molecular dynamics?

My original question was this:
>Do you think we need to compute every molecule's dynamic to get something useful from a brain simulation?
Obviously it depends on what I mean by "useful"
I didn't bother to press on this, but I think it seems deranged to answer yes to this
I'm not arguing for a mind upload

>>14728442
I'm sorry I didn't understand.
Are you asking me to solve the hard problem again?

>>14728438
Most sane dualist in this thread

>>14728449
>Are you asking me to solve the hard problem again?
Nope. It's hilarious how you still think the "hard problem" is some problem you're supposed to solve. You seem to be some kind of a label-thinking drone.

>>14728454
Okay. You convinced my consciousness is unexplainable.
It's still physical, though. And you can't ever prove me wrong, because it's unexplainable.
Just happens to be both physical and inexplicable

>>14728443
If I were to remove half of the oxygen atoms in your brain, or any percentage of any of the atoms in your brain, do you think this would have no effect on your mental state?
To what degree could any component of your brain be deleted without any loss of function?

>>14728460
>It's still physical, though
That's a completely vacuous assertion that I don't care to engage with, but I'm satisfied that you agree empiricism is not equipped to deal with the question of how and why subjective perceptions occur.

>>14728463
I just don't think you would have to bother with fully simulated molecular dynamics
I think you could have a useful brain simulations with simplified molecular dynamics, something like that

I even think you could do something without molecules, just focus on the whatever function neurons are performing. An ersatz "brain" at this point

>>14728449
>>14728454
Every one is on the same page that consciousness is physical. That's the easy problem that we have "solved"/agreed upon. The "hard problem" is how does explaining/showing/proving how neurons firing electrical signals results in subjective experience. How does neuron firings at seeminly randomly on a laboratory scenario generate an image of me having a dream about having a sexy cat girl on a catgirl planet? There's no 1:1 sensible explanation that says this neuron = planet, that neuron = cat girl, that other one is me having sex, etc. Basically its the "explanation gap" between the subjective experience and hard physical brain.

The problem is thrown out by others saying "well yea, that can be explain down the line as we learn more", but what does that mean even by down the line? How do we even get to a framework that explains our subjective experience and map that on to a piece of meat with electricity pumped through it?

Some ideological materialist deny there's hard problem at all by denying there's no "subjective experience" of a person. Which leads to the impossible scenario of "zombies." Its fun to argue if there could be a zombie or not, but ultimately its a non-starter.

The "hard problem" isn't asking what consciousness is, whether its an entity/soul as theistic types push it, or if its merely computational or a concept (like a bicycle) that others are saying. That's another set of problem.

>>14728466
You're just scared cuz you can't prove me wrong, even in principle

>>14728492
>you can't prove me wrong
You're literally not saying anything in the first place.

>>14728482
>I just don't think you would have to bother with fully simulated molecular dynamics
Why not?
>I think you could have a useful brain simulations with simplified molecular dynamics, something like that
Why?

>>14728497
I'm saying that it isn't spooky

>>14728487
>Every one is on the same page that consciousness is physical.
You and the rest of the retards. Personally, I don't know what it means for consciousness to be "physical" since "physical" is just a provisional shopping list of known phenomena and their mathematical models. What most of you drones mean when you say "physical" is "reducible to particle interactions", which is a dubious and untestable assertion (i.e. unscientific).

>>14728503
I don't know what "spooky" means in terms of soience. Sorry. You're not saying anything whatsoever.

>>14728499
Same reason you don't need perfect molecular dynamics to have have weather simulation tell us useful things

>I think you could have a useful brain simulations with simplified molecular dynamics, something like that
>Why?
Now this I will admit is a much more contentious position. I don't even think I could provide strong arguments to defend it.
It just *seems* really plausible to me.

>>14728507
We don't need to get at what physical means or what brain means, what matters is that consciousness and physical brains are linked. To know something is conscious requires a conscious brain in the first place. Hence the starting place for discussing is the body/brain and consciousness.

Otherwise, you're free to cut off your own head and claim that you have consciousness other than your body and try to prove it that way.

>>14728513
The core I'm trying to get at is that simulations do not exist and can not be considered as valid representations of the actual thing in itself. Neither a weather simulation nor a simulation of any system really.
Mathematics is not real.

>>14728517
>We don't need to get at what physical means
You do; otherwise you're saying essentially nothing when you call things "physical".

>what matters is that consciousness and physical brains are linked
That's obvious but it doesn't explain anything, nor does it prove that consciousness is a product of particle interactions.

>>14728525
>That's obvious but it doesn't explain anything
Thats irrelevant for starting point. If you agree brain and body are linked, thats the starting point for discussion. The brain has neurons with electricity, the subjective consciousness has no objective property and everything and anything in the framework of subjective consciousness is made up, whether thats a 10 foot lion, a union, a person, a bike, a house, a car, a beautiful music, etc. Atleast, not in anything physics/biological/chemical experiments/explainatory ways. You could drag on arguing body isn't real, physical isn't real, contents of consciousness isn't real, consciousness as content isn't real, etc where does that lead you? No one knows. The hard part isn't the starting point, its where the discussion leads.

>>14728512
You're not fooling me, spookster

>>14728530
Furthermore, you could limit the scope of the topic to physical body-brain/subjective consciouness and could be having a limited scope discussion, but people here have no philosophical discipline and hence cannot have a healthy debate, largely because posters aren't trained philosophically and have no formal rules established and no formal limits to discussion so tangent arguments are made all the time with no resource or means to control the discussion back

>>14728530
>Thats irrelevant for starting point
It's irrelevant that consciousness is "physical"? Then why do you keep asserting that? The rest of your schizoramble isn't even coherent. What's up with that? ASL or just plain old retardation?

>>14728531
So you're reverting to having imaginary arguments with strawmen in your head to soothe the butthurt.

>>14728544
Are we having an argument?
You can't argue against my position, and you don't seem to have any positions yourself

>>14728547
>You can't argue against my position
What position? You can't even explain what your position is. You're legit psychotic.

>>14728551
Cool it with the gaslighting

>>14728542
Why you get so upset at the P-word?
Just chill out and watch some Jay Dyer.

>>14728449
It's that bodhi guy again, don't bother he'll talk in circles for hours with any and all comers.

I just think fundamentally the brain and the mind is made out of the same kind of stuff
I don't think I have to say what that stuff is, for my premise to be true

I don't know what it means for stuff to be mental so I just picked physical over idealism

>>14728557
You seriously need to take your meds. I wasn't arguing about whether consciousness is "physical" or "nonphysical" at any point. I don't even accept it as legitimate distinction until someone explains what specific properties make something "physical".

>>14728487
>There's no 1:1 sensible explanation that says this neuron = planet, that neuron = cat girl, that other one is me having sex, etc. Basically its the "explanation gap" between the subjective experience and hard physical brain.
This is not "the hard problem" in the sense Chalmers means it, i.e. fundamentally insoluble. It's just an unsolved problem for which it's perfectly imaginable that we'll have a solution one day.

>>14728568
And here's another obvious psychiatric patient.

>>14728561
>Why you get so upset at the P-word?
I guess I'm just tired of you drones hiding behind it when what you really mean

>>14728561
>>14728578
... when what you really mean is that consciousness can be scientifically explained in terms of neurons or particles or whatever other unfalsifiable reductionist dogma you spout.

>>14728574
>This is not "the hard problem" in the sense Chalmers means it, i.e. fundamentally insoluble. It's just an unsolved problem for which it's perfectly imaginable that we'll have a solution one day.
Thats one way of solving the issue. "We'll figure it out later as we learn more" but its not the only solution, we dont even know if its a solution at all. Its just faith in our science that allows us to say that we'll figure it out 1000 years down the line or maybe even if we don't, some other advanced alien species might. But aside from the faith, its actually not a real solution.

>>14728487
>How do we even get to a framework that explains our subjective experience and map that on to a piece of meat with electricity pumped through it?
How do we get to a framework where you can rigorously prove that we can never get to such a framework w.r.t. consciousness? As the other anon keeps pointing out, there's a fundamental confusion between "not solved at this moment" and "not possible to ever be solved". If you claim something can never be solved, you have to support it with other arguments than just "we have not solved it yet" or "I don't see how it can be solved". Oh, you cannot even begin to imagine how we could possibly even begin to approach a tentative solution? Well no shit, that's why it's unsolved. No other arguments in favour of fundamental insolubility have been given so far except "there's currently no solution" and "muh feelings".

>>14728582
No shit it's not a solution. I'm not arguing against "the hard problem is unsolved", I'm arguing against "the hard problem is fundamentally unsolvable" (i.e. there is no hard problem). Stated like that it seems like a pointless argument but some people insist very hard that there is such an unsolvable problem, which motivates me arguing against it.

>>14723497
Dennett is a P-zombie.

http://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html

>>14728593
>>14728597
A) There's "you can't solve it"
B) There's "we can solve it but it will be in x years"
C) There's "we don't know if we can even solve it, A) requires perfect knowledge B) requires faith"
D) There's "we don't need to solve it, because consciousness doesn't exist, we're all p-zombies"
And probably more answers to this.

My position is C, yours is B, some others are arguing A and D.

>>14728597
>I'm not arguing against "the hard problem is unsolved", I'm arguing against "the hard problem is fundamentally unsolvable"
More than 200 posts in and you still don't understand what "the hard problem" is, and why your statement is inherently nonsense.

>>14728605
Hence, the hard problem. Because it will likely not be solved for the forseeable future.

>>14728580
Your dogma; that it's impossible. So much better, right?

>>14728628
So how are you going to test a potential reductionist explanation? Notice how you will chimp out or have another psychotic attack in your next post. No attempts will be made to engage with this quesiton.

>>14728603
He's just not among the elect

>>14728641
Just because you are larping as a baby Buddah or something exotic, doesn't make it not dogma

>>14728605
Fair enough, finally we're getting somewhere. Might respond more in depth later.

>>14728648
So you're chimping out again but how are you going to test a potential reductionist explanation? Why do you keep deflecting?

>>14728660
how am I deflecting? I'm just pointing out your position is dogma

>>14728667
>I'm just pointing out your position is dogma
Then you're clearly psychotic, because my "position" is simply that you cannot and will not address the following question: how are you going to test a potential reductionist explanation? Is it my dogma that you will chimp out in your next post instead of addressing it? :^)

>>14724491
>Why exactly can the man do things a rock can't.
A man acts differently when observed, based on who is observing him. A rock doesn't care.

>>14728671
Explain why my position is dogma, but your is not

>>14728673
Your position is a dogma because it's unfalsifiable. My position is the purely logical observation that your dogma is unfalsifiable. You should be able to make that logical observation yourself if you try to answer my question, but you already know your position is untenable, and you confirm it every time you refuse to engage.

>>14728679
You think it's impossible for your position to be false?

>>14728684
It's impossible for a deductively valid argument to be false if the premises are false, but the premises are your premises. If I'm wrong, then you're wrong just the same. lol

>>14728693
It's possible*

>>14728693
not dogma, btw

>>14728702
Deductive logic is not dogma. Take your meds.

>>14728693
>then you're wrong
You literally just said my position was unfalsifiable
drooling retard

Reminder, logic is dogma

>>14728703
How did you deductively prove that there is no possible way to solve the hard problem?
You didn't
that's just your dogma

>>14728706
It's unfalsifiable assuming your premises are even valid to begin with. It could be that everything you shart isn't even coherent. Anyway, so how are you going to test a potential reductionist explanation?

>>14728711
>How did you deductively prove that there is no possible way to solve the hard problem?
"The hard problem" isn't a scientific problem to solve, you drooling mongoloid. It's the logical conclusion that your position is unfalsifiable.

>>14723497
Is it possible that consciousness is not real. I have literally no idea what people are talking about when they mention things like quaila or the subjective experience. I just nod my head and smile to avoid confrontation. I feel like it’s all bullshit

>>14728718
It's possible that you have no consciousness, just like Dennet and the "materialists" ITT. P-zombies were conceived as a thought experiment, but in 2022 it's apparent that some "people" genuinely don't understand what is meant by subjective perceptions and genuinely lack them.

>>14728716
Prove it

>>14728721
Why spooksters started getting off on calling people who disagree with them p-zombies?

>>14728722
I was trying to, but you're already aware of your total intellectual impotence, so you keep deflecting and avoiding that whole discussion. Here, watch:

So how are you going to test a potential reductionist explanation?

>>14728731
You're having another psychotic meltdown. I'm not calling you a p-zombie because you disagree with me. I'm calling you one because you openly declare that you lack subjective perceptions. lol

>>14728741
Are you ever going to bring any proof to the table?

>>14728741
>So how are you going to test a potential reductionist explanation?
This is not a deductive argument, you said you had a deductive argument
WTF

>>14728741
>So how are you going to test a potential reductionist explanation?
So like, if I don't take this bait. You got nothing?

Since there's no actual citing of any works, I'll begin.

Read some of the Embodied Cognition, latest revised version. There are many branches to this, but its a great book into modern philosophy of mind.

>>14728750
>>14728759
>>14728767
>mentally ill and seething
Why do you keep trying to stifle the discussion? Is it because you know you lost?

So whats the prognosis? What are we?

Are we separate mind trapped inside a body? A dualism?
Are we a single body-mind creature and "the" body/"the" mind are false notions?
Or does the mind not exist?
Or maybe does the body not exist?

>>14728794
You can make up whatever you want. It's not like anyone can prove one way or the other. It's an intellectual fashion statement. Today's intellectual fashion is to pretend to be a bot for some reason.

>>14728778
Just show your deductive proof
were you lying?

>>14728820
>Just show your deductive proof
Answer the question and we'll get to that. You won't because you know you lost.

>>14728830
Why do I have to answer some question before you will show your proof?
You just made up a story about having proof
you're a liar!

>>14728839
>Why do I have to answer some question before you will show your proof?
Because the only way to make someone like you comprehend my simple point, is to allow you to make your predictable mistakes, rub your nose in them several times until you see there is some kind of a problem, and then patiently explain to you what that problem is, because you're too dumb to nail it down on your own.

>>14728853
Show proof
stop wasting everyone's time

>>14728855
I don't need to do anything. The way you keep sperging out and deflecting already showcases your insecurity and intellectual impotence. Call me back when you can answer my question in some matter.

>>14723497
>>14723526
how to reduce the experience of seeing red
easy my friend in truth we never experience seeing red we experience the feeling that comes with seeing red our brain its just used to feeling dopamine or other neurotrasmisor/emotion

>>14723526
>I think it allows wildly ignorant dualist speculation
What does it say about your belief system when even wildly ignorant dualist speculations are more consistent with reality than your take? lol

>>14728860
show proof

>>14728877
What is consistent about saying that red is spooky? That doesn't explain anything

>>14728884
The absolute state of your mental illness is spooky.

>>14728889
Okay, help me understand the wildly ignorant dualist's position

>>14728895
Dualists basically believe that consciousness is unrelated to all the other phenomena. I don't think it's a useful or interesting take, but at least it's consistent with the given state of affairs that qualia can't be externally probed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJP-rkilz40

>>14723497
Peter you added nothing