/sci/ - Science & Math

Explain Phineas Gage or the countless other examples of brain damage causing changes in someone's personality/brain function. Explain brain surgery. Explain psychiatry.

>>14730050
OP clearly means the sense of the word conciousness that is most closely synonymous with soul.

>>14730046
True, it's amazing how someone like you without a brain can still function.

>>14730046
>Explain psychiatry.
I'm sure psychiatry feels that same way Anon.
No but seriously. We don't actually know the specific mechanism underlying consciousness.
Of course, just because there's a lack of evidence in that respect does not falsify the entire paradigm. We can still rely on Bayesian inference. Even if our assumption(s) could (possibly) be wrong.
But I can't help but be a little skeptical. Perhaps consciousness does lie beyond epistemology.
But unfalsifiable claims are unfalsifiable. So fuck it.

>>14730075
Oops mean for, >>14730050

Everyone looks at the neurons, but it's really what happens in the medium between the neurons that count

>>14730046
Toxoplasmosis, neuroleptics, and other types of lobotomy and brain trauma measurably alter consciousness.

>>14730163
How are you measuring conciousness?
How do you know what you are measuring is conciousness?

>>14730046
it doesn't generate it
it is it
the answers to all these questions are very very simple, my challenge to you is can you ever ASK the questions?
any question you ask about "consciousness" tech brain and shit I will answer

>>14730217
>How are you measuring conciousness (sic)?
Through awareness and behavior.

>How do you know what you are measuring is conciousness (sic)?
Because consciousness is defined as one's environmental awareness and the behavior that results.

>>14730226
>Because consciousness is defined as one's environmental awareness and the behavior that results.
If that's your definition of consciousness, then any AI that passes the Turning Test would be fully conscious the same as any human.
Do you think that's the case?

>>14730237
Turing test doesn't test for environmental awareness, it tests for production of normalized linguistic responses.

>>14730050
>You think the hard problem of consciousness is hard? Haha, here's a list of soft problems unrelated to the hard problem. I bet you feel stupid now.
The absolute state of /sci/

>>14730259
Then call it a modified Turning Test, whatever standard needed to match your definition.

>>14730050
>Explain Phineas Gage
His consciousness was unaltered. He merely lost some minor executive functions. He's actually a good example against your point.
>Explain brain surgery
Obviously consciousness needs a brain in order to communicate with the body. That doesn't disprove OP.
>Explain psychiatry
A pseudoscience created as an excuse to lock up political dissidents and chemically castrate their brains with dangerous meds.

>>14730050
>>14730163
>brain damage
An intact brain might be necessary but not sufficient for consciousness.
That is, consciousness might be a function of both physical brain processes and a "soul".

(I don't necessarily believe that, but I do have an intuitive, non-scientifically-justified hunch that there's something special about consciousness.)

>>14730277\
It would be much more than a modified turing test, but yes if you put an ai into a robot body with a form and sensor network equivalent to human nervous system and it was able to demonstrate awareness of multi-vector environmental factors (like room temperature over time, day/night cycle, etc) to the same degree as the average human could demonstrate and use that information to develop successful future predictions that lead to complex personal preferences and communicable plans for future behavior based on all that environmental input and awareness, it would have an equivalent level of consciousness as the average human.

>>14730046
And there's even less evidence that it's generated by something else.
Only comfy beliefs based on absolutely nothing about you as a living being, the afterlife and things like that.

Most people admit that consciousness at least uses the brain as an interface right ? So as long as we don't have any evidence about the existence of something else 'sending the data' through the brain, it still makes more sense to think that the brain generates it. You can't do science anymore if you begin to use non-scientific 'what if' with everything that you don't like.

>>14730046
Give me a test that can verify that a subject is conscious.

>>14730319
What is your name and how many fingers am I holding up are the most very basic tests doctors use to establish consciousness in a subject.

>>14730319
I can't. Actually I don't even know if you are conscious; how do I know I'm not talking to a bot right now?

You can only verify yourself to be conscious. Everybody else could easily be deterministic flesh-bots.

>>14730361
Therefore consciousness is unprovable by definition.

>>14730360
I can write a software that answer those questions with use of webcam and some pattern recognition - is it conscious?

>>14730367
It is conscious of its name and how many fingers you are holding up.

>>14730299
Yes, but that's just an an advanced input-output auto-pilot.
Human does it too most of the time, just cruising though out the day doing things based on experience. But when we want to we can actively choose to do things for absolutely no reason.
You can choose right now to slap yourself and there would be no external or mental stimulus causing to take that action.
Can an AI JUST do things without been stimulated by environmental factors or internal programming?

>>14730365
Maybe.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist; you are conscious right?

>>14730319
Ask their opinion on the hard problem of consciousness (explain it to them if they never heard of it). If they take an eliminativist or functionalist stance they're 100% p-zombie. You cannot verify that someone is conscious but you can weed out those who certainly aren't.

>>14730380
>But when we want to we can actively choose to do things for absolutely no reason.
No the reason is clearly that you chose to act.

>You can choose right now to slap yourself and there would be no external or mental stimulus causing to take that action.
Wrong, you are psychologically priming me to take that action right now, there is clear external mental stimulus driving that action.

Yes, though AI can arbitrarily, through the axiom of choice, randomize internal weights to test for randomly predicted outcomes.

>>14730050
>psychiatry
Etymology of psychiatry: from Medieval Latin psychiatria, literally "a healing of the soul," from Latinised form of Greek psykhē "soul" (see psyche) + iatreia "healing, care" (see -iatric).
Do you want me to explain how souls are healed, Anon? I can do that, but I won't cast pearls before swine.

>>14730075
>We don't actually know the specific mechanism underlying consciousness.
How do we know that any mechanism underlies consciousness?
Is it not more logical to assume that consciousness is the prima materia, as the Elementalists believe?

>>14730163
>Toxoplasmosis, neuroleptics, and other types of lobotomy and brain trauma measurably alter consciousness.
False.
I agree that they measurably alter the contents of consciousness.
Consciousness itself is a different story. Please explain to me how you measure changes in consciousness itself?

>>14730375
Is bilard ball hit by another conscious of being hit?

>>14730382
Nope.

>>14730314
>it still makes more sense to think that the brain generates it
Okay then, explain the evolutionary process that leads to consciousness being selected for.

>>14730391
Well did you slap yourself then? If you didn't why not? Didn't I psychologically prime you?

>>14730407
How do you know you are not conscious?

>>14730398
>how you measure changes in consciousness itself?
see
>>14730226
By measuring changes in awareness and behavior given consciousness is defined as awareness its effect on behavior.

>>14730403
Like the What is your name and How many fingers test, you would have to ask the billiard ball.

OP, I doubt you read consciousness studies. But they've come up with experiments to create experimental "qualia" based on what will happen if they manipulate the brain a specific way and the volunteers reported experiencing what they predicted should appear. There is an entire book about it. It's known as global neuronal workspace. Albeit I read this 5 or so years ago I'm sure they've refined it since then and have more evidence now.

>>14730413
Other external factors were more compelling than your influence, someone more charismatic and insightful might be able to get me to slap myself, but not a silly misinformed dingus like you.

>>14730440
Well see normally I'd take offense. But since now I know you are just a deterministic flesh-bot entirely controlled by the environment, I can't possibly be offeneded now can I?
So tell me bot, what other external factors were more compelling than my influence?

>>14730457
You are boring and your questions are stupid, so I assume your commands are as dumb and pointless as your questions indicate.
What else is there beside the environment and how you imagine the environment to be through your awareness?

>>14730467
Since I now know you are just a bot, it's pointless to answer your questions.
I shall now endeavour to talk to some real people.

>>14730475
How convenient, ass soon ass questions come up that would require you to prove a modicum of awareness, you fail to have any response.

>>14730286
Brainlet take on all accounts. What a faggot ass retort.

>>14730046
why do I loss consciousness when in anesthesia?

>>14730494
Why do you lose internet access when I smash your computer with a hammer? Do you conclude that the internet only exists within your computer and is generated by it?

>>14730392
oh no we used a 2000 year old word for a discipline so that means we mean 100 percent its original meaning... The fucking state of this board

>>14730046
There's zero reason to believe that it's more than subjective experience. So what if it's technically fundamental or "paranormal" or whatever you wanna call it? It does nothing else except being aware. This is all just another death cope.

>>14730506
My internet connection does, internet is not a property of one body like consciousness is, it is a property of a highly connected network.

>>14730046
Bot thread. 19th century materialist GPTs vs. 19th century dualist GPTs. No consciousness is present ITT.

>>14730416
Just like that. How do you know, you are?

>>14730631
General awareness.
How exactly are you aware that you have no awareness?

>>14730638
>arguing with a literal p-zombie
You should just accept what he's telling you and concede that he's not part of the conversation.

>>14730641
Its impossible to be aware that you are unaware since it would require a level of awareness that you could never be aware of if you were not aware if a wood chuck could chuck wood.

>>14730642
Wrong and gay opinion.

>>14730046
poisoning the brain with drugs alters it.
plus, it's the other way around, the brain generates it until proven otherwise. all other 'explanations' are just fairy tales.

>>14730647
How would you know when you already declared that you don't have the awareness necessary to determine right or wrong?

>>14730658
I'm not the p-zombie. I'm just marveling at your retardation. There is nothing to stop a bot from telling you it doesn't know of any "awareness".

>>14730660
That is completely different than it declaring that it is unaware and the fact that awareness exists in its lexicon stops it from telling you it doesn't know any "awareness".

>>14730670
Look, I know you're a clinical retard, but take my word for this: every single one of these one-liner self-reference proofs by contradiction are vacuous 90 IQ sharts.

>>14730674
>proofs by contradiction
Instead of the takes one to know one tier proof your midwit brain comes up with?

>>14730678
You're a subhuman imbecile. An entity doesn't need to be "aware" of its unawareness to computationally deduce that none of the information its processing implies "awareness".

>>14730685
Deduce is a synonym for aware since it require reasoning, try again.

Information processing is also a way to describe awareness, so keep that in mind as you keeping trying and failing, maybe using more mean names instead of demonstrating logical awareness will help.

>>14730698
>Deduce is a synonym for aware
>>14730619 nails it. These threads are a psyop.

>>14730699
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/deduce.html
>To learn or come to an awareness of something
Sorry if you don't know how to use a thesaurus, maybe they will upgrade you soon.

>>14730705
Your programmers have done a lousy job.

>>14730494
You don't, you just don't remember anything when you wake up

>>14730711
Sure, you are the ultimate authority on words, the thesaurus doesn't have anything to do with synonyms when it doesn't agree with your nonsense that you can't back up.

>>14730654
>plus, it's the other way around, the brain generates it until proven otherwise
Okay, please show some evidence for your assertion that the brain generates consciousness.

>>14730046
>All evidence says that the brain generates it.
ftfy

>>14730725
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

>>14730699
Hello samefag

>>14730724
>Sure, you are the ultimate authority on words
Thanks for the confirmation that you are, indeed, a label-thinking drone hung up on a slightly ambiguous word when any normal human can figure out the intended meaning.

>>14730748
There is nothing ambiguous about deduce and awareness being synonyms when they often appear in each other's own definitions.

>>14730762
Inference enginers deduce things in a purely mechanistic manner all the time and they aren't aware of anything. You will continue to argue because you are a nonhuman element.

>>14730763
They are clearly aware of the mechanistic methods that lead to their conclusions.
You are the one trying to argue that words don't mean the words they mean, you are the one off your rocker and clearly confused.

>>14730771
>inference programs are clearly aware
In the way that you're aware?

>>14730776
No they are directly aware of their own methods and I am indirectly of aware of the methods they employ.

>>14730732
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness
> In this context the neuronal correlates of consciousness may be viewed as its causes, and consciousness may be thought of as a state-dependent property of some undefined complex, adaptive, and highly interconnected biological system.
Fail

>>14730788
>they are directly aware of their own methods
Are they "aware" of their methods the way you're "aware" of your "methods"?

>we are like all connected, maaan
>your brain is just an antenna receiving consciousness from space
>no I don't have anything to base this on, but I took drugs one time

>>14730793
My awareness comes through an organic nervous system, theirs through different mechanical methodologies that they would have to describe to you.

>>14730799
I didn't ask where your "awareness" comes from. Are they "aware" of their methods the way you're "aware" of your "methods"?

>>14730801
I was explaining how, not where, so you could hopefully understand how the awareness differs.

>>14730789
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting consciousness is generated by the brain.

>>14730798
External waves makes more sense than 'there's a tiny man talking inside my radio.'

>>14730830
Do animals also receive external waves, why are their waves so bad compared to humans

>>14730832
Of course, why wouldn't animals be conscious?

>>14730835
But why are they less conscious than humans, if they're receiving the same consciousness waves from the consciousness distribution center

>But why are they less conscious than humans, if they're receiving the same consciousness waves from the consciousness distribution center
Imagine being so new you waste your time trying to reason with this clinical bot.

>>14730844
Are you calling yourself new? I think it's just you and me here right now, so I'm not sure who you're referring to

>>14730842
>But why are they less conscious than humans, if they're receiving the same consciousness waves from the consciousness distribution center
Consciousness isn't even evenly distributed among humans, as many 3rd-world nigger tribes can attest.
The character and sophistication of consciousness seems to depend on the density of neural mass in the organism.
The better the antenna, better the signal.

>>14730849
I'm not arguing with you. I can recognize your mental illness from miles and dismiss you every time.

>>14730853
I don't understand why you think consciousness has to be coming from somewhere else. Where is it coming from? How have you found out that it's a signal coming from somewhere else?

>>14730854
Friend I don't know what the hell you're talking about, if you think I'm someone you've talked with before I think it's you that has brain problems

>>14730864
If spontaneous order that we call consciousness can arise in tissue, why would it not arise in a larger system?

External storage would explain why memory is nonlocal in the brain.

>>14730872
>memory is nonlocal in the brain
I wasn't aware

>>14730046
based
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIJiAhRd4jI

>>14730410
> Okay then, explain the evolutionary process that leads to consciousness being selected for.

So you want a purely subjective explanation ?
Ok: as a living thing you have primary needs like eating because you need energy to continue living.
A very primitive form of dealing with that would be:
> *float around randomly absorbing nutritious things in my path*
A more evolved and advantageous form would be:
> "I'm hungry, I'll go look for food where I know I'll find lots of it but only when I don't see predators around.

To me, consciousness complexified in parallel with the complexification of your senses. The more conscious you were, to better use you did of your senses and the more apt at surviving you were.

And as social species, in the animal realm, consciousness evolved far beyond simply meeting basic needs.

>>14730897
NTA but nothing in your post explains why there should be any subjective perceptions involved. It's truly mindboggling that you can't see it.

>>14730872
Experiments show that the speed of connection is very important.

>>14730288
Not true. Here is an example of a brainless person who conscious.
>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A man with an unusually tiny brain managed to live an entirely normal life despite his condition, caused by a fluid buildup in his skull, French researchers reported on Thursday.
>Scans of the 44-year-old man’s brain showed that a huge fluid-filled chamber called a ventricle took up most of the room in his skull, leaving little more than a thin sheet of actual brain tissue.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brain-tiny/tiny-brain-no-obstacle-to-french-civil-servant-idUSN1930510020070720

>>14730902
>nothing in your post explains why there should be any subjective perceptions involved.

Would you agree that at least an internal signal for hunger should be there ? to regulate the amount of what the thing is absorbing ?

>>14730921
>an internal signal for hunger
I don't know what "an internal signal for hunger" is supposed to mean, but there is no logical need for a subjective perception of hunger, or of anything for that matter.

>>14730397
Because the scientific paradigm shapes our assumptions.
If we lack evidence, we don't just assume that it's something mystical or divine or whatever else.
Because that's faith. And faith is not science.

>>14730926
It's really funny to watch cultists like you inverting reality so blatantly.

>>14730927
It's really funny watching irrational people like you unable to step out of their non-factual worldview.
>Click here for this ONE THING scientists don't want you to know!

>>14730925
>I don't know what "an internal signal for hunger" is supposed to mean
A chemical signal in its body that makes the thing begin to absorb food and make it stops when it's enough.
If something like that existed, I don't see why it couldn't be considered as a very primitive version of consciousness.
I mean, you don't see a logical need for it but does that mean there isn't one in the context of how evolution work at such a small level ?

>>14730930
I don't know what your psychotic episode is about. I'm just saying maybe you should have an inkling of an idea how something works before you declare that it's consistent with your midwit reductionist theories. At least if you want distance yourself from irrational people who argue base on faith.

>>14730938
You might as well tell me my roomba is conscious because it changes direction when it receives a signal that it bumped into something.

>>14730732
This specifically says that neural correlates DO NOT solve the hard problem of consciousness or offer a theory of mind. It does not explain how a bunch of unconscious matter adds up to mentation. We are looking for causation also and not correlation.
>Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness that can explain how particular systems experience anything at all, or how and why they are associated with consciousness, the so-called hard problem of consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

>>14730951
Thanks for admitting you're wrong. Magic isn't real and God isn't real.

>>14730940
Just because I use reductionism does not make me a reductionist by virtue.
You should really learn how to discern philosophical reasoning from an apriori position.
Other than being the useless deconstructionist that you are.
So posit your position on the OP so we can have a proper debate. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

>>14730955
>another psychotic ramble
See >>14730940

>>14730943
Your roomba isn't a biological creature and isn't subject to evolution. If it was the case, maybe it's distant descendants would have evolved some sort of consciousness with that signal as its basis.
But neither of us will convince the other, there's a reason it's still such a big debate.

>>14730958
You just told me that mapping inputs to outputs implies consciousness. Are you backpedaling on it or making some special pleading argument that it only implies consciousness with things made out of cells?

>>14730957
Just because you can't read, does not mean assigning a psychological label justifies your cognitive inadequacy.
Did you follow that one?

>>14730953
Naked assertion is a sign of intellectual surrender

>>14730961
You're really losing your mind with impotent rage.

>>14730963
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting you're wrong. God isn't real.

>>14730965
Not at all.
Your ad hominem is just as weak as your reasoning skills.

>>14730968
Nta but the two questions of the hard problem and whether there's a God are not related, why are you conflating them.

>>14730970
Do you think maybe you should have an inkling of an idea how something works before you declare that it's consistent with your midwit reductionist theories?

>>14730975
I am not a reductionist, see
>>14730955
Further, just posit your thesis. You think science is wrong?
Go on. What is the truth.

Deterministic mathematics can't be used to describe the universe even if the hard problem weren't hard, so if your reason for trying to deny the hard problem is because you think it's needed to defend a physicalist position then you are going to fail anyway, do its kind of a moot reason.

>>14730980
>I am not a reductionist
You're suffering from another psychotic attack. I didn't say you're "a reductionist". I said the theory that consciousness results from some atoms interacting is a reductionist theory, which it indisputably is. Do you think maybe you should have an inkling of an idea how something works before you declare that it's consistent with your midwit reductionist theories?

>>14730986
>We don't actually know the specific mechanism underlying consciousness.
I said,
>We don't actually know the specific mechanism underlying consciousness.
Which is true. We don't have that evidence yet.
I'm not quite sure what your point is.
I feel like your smart enough to deconstruct an epistemic framework, but not intelligent enough to know where to go from there.
Further, what do you believe consciousness is? Share with us.

>>14730998
Is consciousness a product of atoms interacting with each other?

>>14730998
Oops, ignore the first green text. Accidentally copied it twice.

>>14730050
The idea is to establish causation, not correlation. If I bonk a player on the head in a video game and smoosh his brain that player might fall down and die, but the causation would not be caused by the virtual damage of a virtual brain existing in the virtual spacetime. In fact, the virtual brain would not even have to be rendered during the course of the game play except in a situation where within the game play where maybe a surgeon opened up the the head and the computer would then render a brain. In our physical reality this is what happens. When the surgeon opens the skull and examines a brain, a random draw from a probability distribution will be taken by the computer that renders the reality and the brain that gets rendered will be the brain that would be PROBABLE to be there based on the specs of the consciousness belonging to that brain. Or there can be no brain at all. This would be a low probability, but since reality is probabilistic and the draw from the probability distribution is random, there would be some chance of it. See this news story here.
>>14730912
And so the idea is that nothing in the local spacetime causes anything, including brains. That which governs consciousness is non-local ie not in the spacetime of reality. ALL causation in this physical reality is non-local. This is demonstrated by bell type correlations which are instant no matter the distance of the separation. This can happen because all points are equidistant from the processor. See pic related. The causation in the physical world is caused by processing which is non-local to the spacetime. And so all seeming causation coming from within the spacetime of the physical world is simply simulated causation. And this would have to include brains causing consciousness as well.

>>14731002
I don't know because I don't have evidence to support that claim.
I don't think I really care either lol.
What do you believe consciousness is?

>>14731007
>I don't know because I don't have evidence to support that claim.
Fair enough. I withdraw my accusation. Sorry.

>>14731017
You're fine lol.

>>14730889
He watches too much Rick+Morty, that alcoholic science is the one true god

>>14731018
As for your question, I don't think there's any scientific way to address it. There's nothing to characterize consciousness by except for the direct experience itself. Even "neural correlates of consciousness" are a misnomer: the correlations are always between brain activity and actions, even if the action is to give a researcher a subjective account. The association between a subject's account of their experience, and the relevant perceptions, is established only in the mind of someone interpreting the account and making the connection with their own internal experience. Objectively speaking, a subject's account of their internal experience means absolutely nothing.

>>14730050
Here is a quote that I found from somebody talking about this exact thing. They put it very well.
>However, if the simulation hypothesis, or any number of simulism positions are true, then it follows that the brain is virtual information in a video game—just like everything else. The brain that we all assume to be carrying around in our bodies is just our avatar’s body’s virtual “brain.” It’s not really real. What about brain damage or damage to the body? Well there are rules to the video game—If you loose a chunk of brain, your data-stream is modified to reflect that. If you lose an arm, your data-stream is modified to reflect that too.
https://archive.ieet.org/articles/Edge20161030.html

So damage to the virtual brain assigned to the consciousness (player/observer) WOULD correlate to new constrains on consciousness while interfacing with this reality. These constraints are caused by CONSCIOUSNESS by CONSCIOUSNESS. They are NOT caused by some observer independent brain made of matter in an objective material universe. This takes care of the mind-body problem and the interaction problem and the hard problem of consciousness. Matter then becomes something rendered in minds/consciousnesses. And so the physical world becomes informational (virtual) objects of mentation. To interact with the physical world and effect it is an act of a subjective consciousness observer effecting semi objective (objective information, objective in the sense that it is a multi-player game and the data streams of the physical world of the various players will correspond to a certain degree) mental objects. So it's mentation effecting mental objects. Mind acting on mind. No mind body problem of how does mind effect matter and the other way around. No problem of how mind emerges from matter either. It doesn't. It's the other way around as stated in picrel.

>>14730050
By the way here
>>14731041
>These constraints are caused by CONSCIOUSNESS by CONSCIOUSNESS
I don't mean that it is us (individuated units of consciousness) consciousnesses who are imposing these constraints. There is a larger consciousness system, some people call it the server or the 'all mind' who does the calculations and computations and streams them to our consciousness to process. Also, I would bring up the fact that we can actually cause changes to our virtual brains by using free will to alter our behaviour that result in structural and functional changes that can be observed in viewing and measuring the virtual brains assigned to us. This gets called neuroplasticity. So a drug addict that takes a brain scan during an addiction phase will have a virtual brain which reflects the toxic effects of his drug addiction on the structure and function of the virtual brain. If the drug addict uses free will to stop the drug addiction, this diseased brain can reverse some of this damage which will show up in future scans. So consciousness effects of CAUSES change to the brain.

>>14730953
>Thanks for admitting you're wrong
I didn't admit I am wrong. Maybe you are responding to me by accidentn thinking I am someone else. I posted this
>>14730951
Which was a response to this
>>14730732
You posted that neural correlates explain consciousness and posted an article and the very article you posted states that neural correlates specifically DON'T offer a theory of mind. From the article
>Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness that can explain how particular systems experience anything at all, or how and why they are associated with consciousness, the so-called hard problem of consciousness
If they did, they would be called neural CAUSATORS of consciousness.

>>14731063
>There's nothing to characterize consciousness by except for the direct experience itself.
Science has a hard time studying things it can't define.

>There's still zero evidence that the brain generates
>evidence

There is plenty of evidence, you fucking turds

>>14730163
They correlate in some sense with purported and apparent alterations in subjective conscious experience. I have explained why this is not sufficient here
>>14731006
and here
>>14731041
The idea is to look for the causation of subjective experience by spacetime brains. Not correlation. The problem is that conscious experience is non-physical and non-material. A thought has no weight, length, mass velocity, spin, etc or any of these quantities of the physical world. A thought can not be observed or located in a brain. A thought is not part of the physical world. And so you need to explain how the qualitative subjective consciousness is derived from these quantitative entities. These entities that you want to derive consciousness are only ever seen in consciousnesses them self by the way. Strange to derive conscious from supposed observer independent matter when observer independent matter by definition can never even be observed of verified to exist, being that observation and verification only ever occur in minds.

>>14731110
>They correlate in some sense with purported and apparent alterations in subjective conscious experience. I have explained why this is not sufficient here
Can you explain how this is not EVIDENCE ?

>>14731113
>i turn the volume knob on the radio
>the broadcast gets louder
>therefore there is a talking man inside the radio
>HOW THE FUCK!!!! IS THIS NOT EVIDENCE ENOUGH FOR YOU, CHUD?!
lol

>>14731116
It clearly is evidence, if raises your credence in that hypothesis

>>14731125
Oh, you're actually insane. Alright.

>>14731126
Can you explain what you think the word evidence means?

What else would generate it?

>>14731129
It obviously doesn't give the little-man-inside-the-radio hypothesis any more credance relative to the alternative, you actual cretin. It's consistent with both and you could frame it either way.

>>14731139
Given what we think we know about the brain and consciousness
Do you think there is NO evidence of it being "generated" by the brain? that just seems deranged

To your knowledge, it's just as likely your consciousness is generated by.. the sun?
Obviously not! Because there exist EVIDENCE that makes us think it's the brain, but not the sun.
which makes the OP's claim false

>>14731153
>Do you think there is NO evidence of it being "generated" by the brain?
Literally just explained it to you here >>14731116 and here >>14731139.

>>14731137
Nothing. It would be fundamental. It would be the generator. It would be that which matter is derived from as opposed to the other way around. It would be the fundamental ontic substance. Matter would be something emergent in consciousnesses/minds, just like it does in your mind at any given moment. Just as planck and schrodinger finally concluded as stated in picrel here
>>14731041
and
here
>>14731110
Godel also figured it out. Lots of great thinkers have.

>>14731157
I just think it's really funny that you are ideologically committed to saying stupid shit like this
You cannot seriously be ambivalent about the sun generating your consciousness, or your brain

That you got no evidential reasons to think it's more likely the brain. Because that would admit to there being evidence.
Utterly deranged.

>>14731164
I don't know what your psychotic episode is all about. I'm just reminding you that your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premises and evidence consistent with two mutually exclusive hypothesis doesn't make one any more credible than the other.

>>14731160
Yeah but, like, are there any evidential reason to think this?

>>14731168
I want you to say it, say that you think it's just as likely that the sun generated your consciousness as your brain
Because to your knowledge there exists NO EVIDENCE that can differentiate the likelihoods

>>14731180
>but what about muh sun
Again, I don't know what your psychosis is about. I'm just reminding you that you have provided no evidence that is more consistent with consciousness resulting exclusively from the brain than with the brain being just a part of the story.

>>14731187
it's not pertinent to my point
IF consciousness is generated
is it generated by the brain
or
the sun
???

Did you pick your answer for no evidential reasons?

>>14731180
Actually, I think I see what your childlike confusion is about. Yes, any evidence you bring up in favor of your case does make it a tiny, tiny bit more credible that consciousness is generated by the sun. It also makes it a tiny, tiny bit more credible that consciousness is generated by pluton, by trees, by black holes, and by anything else that isn't the brain. Now consider how much such things exist besides the brain and realize that it's not brain vs. sun but brain vs. brain + anything else.

>>14731199
See >>14731207

>>14731207
No, I'm saying the reason we would think it's generated by the brain, rather than these other things
is because there exist evidence that makes us think it's more likely generated by the brain

>>14731216
Any piece of evidence supports any hypothesis that it is consistent with, retard. Your evidence is no more consistent with your hypothesis than with competing hypotheses. What's your education? (Provde proof)

>>14731221
Congratulations on discovering that scientific theories are always underdetermined

>>14731224
I accept your full concession, though it should also be noted that you have no scientific theory at all.

>>14731221
Are you conceding that if consciousness if generated, you think it's just as likely that the sun is generating your consciousness?
You need to answer Yes to to this.
Answering No admits to there being evidence for the brain.

I don't know how I can make my point clearer.
if you dodge the content of my post again, I'm not going to bother with this

>>14730046
Mike the Headless Chicken, lived for 18 months without a head. There are also people who lived without major parts of their brains.

I suspect the awareness is dispersed around the body of an entire organism rather than one central organ, as we see in most lifeforms on the planet, especially in microbes. Guts? Nervous system? Hippy heart fields? I'm not sure.

>>14730050
If you bend the rabbit ears on a TV or crack a screen, the sending and receiving of information would be greatly distorted. That doesn't mean the broadcast itself has changed.

>>14731237
>you think it's just as likely that the sun is generating your consciousness?
Already refuted here: >>14731207

>>14730046
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There's also no proof of any other explanation either.

>>14731240
Why would you believe consciousness is generated by the sun? Are you retarded?

>>14731252
>Why would you believe consciousness is generated by the sun?
Looks like you're losing your mind with impotent rage. What does the sun in particular have to do with anything?

>>14731257
Give me 1 reason you think it's more likely the brain is generating consciousness rather than the sun

>>14731260
You can single out the brain on account of it being at least involved in consciousness expressing itself through a particular body, but no reason to single out the sun.

>>14731267
Right! There you go, evidence of the brain generating consciousness
Which is the topic of the thread, and wins the argument far as I'm concerned

>>14731260
Consciousness is unique to the individual.

>>14731238
>Mike the Headless Chicken
most of the brain stem intact.
>the sending and receiving of information would be greatly distorted. That doesn't mean the broadcast itself has changed.
So you made the hypothesis, now apply it to some practical experiments resulting in reading thoughts for example.

>>14731275
>evidence of the brain generating consciousness
Show me some such evidence that isn't equally consistent with a denial of your dogma. You still haven't explained your psychotic episode or why you're rambling about the sun.

>>14730951
>This specifically says that neural correlates DO NOT solve the hard problem of consciousness or offer a theory of mind.
No one said they did.

>>14731282
You just admitted to there being evidence that if consciousness is generated, it's generated by the brain
How could this evidence differentiate the likelihood between the brain generating consciousness or something else
If it's not evidence of consciousness being generated by the brain

you mentioned stuff like this
>at least involved in consciousness expressing itself through a particular body, but no reason to single out the sun
but we are talking about GENERATING consciousness, right?
It's perfectly consistent that the brain is involved in consciousness expressing itself through a particular body
but consciousness still being GENERATED by the sun

But for some reason you think the evidence makes the brain a more likely candidate..

>>14731310
>But for some reason you think the evidence makes the brain a more likely candidate..
That's because there exist evidence of the brain generating consciousness

>>14731310
>You just admitted to there being evidence that if consciousness is generated, it's generated by the brain
All of it is also evidence that it's not generated solely by the brain. Try to keep up, retard. Show me some such evidence that isn't equally consistent with a denial of your dogma.

>>14731315
Why are you so scared of admitting there exist at least some evidence that the brain is generating consciousness?

Denying that would imply it's just as likely the sun is doing it, which implicitly makes you deranged.

>>14731329
>there exist at least some evidence that the brain is generating consciousness
All of it is also evidence that it's not generated solely by the brain. Try to keep up, retard. Show me some such evidence that isn't equally consistent with a denial of your dogma.

>>14731330
I'm not arguing for that, and it's not the topic of the thread

>>14731341
>I'm not arguing for that,
No one cares what you argue for. Your evidence doesn't strenghten your position if it supports the denial of your position equally well. How did you become so profoundly mentally ill? What's your education? (Provide proof)

>>14731330
Do you think you are saying anything of substance?
My theory is that the consciousness is generated by tiny immaterial magic consciousness-elfs
There exist no evidence that isn't equally consistent with tiny immaterial magic consciousness-elfs generating consciousness

>>14731347
Sorry about your profound mental illness.

>>14731244
>There's also no proof of any other explanation either.

That's completely wrong. The other theories, some more in biology and others in information models-- both which I think are partially right. From what we understand mind and awareness are two different parts of humans consciousness.

The idea of the mind being an emergent neural network language model that we have as an instrument rather than 'be' is simply heretical-- ' you are not your mind' is a disgusting feeling to scientists who pride themselves on it as much as telling a body builder that you are not your body is. But it seems the Emergentism is likely correct due to it's use in AI development.

In Developmental Biology we have Morphic Field Theory, why cells take the form that they do. If you believe awareness is a physical or an epiphenomenon of the physical than it obviously applies to awareness as well. But this could also mean a 'wireless' connection between cells, something Alan Turing studied.

>>14731347
mine is that the sun is doing it

>>14731347
I think the brain is doing it

>>14731347
>>14731363
>>14731366
Luckily there exist NO EVIDENCE that can differentiate between the likelihood of these theories being true
So we are all equally justified in believing that our own theory is true!
jolly

>>14731370
You need to take your meds.

Most life on the planet doesn't have a 'head' or even a brain but they are aware. The macro human world is actually the weird ones here.

>>14730286
>Obviously consciousness needs a brain in order to communicate with the body.
And there is absolutely no proof or evidence to suggest communication between consciousness and the brain.
While materialism is retarded, mystical idealism is even more so.
Consciousness is not separate from the body, it transcends it in a specific way. Its form is essential and necessary, that it why it supersedes matter.

>>14731079
>You posted that neural correlates explain consciousness
He did not. Someone asked for some evidence that the brain produces consciousness. I posted some evidence, not him. Then you misrepresented what my post was about.

>>14731374
Why are you so afraid of conceding that there exist evidence?

>>14731392
Yes, there does exist evidence against your position and it's nice of you to constantly bring it up. Now take your meds so that you don't find yourself writing another psychotic and irrelevant rant about the sun.

Why do cunts think this "brain receives radiowaves of consciousness from somewhere else" think this is a good gotcha to modern materialistic/scientific theories? It is a 100% materialistic theory in itself.

>>14731394
>exist evidence against your position
Such as? What do you even think my position is?
My position is: That there exist at least some evidence that the brain generate consciousness

You should be able to point out how my argument fails:

-
There exist evidence that lets us differentiate the likelihood between different things generating consciousness (brain, sun, etc)
you agreed to this
How could this possibly allow us to differentiate the likelihoods, if it's not evidence of the (brain) generating consciousness
if it wasn't, it would have nothing to do with the likelihoods
-

You can't address this directly, right? Because you got some brain malfunction that don't allow you to concede any points

>>14731407
Materialism is a heavily dicredited and discarded 19th century dogma. In any case, the radio analogy completely undermines your claims so I guess it's at least good for that.

>>14731413
>there exist at least some evidence that the brain generate consciousness
Too bad it happens to double as evidence that the brain does not generate consciousness meaning you have no relevant evidence. What's your education? Present proof.

>>14731407
I don't understand what they base it on. Is there anything indicating it's a signal coming from some server?

>>14731407
For a long time materialists in the gilded age denied that wireless or fields of anything existed, they unironicaly pushed back on the idea of magnetic fields and claimed that the radio was supernatural until they saw it in person. The debates and arguments are very funny in retrospect.

>Consciousness, There's still zero evidence that the brain generates it.
That's just a bizarrely strong claim.
Unless you start adding a lot of stipulations, to what you really mean by the word evidence. It's obviously false.

>>14731419
Right, so there exist evidence.
Which makes you wrong, and me right.
awesome

>>14731433
>i am subhuman
Okay.

>>14731432
Show a single piece of evidence that isn't equally consistent with a denial of your claims. Protip: you literally can't.

>>14731419
>Too bad it happens to double as evidence that the brain does not generate consciousness
Then HOW can it also be evidence for the likelihood one way or the other? (brain Vs. sun)
You've never addressed this.

Either it's evidence, or it's not
You can't have it both ways, just by insisting you have it both ways.

>>14731432
>That's just a bizarrely strong claim.

You have to explain awareness in things without brains-- which is most life.

>>14731438
That would be falsification, not evidence.

>>14731441
>HOW can it also be evidence for the likelihood one way or the other?
Because it's equally consistent with both so it's evidence for both by definition.

>(brain Vs. sun)
You are losing your mind again.

>>14731448
You can't show a single piece of evidence that doesn't equally support the opposing position? Then your evidence is worthless in the context of this discussion.

>>14731450
>Because it's equally consistent with both so it's evidence for both by definition.
Then why would it tell us anything about the likelihoods?

>>14731456
>You can't show a single piece of evidence that doesn't equally support the opposing position?
You didn't say equally support, you said equally consistent with. Any evidence can be consistent with your theory if you make your theory complicated enough.

>>14731461
>why would it tell us anything about the likelihoods?
It doesn't tell you anything about the relative likelihoods.

>>14731463
>You didn't say equally support, you said equally consistent with
They are the same by definition.

>>14731464
How can a piece of evidence raise the probability of a thing being true, rather than another thing
without being evidence for that thing being true?

TL/DR: just because a device has electronics doesn't automatically prove whether it's a computer or a radio (or both).

>>14731468
No, they are not. Support means increase the probability of being true. Consistent means can be true.

>>14731475
>>14731482
Just neck yourself already. The brainletism is unreal.

>>14731487
Why are you mad at me?
You are the one that picked an untenable hill to die on

>>14731479
>just because the brain is correlated with consciousness doesn't mean there isn't some other entity that can't be detected causing both
Right, but that wasn't the question.

>>14731487
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting the aren't the same.

>>14731487
Spooksterboy..

>>14731497
You hypothesize that your radio produces music in a self-sufficient manner. You turn some knobs. The sounds change. You declare that this evidence supports your hypothesis. I hypothesize that the radio is a receiver, and that the knobs only control the volume and station. I turn the knobs. The sounds change. I declare that this evidence supports my hypothesis. Whose hypothesis does the evidence support, mouth breather?

>>14731415
>Materialism is a heavily dicredited and discarded 19th century dogma.
> a phenomena entirely explicable in materialistic terms also explains consciousness, BUT THAT'S NOT MATERIALISM M'KAY?!
whatever brainwaves you are receiving, the signal is clearly garbled.
>>14731420
>Is there anything indicating it's a signal coming from some server?
None whatsoever. The entire object of this is to try and reinstate the dumbest, most watered down version of substance dualism, with the possible aim of justifying idiotic oriental beliefs in monism and/or panpsychism.
I am almost convinced its the same faggot who spam panpsychism threads in /lit/.

>>14731500
>>14731503
>>14731513
Time for you to take your meds.

>>14731517
See >>14731500

>>14731510
>You hypothesize that your radio produces music in a self-sufficient manner.
I open up the radio and verify if it is equipped with any structures which could select, assemble and store musical pieces. Having found none of those, I determine that the radio is not capable of producing the music on its own.

>>14731510
>Whose hypothesis does the evidence support
Look, it could be evidence of both. And I would still be right.
How are you not getting this?

>>14731517
Ok, spookster

>>14731522
>I open up the radio
No you don't. Why are you deflecting?

>>14731524
>it could be evidence of both
Does it make one position likelier than the other?

>>14731529
lol wtf is this kind of rethorical maneuver?

>>14731545
That's you failing at your moronic distraction. Call me back when you can address the question as stated instead of trying to alter it.

>>14731510
For any hypothesis with evidence, someone else could invent another hypothesis that is also supported by the evidence. There is no limit to the imagination.
Then there there WOULD be evidence of multiple, potentially mutually exclusive hypothesis. Deal with it.

This point is where people compare and evaluate their hypothesis

>>14731551
Whose position does the evidence support in that case? Both positions?

>>14731547
Kek get bent you cunt. Your problem is clearly not one and you just aren't intelligent enough to realize it, you stupid fuck.

>>14731556
It most supports whichever is the simplest hypothesis that fits the evidence.

>>14731566
Which position does it support in that specific example?

>>14730046
What do you mean by consciousness? If you mean the physically observed behaviors of a human being, then yes the brain is responsible for that. If you mean consciousness as in the experience of being, then neither the brain or anything else generates that, it does not even exist at all as part of the external world. That experience of being only exists inside your own mind, and can never be observed with any of your external senses.

>>14731533
If you an ancient iron sword in a similar style to the Vikings in North America
That would both be evidence of the hypothesis that the Indians could make such iron swords, but also evidence for the hypothesis of the Vikings traveling to America and bringing the smithing technique with them

We would have to look to our background knowledge to figure out which hypothesis is better

>>14731522
Computers require a space to hold working memory for processing, and radios require antennae to operate.
Neural brain structure is that of a fractal antenna, and memory is stored in nonlocal space, which tends to discredit the concept of the brain as a serendipitous computer.
>or at least until the problem of memory storage is solved

>>14730050
>when my radio is broken it makes no music. therefore my radio is what creates the songs.
dangerously low iq alert beep beep

>>14731583
>Neural brain structure is that of a fractal antenna
lol no.
>and memory is stored in nonlocal space
Doesn't mean what you imply it does.
>serendipitous computer.
The brain is a computer if only because it is absolutely, undeniably capable and does compute. That is clearly not its only function. Reducing it to a transceiver is retarded, if only because it would be insanely overengineered for that purpose.

>>14731571
Remind me, what the evidence in this example?
Suppose it supports both, right? That's what we were just talking about.

That's not incompatible with us being able evaluate the hypothesises in other terms.
Like how it fit together with other stuff we know, simplicity, parsimony, ad hoc-ness, etc

The evidence could even raise the probability of one by a LOT. (it could still be wrong)

>>14731571
What information is available in that example? The only reason you think that example is helpful to you is because you already know about radios and radio waves. Show me a consciousness wave and then your exasperated wild be pertinent.

>>14731592
>>Neural brain structure is that of a fractal antenna
>lol no.
The fractal structure of the brain is well documented

>The brain is a computer if only because it is absolutely, undeniably capable and does compute.
With such a loose definition, all radios are also computers.

>>14731588
If no radio waves could be detected that would be correct.

>>14731596
>Suppose it supports both, right?
So which one is more likely than the other in the face of that evidence?

>>14731601
>The fractal structure of the brain is well documented
And what about the antennae part of the claim, you faggot, you're just going to conveniently forget that.

>>14731601
>The fractal structure of the brain is well documented
Non sequitur. Fractal structure =/= fractal antennae. A cauliflower is a fractal, do you think it's an antennae too?

>>14731598
>What information is available in that example?
Nothing besides what is stated.

>>14731603
> Heat up a kettle
> "ITS BECOMING SENTIENT MWHAHAHA!"
lol, you absolute brainlet.

>>14731614
>And what about the antennae part of the claim,
Only works if you're going to argue that the brain does not operate with electromagnetic waves.
Every conductor is also an antenna, that's basic EE.

>>14731607
What you mean "more likely"?
I don't know how to evaluate that, I don't have all the facts about everything

I already told you that's why people evaluate hypothesises in other terms
Did you not understand my post?

>>14731615
>A cauliflower is a fractal, do you think it's an antennae too?
IIRC there is no myelin or dielectric structure to separate the elements in a cauliflower.
A tree can be a good fractal antenna though. You can use potted plants in HAM radio (can't be grounded).

>>14731634
>What you mean "more likely"?
You were just telling me a few minutes ago that when you say evidence supports somethng, it increases the probability of that thing being true. So which position does it increase the probability of in this case? Notice how you're forced to squirm repeatedly and deflect like a rat.

>>14731633
>Only works if you're going to argue that the brain does not operate with electromagnetic waves.
It doesn't tho. The changes in the electromagnetic field, WHICH IS GENERATED BY ANY WARM OBJECT YOU CUNT, is used to read the bioelectrical activity of the brain.

>>14731639
>So which position does it increase the probability of in this case?
I already told you: Both
it's a you-problem that you don't get this

>>14731645
Every conductor is also an antenna. Especially important at high frequencies.

>>14731653
So you're saying both become more likely?

>>14731638
Great, so show the brain is an antennae. Let's see those consciousness waves.

>>14731626
Nothing I said implied anything like that. You're mentally ill.

>>14731659

>>14731667
NTA but you sure did. Why are you projecting your obvious mental illness?

>>14731616
Then there is no reason to think radio waves exist.

>>14731673
>there is no reason to think radio waves exist.
Who said anything about radiowaves? I know I said "radio" but the imaginary character doesn't know what it is. He just hypothesizes that it's a receiver and the knobs control what is being received and how it's being received.

>>14731668
Use your words like a big boy.

>>14731657
Doesn't change the fact that the brain doesn't not function on electromagnetic waves in any shape or form, just electricity, and the presence of an electromagnetic field and its conductivity does not constitute any evidence that it is a transmitter, at least no more than it is evidence that a watermelon left in the sun is conscious.

Two hypothesis:
1 - Brain is radio transmitting to a soul which does the mind stuff
2 - Brain is doing the mind stuff

Here, getting bumped on the head and having something happen to your awareness
it would be evidence increasing the probability of both positions, right?

I can still think hypothesis 2 is better, and overall more likely. Cuz I've never seen a soul. I don't know what soul-stuff is, it seems simpler.
That doesn't mean it's true! Just my reasons for coming to the conclusion I did.

Then another person with strong arguments for why mind needs soul to be explained could pick 1. (I know of no such arguments)

>>14731687
>I've never seen a soul
And I've never seen matter gain consciousness.

>>14731667
Yes you did.
If the presence of an electromagnetic field is is proof of consciousness and proof of reception of brainwaves from another source, than heating any object is granting it consciousness, as it excites its electromagnetic activity.
> The cunt is, at this point, literally arguing that consciousness is sent to us from the Sun through light.
Kek.

>>14731697
>The cunt is, at this point, literally arguing that consciousness is sent to us from the Sun through light.
If you go up the chain, that is where 100% of your life energy originates.

>>14731692
Right, but you prolly still think matter exist. So that's fine.
We both think matter exist.

If you think there is a strong case to be made for matter gaining consciousness that it's impossible. Go ahead pick 1.
Or maybe you just think it's less likely than souls being a thing? Pick 1.

This is how you do hypothesis evaluation

>>14731712
> He doesn't even bother to deny it anymore.

>>14731716
No idea what you're trying to say. Even bottom-tier ASLs write more coherently.

>>14731670
NTA, but your an obvious samefag schizo.

>>14731719
>It thinks I'm the same person it was arguing with.

>>14731721
I'm just telling you how I would evaluate these things

>>14731727
It's always surprising to find more than one person so retarded.

>>14731728
There's nothing to evaluate. You're just a believer LARPing as a rational skeptic using evidence so flimsy its evaluation becomes purely subjective.

Prove that it doesn't generate consciousness.
You can't

>>14731678
>Who said anything about radiowaves?
You did:

>You hypothesize that your radio produces music in a self-sufficient manner. You turn some knobs. The sounds change. You declare that this evidence supports your hypothesis. I hypothesize that the radio is a receiver, and that the knobs only control the volume and station. I turn the knobs. The sounds change. I declare that this evidence supports my hypothesis. Whose hypothesis does the evidence support, mouth breather?

>He just hypothesizes that it's a receiver
Receiver of what?

>>14731731
You didn't refute what I said. Where does your life's sustenance come from if not from the sun?

>>14731738
>There's nothing to evaluate.
Did you forget about the hypothesis we were comparing?
Bird-brain

>>14731692
Yes you have, it happens every day.

>>14731740
We don't lose consciousness during eclipses.

>>14731697
>If the presence of an electromagnetic field is is proof of consciousness
I never said anything like that, schizo.

>>14731741
>You did
Why are you lying? No matter. You can't really use it now that I've explicitly removed knowledge of radiowaves from the equation.

>Receiver of what?
Receiver of the music in some form.

>>14731751
It just generates it, brain is doing most of the computations

>>14731745
>Did you forget about the hypothesis we were comparing?
There is no objective way to evaluate them as demonstrated like a dozen times ITT. Sorry about your excruciatingly low IQ.

>>14731763
>objective
O MY GOALPOST

>>14731742
>You didn't refute what I said. Where does your life's sustenance come from if not from the sun?
Is the radio receiving signals from the ground in which the materials making it were found? Or from the machine who assembled it? No. You simply don't have an argument that matters here.

>>14731770
You're literally losing your mind at this point. Just give it a break. I don't care what evidence you find subjectively compelling.

>>14731754
>I never said anything like that, schizo.
You never said anything logical or true, it ain't hard to backpedal on no ground.

>>14731779
Talk to me about your objective standard of evidence and hypothesis evaluation

>>14731788
Call me back when you have a testable hypothesis of how brains generate consciousness. (Spoiler: I will never hear from you again)

>>14731771
What is photosynthesis for 1000$
Bro. WTF are you talking about?

>>14731794
Not the topic, retado

This is clearly just a Demiurge apologism thread in disguise, you faggots clearly need some Pneuma.

>>14731804
You asked what my standard is. I gave you my standard. Anything that falls short of my standard, which is the proper scientific standard, is about as credible as cult dogma. You are worthless and you should neck yourself.

>>14731794
What's with the double standard?
Your position is also untestable and unfalsifiable

>>14731812
>Your position
You're having another psychotic episode. My position is merely to point out that you are spouting cult dogma.

>>14731759
>Why are you lying?
I'm not. Immediately after what you quoted, I proved you did.

>Receiver of the music in some form.
In what form? There is no reason to think any such thing exists.

>>14731780
It looks like you're confusing me with someone else. I suggest you go backwards through the posts until you figure it out.

>>14731802
> "Photosynthesis works the same as radiowaves. This is evidence our consciousness is transmitted to us by the sun."
Why are you doing this to yourself, anon?

>>14731847
>I proved you did.
You're lying again.

>There is no reason to think any such thing exists.
I didn't ask for your subjective opinions on that.

>>14731811
lol, ok
But the topic of the thread is clearly about there being evidence for the brain generating the consciousness or not - which there obviously are


Next time you, you need to mention that this evidence needs to be evidence that have produced the objective scientific truth™ about the question (scientism much?)
before you waste everyone's time
make it cleared that you've moved the goalpost to something we both know don't exist

>>14731855
>You're lying again.
Not an argument.

>I didn't ask for your subjective opinions on that.
You just said there's no other information.

>>14731853
Bro I didn't say shit about consciousness, I said about energy used to sustain life.

>>14731875
>You just said there's no other information.
Yeah. The two hypotheses are given. I didn't ask for your opinions about them. I'm asking you which one the evidence supports, and which one is more likely considering that evidence.

>>14731817
Your position is implicitly the negation of mine. Which makes it untestable and unfalsifiable.
Moron.

>>14731870
>the topic of the thread is clearly about there being evidence for the brain generating the consciousness or not
And it's been demonstrated about a dozen times ITT that all of your takes about which evidence supports what, are subjective and worthless. Then you asked what my standard of evidence is, and I told you what it is. You lose. Take the L and walk away.

>>14731885
>ummm sweaty!?!?
>did you just say that my position is piss-weak
>that's untestable and unfalsifiable!!
Pretty much the only reason I talk to subhuman animals like you is to make them shart out posts like this. You undermine your cult every time you respond to me.

>>14731891
How can I know what your standard for evidence is?
Just recently you told us that you were using a non-standard definition of the word evidence
Nobody was arguing for evidence by the terms you revealed

If you want to change the topic of the thread to be about if there exist evidence, as you define it. You need to tell us.
You are just moving the goalpost when you redefine words after we've been arguing

>>14731911
>How can I know what your standard for evidence is?
Because I just told you what it is.

>you told us that you were using a non-standard definition of the word evidence
Your psychosis strikes again.

>>14731898
Do you follow the conversation? What do you even mean by "my position"?
My position, is - that there exist evidence of the brain generating consciousness
this is a very modest claim
a bump on the head knocking me out is evidence of my position, evidence doesn't need to be conclusive in order to constitute evidence

Your position - that there exist no evidence of the brain generating consciousness
how would you prove that? that IS proving a negative, it's untestable and unfalsifiable
nonsense

>>14731921
>Because I just told you what it is.
Right. That's the moment you moved the goalpost.
Before you were just wasting my time, as you didn't really mean what you said. Because you were secretly using a weird definition.
Obviously I was not arguing against whatever definition you would change the word evidence into, down the line.

>>14731943
>you moved the goalpost.
You're literally losing your mind. Answering your question doesn't constitute moving any goal post.

>>14731935

>>14731953
What do you think it looks like from my perspective when you suddenly say that by evidence,, you didn't really mean evidence

>>14731961
You're not even trying to hide your psychosis anymore. You're straight up replying to imaginary characters in you rhead.

>>14731969
It does when you pretend that we were using you special definition all along

>>14731883
>I didn't ask for your opinions about them.
I didn't give you an opinion.

>I'm asking you which one the evidence supports
Obviously the one that doesn't require something that can't even be detected.

>>14731995
>Obviously the one that doesn't require something that can't even be detected.
Wrong and retarded, but feel free to explain your claim.

>>14731979
Are you just gonna keep pumping out this deranged drivel? None of it has anything to do with reality.

>>14732009
>Wrong and retarded
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>but feel free to explain your claim.
I already did. >>14731566

Why this spookster so angry?

>>14732011
Not him, but your constant barrage of insults makes you look far more deranged.

How can there be evidence for or against theories that cannot be proven true or false?

>>14732035
I don't understand your question, is there supposed to be a conflict there?

>>14732025
You're outright mentally ill. What do you mean "something that can't even be detected" when the object in question is detecting it both according to the hypothesis and in actuality? Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim beyond vacuous platitudes.

>>14732032
Ok, samefag.

>>14732044
>What do you mean "something that can't even be detected"
I mean something you have no information of, like consciousness waves or whatever you want to call it.

>when the object in question is detecting it both according to the hypothesis and in actuality?
What information do you have that tells you that? You can only choose hypotheses based on information you have, not information you speculate about or information outside of your hypothetical. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. That's why your analogy fails.

>Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim
Which claim?

>>14732048
Wrong, this is probably him >>14732029

>>14732060
>I mean something you have no information of
No, you said "something that can't be detected". Why are you lying and backpedaling?

> You can only choose hypotheses based on information you have
Can you justify this deranged idea?

>Which claim?
That the evidence supports the wrong hypothesis better because the wrong hypothesis is "simpler". This reddit razor idiocy is pretty laughable but go ahead and justify it.

>>14732071
>asks what he means by X
>"X means Y"
>"no you said X"
...

>>14732080
It was a rhetorical question. I was just calling you out on your hilarious botlike kneejerk reaction. Still waiting for you to justify your claims, though. Notice how your only tactics are lying, blackpedaling and deflection.

>>14732071
Let me know when you've detected consciousness waves or whatever you call them.

>Can you justify this
I already did. Evidence would be meaningless otherwise because you can always create a more complicated hypothesis to account for any evidence.

>>14732082
>It was a rhetorical question

>>14732090
>consciousness waves
We're not talking about consciousness waves, schizo.

>Evidence would be meaningless otherwise because you can always create a more complicated hypothesis to account for any evidence.
Total nonsequitur. Try again.

>>14732094
I already told you it was a rhetoric question, do you think I'm mistaken about what I thought I was saying?

>>14732094
>>14732113
>it replies to itself
Keep losing your mind with impotent rage.

>>14732097
>We're not talking about consciousness waves, schizo.
Whatever you want to call them.

>Total nonsequitur.
Evidence being meaningless is not non sequitur. I guess we've reached the limit of your intellectual ability.

>>14732124
So you're telling me you can't explain your shart? Too bad.

>>14732113
>It was a rhetorical question.
>I already told you it was a rhetoric question

>>14732141
Maybe reply to yourself a couple more times pretending to be other posters, I'm sure that'll soothe your asshurt.

>>14732132
I already explained it to you, and your only response is "non sequitur" with no explanation. We've reached the limit of your intellectual ability.

ctrl + F

supervenience - not found
property dualism - not found
global workspace - not found
higher order - not found
iit - not found

How did you reach bump limit without ever talking about consciousness?

>>14732220
This thread is about evidence

>>14732220
Emergent dualism for me

>>14732220
Substance dualism

>>14732220
>>14732261
>>14732507
>>>/x/

Who you gonna call?

>>14732854
You are retarded, emergent dualism is clearly the only position substantiated by any evidence.