/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14825872
Somebody post that Socratic dialogue with Dennett.

>>14825872
and so what? what is the point of that statement? where do we go from here?

Who is this guy and why should I not immediately dismiss the absurd idea that qualia does not exist

>>14825872
Am too.

well you posted this while I was asleep so technically

I am conscious. I have free will. I do my own research and my own peer review. I will not eat the bugs. I will not live in the pod. I will never be a woman.

>>14825872
Free will is a myth, time is set.

>>14825872
Dennett says the opposite

>>14826003
>time is set
You what now?

When one says "I" (as in I think, or I dreamed, or I remembered, or I imagined) what are they referring to and what is it that is speaking and how does it go from nothing being thought and said to: something saying and thinking: "I think and say this sentence right now"

>>14825872
well fuck you too then faggot

The concious aware observer is: the causal and catagorically relational continuation of memory.

I am memories past and present, ongoing, constant, and the ability to 'invent' memories (as is thinking, thought, wondering, imagination).

Whatever forms memory is: I remember trees and sticks and lines and pebbles and mountains and rivers and homes; then I can project parts of these things, and create new memories, that are thoughts.

Conciousness is a real time collage of organizational memory, that somehow sees and recognizes it sees (recognize: re cognize)

>>14825872
prove it.

>>14826443
>redditspacing
>pretentious, low iq post
Clockwork.

>>14825889

>>14826426
>When one says "I" (as in I think, or I dreamed, or I remembered, or I imagined) what are they referring to
The experience of being a separate entity.

>>14826454
Pretty cringe.

I was watching an argument between denett and some idealist guy and dennett said that consciousness being it's own thing is similar to the elan vital idea that the early scientists thought might have been needed for life. Then we found that we don't need elan vital, we just need chemistry, and consciousness should be seen the same way.
What do you anons think? I thought it was a decent argument

>>14826454
An illusion is a misinterpretation of sensory or metacognitive information by a brain. Now what?

>>14826472
What is a "misinterpretation of sensory or metacognitive information"?

>>14826426
>and said to: something saying and thinking: "I think and say this sentence right now"
It is like the whole entire body is an ocean wave made of a swarm of birds hive minding to dry and wet heave a thought, spured by all surrounding waves and particles

Fundamentally the material of the universe is not simple. There is not only sticks and mud. There is not only 10 elements and 100 molecules.

Quantities and qualities and degrees of freedom and complexities and substances and actions and facets and gradients of stabilities and reflections and refractions and speeds

>>14826519
I don't care about you irrelevant wordcelism. Everything you will come up with is as easy to circumvent as the "point" in your greentext. Socrates was a moron.

>>14826531
What the fuck are you talking about retard.
What is a "misinterpretation of sensory or metacognitive information"?
BTW, wordcels are more intelligent than shape rotators, every great logician, physicist, scientist etc is a wordcel and not a shape rotators, but that doesn't matter for this.

>>14825872
Claims denying consciousness are the most wrong you can get.
You do not know that apple is green, you know that you see the apple is green. You do not know taht sun will rise tommorow, you only know that you have experience of memories from which you can draw conclusion that it does. You cannot even trust logic, as it is based on intuitive but unprovable axioms.
What you do know is that you are consciousness. Otherwise you cannot think those thoughts. Your ability to deny consciousness proves that you are conscious. Any thought process that claims you have no consciousness is automatically wrong.
You have no consciousness is the most blatant denial of reality that's sold to midwits to appear smart
>>14826464
It's like denying existence of oxygen because phlogiston was proven not to exist

>>14826545
>What the fuck are you talking about
I'm talking about how easy it is to defeat your wordcel word games. See >>14826472

>>14826472
How do you distinguish between metacognitive information that has been correctly interpreted and metacognitive information that has been misinterpreted? Who is the interpreter of metacognitive information?

>>14826547
That sentence has no meaning so it's not a "defeat" of anything
What does "misinterpretation of sensory data" even mean?

>>14826472
If the brain is so prone to illusions, how do you know that the statement "consciousness is an illusion" isn't itself an illusion?

>>14826548
>How do you distinguish
By incorporating more information. Or maybe you don't. Either way works.

>Who is the interpreter of metacognitive information?
The brain. Next.

>>14826551
>That sentence has no meaning
Are you illiterate? Your tedious "define define" exemplify your low intellect.

.

>>14826552
>how do you know
You don't "know" it, but it's your best bet. You need to update your wordcel repertoire. Next.

>>14826546
>It's like denying existence of oxygen because phlogiston was proven not to exist
It isn't quite like that, both phlogiston and elan vital were shown to not be necessary. It could be the case that consciousness is also like this, and we wont need to posit a consciousness field or something to explain it.
I think the argument is okay although we don't know yet. For now, I agree with Witten. I guess we'll see

>>14826567
The sentence literally has no meaning. What does it mean for the brain to "misinterpret sensory data"? It just processes sensory data, there is no interpretation.
Wordcels are more intelligent than you, the fact you'd try to use that as an insult is sad. Every great scientist and philosopher is a "wordcel"

>>14826576
>The sentence literally has no meaning. What does it mean for the brain to "misinterpret sensory data"
Your asshurt is delicious. Are you saying you're the only one ITT who doesn't understand what simple English sentences mean?

>>14825872

>>14826472
>illusion
Who is being illuded?

>>14826581
I'm not asshurt, the sentence "misinterpretation of sensory data" doesn't mean anything. The brain doesn't interpret anything, it just processes data. Interpretation is not something that information processing units do at all, they just fire according to action potentials.

>>14826589
>what is misinterpreting information
A brain.

>>14825872.

>>14826590
>I'm not asshurt
You are extremely asshurt; otherwise you wouldn't pretend you can't understand simple English. lol.

>>14826591
>misinterpreting
Who is misinterpreting what?

>>14826597
A brain is misinterpreting information. Why do you keep asking about whos? Nothing in my statement references any 'whos'.

>>14826472
>misinterpretation
By whom?

>>14826571
>it's your best bet
Prove it.

>>14826599
>>14826598

>>14826591
Can you prove "a brain" exists?
How do you know such a thing exists?

>>14826598
>A brain
What's that? How do you know such a thing exists?
>misinterpreting information
What is being "misinterpreted"?

>>14826604
No one needs to prove anything to you, homo. I only care as far as to demonstrate (as I already have) that the inconsistencies you see are a product of your low IQ, not of someone else's mistakes.

>>14826595
Learn about these
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_grammar
No matter how much you try to say that your nonsensical combination of words has semantic content, it still doesn't

>>14826610
>the inconsistencies you see
Which are?

>>14826608
>b-b-b-but what IS a heckin' brain??
Ask the doctor next time your parents take you to get a brain scan trying to figure out why you're a drooling retard.

>>14826598
>>14826607
>>14826591
Whose brain is misinterpreting what?

>>14826613
Your verbal IQ is about 105. Also learn about these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girlfriend

>>14826615
How do you know what "a brain" is?
How do you know "a brain" exists?

>Ok, Mr. Dennett does this chair exist?
>YUP!
>This funny toy?
>YUP!
>This ceiling fan?
>YUP!
>Me, standing in front of you?
>YUP!
>Ok, now do you exist?
>Well, we really can't be sure. I mean...it could be an illusion...

>>14826618
lmao go touch grass incel
now this is where you go "n-no you!"

>b-b-b-b-but what is a brain??
lol. Asshurt wordcels.

>>14826630
Are you a woman? Is that why you can't make an argument?

To clear the air, the subject/object distinction will never go away. Read Nagle.

Now as far as forms of physicalism v. forms of idealism v. forms of dualism, we just have to make an educated guess at this point. Everything we know points towards thoughts being heavily related to brain states. Like I prefaced, that could be nothing. That could be a show made for me, the only consciousness in existence. So, I take it with a pinch of pragmatism that what I call my conscious mind is some up-jumped african hunting computer written in meat. Could be wrong, but you sort of have to pick one and be content or you'll do this forever.

>>14826635
Physicalism has the most promise. The problem is how associated brain states to mental states are possible at all, not that we can find correlations between them. Finding associations doesn't solve the problem, we need a deeper theory for that.
It's as Witten says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ

>>14826634
I was basically done with you with this post: >>14826472
Your "define define" infinite regression is boring and doesn't need to be dignified with a response. Only other low IQ inbreds like you will actually engage it.

>>14826640
He almost punched the guy when he said "understanding a superstring is easy."

>>14826641
lol so you are a woman, got it.
The men are talking here

>>14826649
I didn't notice that before lol

>>14825872
Dennett says that everyone is conscious because p-zombies don't make sense.

>>14826655
>The men are talking here
Define "men" for me, wordcel. I'm not sure what you mean when you call yourself a man. :^)

>>14826683
What Dennett actually says is that there is no difference between a p-zombie and someone who is conscious. He says we are all p-zombies. He says being a p-zombie is what it means to be conscious.

>>14826774
Where? That's not what I got from his explanation when I watched some interview with him a while ago.
Its was something like that the "stream of consciousness" of a conscious person and the "stream of unconsciousness" can't be differentiated because if all the actions are the same, then these streams of consciousness or unconsciousness can't be making a difference so there is no difference.

>>14826769
cope femcel

>>14826786
>Where?
Wherever he makes his argument that p-zombies are impossible. His literal argument is that the distinction doens't make sense because being conscious means the same thing as being a p-zombie.

>>14826794
I know you're stroking your baby dick to the fantasy that you are interacting with a woman, and I'm sorry that I have to ruin it for you, but I'm actually a man. Unlike you. Seethe.

>>14826426
>When one says "I" (as in I think, or I dreamed, or I remembered, or I imagined, or I want, or I maybe want, or Im saying) what are they referring to
The "I" is an electron magnetic light wave bank of all forms and patterns and reflections and refractions and shapes and colors of light that have entered our eyes, and deemed worthy of highlighted and saved as memory; highlighted as helpful, pleasurable, interesting, painful, dangerous, uninteresting.

Some how these memories tetris'd into categories, and they must constantly be tended too and kept fresh so our swarm memory finders and feelers can swing from the branches of nearness, of the area or related ideas of the memory we are searching for.

Anyway, some how there is a video camera attatched to memory that is aware it is recording and can consider it's memories and aim it's camera, and choose to move a certain direction.

>>14826797
Yes, but he's not saying that what people would call conscious experiences don't exist, just that all brains that enter certain states always have them.

>>14826809
>he's not saying that what people would call conscious experiences don't exist
Yes, he's just saying it is the same thing as being a p-zombie. lol

>>14826448
My post is so much better than you are likely capable in this thread, please respond to the content of the paragraphs in my post and not their form. I will write without spaces to your reply.

>>14826813
>My post is so much better
According to your reddit updoots or just your own assessment? lol

>>14826810
This is the interview that I saw where he talked about the stream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djqk-RexNFs
He's not saying people don't have experiences, he's saying that all people have to have experiences because all functional brains will always have those experiences. In this sense the P zombie doesn't make sense, you can't have the same physical activity and functions without the same conscious experience, which is what the p-zombie idea is

>>14826455
>The experience of being a separate entity.
You dont do, anything?

What am I speaking to? What are you most fundamentally. How are you reading these words and processing them. What is ultimately in your head recieving these words, processing them, thinking about how to respond.

Carefully pay attention to the process of how you respond to this, what you are actually doing and thinking, I wish you could write down your entire stream of thoughts while reading every word of the reply and anything else that may enter, maybe next post.

>>14826820
>He's not saying people don't have experiences, he's saying that all people have to have experiences
And "to have experiences" according to him is to be a p-zombie.

>>14826825
That doesn't make any sense

>>14826824
>What am I speaking to?
Literally a character in your head, but now I'm reading it and thinking the character in my head that is (You), is speaking to a character in my head that is me, which is a part of the experience of being a separate entity.

>>14826827
You can tell that to Dennett, but the whole crux of his argument is that p-zombies don't exist, because if you take the classic description of what a p-zombie is, that is -- a positive rather than a negative description, that to him is objectively indistinguishable from what being "conscious" is.

>>14826443
We scan the room and we look down at our task at hand, and we think and think and think, about our day and our life, past, future, present

We see a person and we think and think and think

They say words about some aspects of the world
You think, you respond with words related to aspects of the world
In the between time, a complex mixture swirl crystal ball molusk chemelon changing colors lightning speed computation of words and images and phrasing and accuracy of relation to what was said and the world.

The quickness of light and the slowness of us, the quickness and smallness of the nanoworld

Builds up and is used in intricate various ways, to allow this mechanical computational organic magic concotion to be buzzing with an awareness of life.

Consider a decaying lifeform.
Rocks can stay nearly exactly as they are for millions of years, life occured between a rock and a hot place. Lifes are intricate boney muscle goo micro machinery factory architecture, that crested upward into the most sophisticated orientation, to escape falling towards destruction, but mistakes are bound to happen, and there are hard to get to places that cannot always be 100% replenished, something gets tired, and so failures build up, mistakes and accidents and gears wear down and rust and brittleness and erosion and wind and sun damage and leaks and water damage, and the complex atoms cant all hold on any longer. A house of cards marching toward proud erection, but there is no infinity glue and the wind is bound to come.

>>14826464
>consciousness being it's own thing
That's a very interesting parlance.
It's own thing, what is its own thing, is an apple it's own thing, or it needs the tree it grew on? Is a car headlight it's own thing, or it does not exist without a car?

>>14826868
Samefag. >>>/r/eddit

>>14826472
How does the brain See what's in it, and how are you the brain and the seeer of what's in it?

>>14826464
It's not an argumet at all, let alone a decent one. It's circular reasoning.

>>14826880
The brain just does what it does.

>>14826521
>Fundamentally the material of the universe is not simple. There is not only sticks and mud. There is not only 10 elements and 100 molecules.
>Quantities and qualities and degrees of freedom and complexities and substances and actions and facets and gradients of stabilities and reflections and refractions and speeds
This is a good point, if the universe was some range of simpler we feel justifiably confidently comfortable believing it would be more difficult, eventualy impossible for conciousness to occur, if say the universe was only composed of particles that phenomenonly look and act like marbles as we interact with them on our scales and energies.

>>14826884
Circular reasoning? He's making a prediction, that consciousness will be elucidated through studies of the brain without needing an analogous elan vital.

>>14826893
>it's in no way humanly conceivable how X stems from Y, but if I appeal to ignorance and complexity, then the magic emergerino fairy pops into existence and makes it true.

>>14826897
>He's making a prediction
Based on his belief that consciousness is just like [insert other thing].

>>14826546
>You have no consciousness is the most blatant denial of reality
What's really funny is that one of the most famous philosophical statements anyone who has ever been near philosophy 101 in anyway would know: I think therefore I am.

It's almost as if they are pulling an adventurous prank but that would be giving them too much credit I think.

One need only look at any time in history and maybe most advanced, today, to know, the powers in convincing some many masses of this certain idea or that, that could influence their ideas and behaviour of living, acting, thinking on these and those other ideas

>>14826547
What is metscognitive information?
How does the brain interpretation, how do you experience some of what the brain does? How do you possess such a bright and shinning invigorated on-ness? How is awareness aware?

>>14826926
>>>/r/incels

>>14826590
>The brain doesn't interpret anything, it just processes data. Interpretation is not something that information processing units do at all, they just fire according to action potentials.
Damnn reading through the thread and this anon backed up his point and progresses the discussion and this anon
>>14826595
>You are extremely asshurt; otherwise you wouldn't pretend you can't understand simple English. lol
Copped out and ignored the content and floundered, damn what a disappointment, I hope they get back on track as the convo goes on, and it doesn't devolve into off track contentless constructiveless ad hominems

>>14826932
Imagine being so asshurt you feel compelled to samefag like that. Also imagine being so asshurt to edit the HTML element trying to prove you're not samefagging.

>>14826932
They can't argue
>>14826936
Wrong, and theres no way to edit HTML this fast

>>14826940
Cry harder. I like how you're so profoundly retarded that the first thing you do after having your low-IQ wordcel gotcha BTFO is to try play "define define" until you can repeat the same thing over again.

>>14826820
>saying that all people have to have experiences because all functional brains will always have those experiences
The science and philosophy has moved on to how functional brains have those expeirences;

Functional cars requires certain states (working engine, wheels), and what brains do is not as simple as what cars do, we know what cars can do and how; we know what brains can do, how is it doing this "awareness thing"?

>>14826942
I didn't play "define define", I didn't ask for a definition of the word "define", I asked how information processing units which only fire deterministically according to action potentials can be said to "misinterpret sensory or metacognitive information" or what that even means.

>>14825872
I am too. Pretty sure. At least, I think so. Don't I?

>>14826879
Respond to the content, im writing a treatise

>>14826947
> how information processing units which only fire deterministically according to action potentials can be said to "misinterpret sensory or metacognitive information"
How can a key-pressing automaton which only fires deterministically according to butthurt potentials can be said to "write a post"?

>>14826952
Why are you getting so angry here? You have no substance in your posts and your projecting your anger at me

>>14826953
What's the difference between my objection and yours?

>>14826879
Stop being jealous of my special rareness, if anyone was you they would be jealous of me

>>14826944
>The science and philosophy has moved on to how functional brains have those expeirences
This is just the hard problem which doesn't need to be a problem if you think that the functions of the brain are all that matter

>>14826888
>The brain just does what it does
In Science and Philosophy we ask and seek how, we are not satisfied with ignorance and nonunderstanding

>>14826959
>we ask and seek how
Go study neuroscience, then.

>>14826955
an automaton pressing keys isn't misinterpreting sensory data, and there is no metacognitive information processing in that system, if by that you mean "thinking about your thinking"

>>14826963
Okay, so I guess you're not even the 110 IQ wordcel I thought you are. You are a literal nigger-tier inbred moron. lol. Imagine misunderstanding a post like that.

>>14826899
Think of what you know as sphere glass marbles. Imagine they weren't made of atoms, imagine they were fundamental and the only matter and energy and particle in the universe was exactly like them and they moved and ran into each other like you know marbles too;

We would imagine in that universe, I think rightly, they conciousness could not occur

>>14826964
you haven't even been making a coherent argument. your statement is that the illusion of consciousness is the brains misinterpretation of sensory or metacognitive information. this is a nonsensical combination of words
if the brain is misinterpreting sensory data, how can that be said to be or not be illusory?
if the brain is misinterpreting its metacognitive processing, how could that be said to be or not be illusory?

>>14826968
You are mentally ill.

>>14826969
you have not justified a single statement youve made

>>14826970
>if the brain is misinterpreting data, how can that be said to be or not be a brain misinterpreting data??
>i-i-i just don't understand this combination of words
>brains interpret data?
>w-w-what does this mean!?!
LOL. Kill yourself, incel.

>>14826974
no one cares that you like neuroscience femcel. you can't argue and you can't think

>>14826977
Your "argument" is that you don't comprehend simple English sentences, which you keep making over and over, obsessively, dozens of times. You also keep fantasizing that I'm a woman. lol. You sure are mentally ill.

>>14826982
No, my argument is that the brain can't even be said to "misinterpret sensory data" as that doesn't make sense. The brain just takes in information and processes it, there is no interpretation at all, its just sodium ion firing.

>>14826984
>the brain can't even be said to "misinterpret sensory data" as that doesn't make sense.
Why not?

>>14826940
Ok, well I will take a step back and speak for that anon because maybe I see his point, reading and writing in this thread I'm getting warmed up to the vision the this philosophical scientific technical landscape, I, we, often forget in these online discussions just how complex these topics are, as with everything we want it all to be quick and easy quick and easy. I know I know I got it done I get it. So I do like your commitment to slowing down, being careful, and analyzing, and digging deeper.

Could 'interpretation' not mean (tell me if My interpretation is correct) some part pieces sections is responsible for brown circular objects, and so it goes off when it sees an acorn and you go to grab but its a leaf. Would that have been an example of the brain failing an interpretation?

>>14826986
Don't try to speak for me when your verbal IQ is 105.

>>14826985
sodium ions firing is not an interpretation, that's a nonsensical semantically meaningless combination of words.

>>14826990
>sodium ions firing is not an interpretation
What about your sweaty meat susages colliding with the keyboard keys? Is that "writing"?

>>14826992
> sweaty meat susages
Pffff. Sweaty sausage fingers*

>>14826992
Yes, that's writing.
No connection between that and the previous statement

>>14826995
>No connection between that and the previous statement
I forgot you're so inbred you don't see the connection. I'll refrain from analogies, since that requires at least average intelligence.

>sodium ions firing is not an interpretation,
Why not?

>>14826997
There is no connection, gaslighting doesn't work

>>14826999
>sodium ions firing is not an interpretation,
Why not?

>>14826956
>This is just the hard problem which doesn't need to be a problem if you think that the functions of the brain are all that matter
Where is the you I'm speaking to, are you brain matter, electricity, minerals and nutrients, em waves, and certain cells? You are all of that together, all of that interacting a specific wsy together, produces your experience of experiencing

>>14827001
Sodium Ion:
>Sodium ion (Na+) is the principal extracellular cation and solute and is essential for generation of action potentials in nervous and cardiac tissue
Interpretation:
>the action of explaining the meaning of something.
No connection whatsoever

>>14827006
>No connection whatsoever
Prove your claim.

>>14826960
>Go study neuroscience, then.
What has neuroscience said this far as to why a brain doing what it does allows you experiencing what you do.

Light goes into your eyes; how does a collection of atoms "see" that light? What is doing the seeing?

>>14827009
>What has neuroscience said this far
Go study it and maybe you'll know.

>>14827007
You're the one saying there's a connection between these entirely different things, you have to prove it

>>14827014
You claim there is no connection between the brain doing its brain thing, and the brain processing information. Prove your claim. Why do you keep deflecting?

>>14827016
>processing information
Interpreting information, I mean.

>>14826989
I think by sensory misinterpretation this anon means for example: going to grab an acorn at dusk and it turns out it was a leaf; that itself is what conciousness is

>>14827021
I think you are actually retarded.

>>14827009
That's not what this is about. The point of the problem, which Witten talks about in that other video, is not that we can't find functions of the brain, it's that you can't construct any physical theory to explain why those functions have experiences at all, or why one brain state maps to one function instead of another. This is not like physical theories, where the function and mathematics of a physical system have to work a certain way or else you derive contradictions or mathematics that doesn't work out.
The point of the problem is that regardless of how much work or knowledge is gained about the function of the brain, you can't derive or make a theory about the consciousness using that. That's the hard problem

>>14826992
The sausage fingers don't type themselves, there's mini fingers inside the head that type on a little keyboard in the head, that controls the fingers, and it has a little finger guy typing in its head, and so on, and that's where what is determined to type comes from, the prime inner mover

>>14827016
>>14827020
The brain doesn't interpret information. It fires action potentials based on inputs. There's no interpretation there.

>>14827004
>Where is the you I'm speaking to, are you brain matter, electricity, minerals and nutrients, em waves, and certain cells? You are all of that together, all of that interacting a specific wsy together, produces your experience of experiencing
In other words; there is systems, systems interacting, system designs, materials and energies inputted in the system and materials and energies outputted from the system, and we are partially the output of material and energy inputted in our system.

>>14827033
>The brain doesn't interpret information.
Why not? LOL. I think I broke this bot. It's been going in this asinine loop for what, like an hour now?

>>14825889
Not that exactly, but here's a hypothetical timeline where Dennett does LSD.

https://qualiacomputing.com/2020/08/06/that-time-daniel-dennett-took-200-micrograms-of-lsd/

>Correlation is all that is needed. So what states a mind uses for modeling conditions of importance to it, is fundamentally arbitrary. Like with language. Words represent things to humans but there are many languages, and words do not resemble what they represent. They only correlate with what they represent, and the correlation needs to be learned. To do science about the mind, one does not need to attach any special weight to any conscious state of mind over any other. One person’s hope may be another person’s despair. These “qualia” are like internally projected hypo-languages which are different all over the map, if there were one. In fact there cannot be an interpersonal map of what things feel like personally. Only naïve people could hope for a fundamental linguistics of consciousness, as if these states were to constitute a universal language of some ground truth of the mind. Silly. Romantic. It’s all arbitrary. For the record, I never said subjective experiential states do not exist. People misrepresent me on that. What I am saying is that it will never be possible to scientifically map what the state that a word such as, for instance, “green”, translates to feels like by the brain of a given individual. My green could be your red.

>>14827036
Why can the brain interpret information?

>>14825872
Dennett is proof that NPCs are real

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

>The brain doesn't interpret information.
>It-it-it just doesn't, okay?!
>I literally don't understand what this combination of words means!
The utter and final state.

>>14827040
>Why can the brain interpret information?
Because that is its main function. This is really boring. Time for you to take your meds and get off the internet.

>>14827025
Oh so your saying, one persons brain waves are different when they think of ice cream and baseball they another's?

When one person visualized a sphere, their Brain lights up different than when another person does?

>>14827048
>Because that is its main function
It's main function is to fire sodium ions

>>14827044
>>14827048
How does a particular collection of atoms in your head see light? What part is doing the seeing?

Are you mainly a particularly collection of atoms in your head (you can lose your hair and fingers and still live), and these atoms are differernt than others in that when light hits they become the aware you I'm speaking to and see the light?

Are you also the electricity that passes between the neurons? Are you neurons and electricity, or mainly neurons, on speaking to

>>14827049
>Oh so your saying, one persons brain waves are different when they think of ice cream and baseball they another's?
Not necessarily, that isn't needed. It could be the case that all humans have the same or similar synaptic patterns or brainwaves when they think of ice cream or baseball. That doesn't matter. Whether or not there's a difference in the physical pattern, there is no reason for any physical pattern to map to a conscious experience as opposed to any other. This is not the same for actual physical theories, in which if there is a difference in some physical process that has entirely different implications; most of the time it would imply a contradiction or something. Consciousness doesn't work this way for some reason which is the hard thing, and why he's saying that mapping functions of the brain won't elucidate consciousness and it will remain a mystery

>>14826884
>>14826464

it's not circular reasoning, it's an inductive fallacy.

>>14827044
It literally doesn't. It fires sodium ions based on action potentials. "Interpreting information" is not part of this process.

>>14825872
citation needed

>>14827056
That's not a contradiction. Computer's main function is to consume electricity, but it's still computes somehow. Sodium ions are not mutually exclusive with thought process unless you can prove otherwise.

>>14825872
Can a machine be conscious?

>>14827064
You know those crystal ball looking things you touch and electricity goes to your fingers?

What if the mind is something like that, where a bird outside is see, and the image of a bird is hazily drawn and etched in clouds chamber and electric doodling?

Or even pixels, If you close your eyes and envision a cup, what is it you are actually seeing, where exactly is the seeing taking place and what exactly is doing the seeing

>>14827064
Well there is likely a spectrum and gradients like aren't they quite sure already different areas of the brain do different things, and this holds over person to person, like motor skills, left right brain stuff, vision, deep thinking, etc

>>14827454
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlIgmTALU74
https://qualiacomputing.com/2022/06/19/digital-computers-will-remain-unconscious-until-they-recruit-physical-fields-for-holistic-computing-using-well-defined-topological-boundaries/

>>14826531
socratic method destroys brainlet once again

>>14827466
>If you close your eyes and envision a cup, what is it you are actually seeing, where exactly is the seeing taking place and what exactly is doing the seeing
Someones answer this

>>14826581
>your ass is delicious
knew you were a raging homosexual golem from jump

>>14826804
post bussy

>>14826531
>I don't care about you irrelevant wordcelism

>>14826572
>Elan Vitae shown not necessary
>Therefore consciousness is unnecessary
>Phlogiston is shown to be non-necessary
>Therefore oxygen isn't necessary
Yes, we do not know if it's necessary. However the fact that it exists is undeniable
>>14827011
Of that anon days explain it then he will win the Nobel prize
>>14827038
Well, first of all the fact that qualia is (probably) caused by the brain would mean they are the same
Second, the fact that they are described similarly also points to that
Thirdly and finally it doesn't matter. My sensation of red could be someones sensation of being buttfucked by cthulhu that qualia, and by extension consciousness exists

>>14827526
>>14827608
>>14827617
>>14827790
>qualialess NPCs absolutely losing their shit
lol

>>14827452
Not a contradiction, it's a non sequitur.
Sodium ions firing does not imply interpretation of information. That statement literally doesn't make sense. Why do you think the anon spent the whole time seething instead of clarifying the statement? It's because the statement doesn't actually have any meaning

>>14828331
>the mentally ill mouth breather is still going

>>14828336
You are not as intelligent as I am

>>14828337
I'd have trouble coming off as retarded as you do if I tried. You still haven't explained why brains can't interpret information. You will lose your mind again in the next post.

>>14828350
I said that the statement "consciousness is misinterpretation of sensory or metacognitive information" has no clear meaning. It's grammatically correct but lacks semantic content.
The brain directly processes information and sensory data it doesn't interpret or misinterpret anything. "Metacognition", that is thinking about thinking, is something that either happens or it doesn't. Again there is no misinterpretation.

>>14828391
>The brain directly processes information and sensory data it doesn't interpret
You still haven't explained why brains don't interpret information. Notice how you're stuck in a loop like the mindless bot that you are, simply repeating the same nonsensical assertion over and over? :^)

>>14828395
>You still haven't explained why brains don't interpret information.
You are the one claiming this, you have to prove it.
I already showed that the definitions are not connected and you, previously, showed a lack of understanding of the burden of proof then as well
You claimed the brains "main function" is to interpret information without proof, and when told that it's main function is to fire sodium ions based on action potentials, you failed again to provide an argument.

>>14828400
>you have to prove it.
I don't have to prove anything. To the vast majority of the non-inbred, non-retarded population "the brain interprets information" is a sensible and noncontroversial statement. You keep making mentally-ill-sounding claims, so the burden of proof is 100% on you.

>>14828403
>I don't have to prove anything
Concession accepted. Have a good day anon

>>14828406
To the vast majority of the non-inbred, non-retarded population "the brain interprets information" is a sensible and noncontroversial statement. You keep making mentally-ill-sounding claims, so the burden of proof is 100% on you. :^)

>>14826820
>he's saying that all people have to have experiences because all functional brains will always have those experiences.
He can assert that but that doesn't make him right.

>>14826454
genius greentext
philosophers are dumb, sci shouldn't be about psuedoscience

>>14825872
>You're not actually alive. You're just 'alive.'

>>14825872
Who is this "you" that which is not conscious?

>>14829633
Brainlet-tier gotcha attempt. You could easily imagine this question being directed at an actually unconscious GPT-type automaton. Who is the "you" in that case?

>>14829660
Who is it? What is it that you're referring to?

>>14829678
I guess you actually are an unconscious automaton, since you don't seem to have any genuine comprehension of what you're reading.

>>14829683
But who is this you that which you're referring to?

>>14829698
No one. It's just a noise that corresponds to an imaginary entity in a bot's faulty internal model which triggers a reaction from said bot.

>>14829705
Is that what the internal programming says?

>>14829708
It's what best explains your botlike replies.

>>14825872
No sir, you are the one that is not conscious!

>>14825872
Consciousness in an entity is a product of magnitude and scope proportional to the complexity of the system within which it has been manifested by and that persists in. All of creation is conscious. Where you draw a line in the sand depends on the degree of potential for an individual component to alter the system as a whole. Humans lack free will but are highly conscious.

>>14828289
>Well, first of all the fact that qualia is (probably) caused by the brain would mean they are the same
Cause and effect != being the same thing

>>14826472
>Now what?
You still can't escape that to define anything as a misinterpretation, an illusion, an error, one needs to be able to choose between differing options and evaluate each which requires a consciousness

This is explained in the fifth argument
https://crossexamined.org/5-arguments-existence-free-will/

>>14826808
>The "I" is an electron magnetic light wave bank of all forms and patterns and reflections and refractions and shapes and colors of light that have entered our eyes, and deemed worthy of highlighted and saved as memory
The fact that all those light waves have passed already implies that bank was a constructive capacity nearing godhood to be able to construct an identity from the droplets of water while being on the rover itself

A soul is much more likely

>egoism
>pluralism
These are why all your attempts fail and are doomed to fail forever.

>>14828403
>non-retarded population "the brain interprets information" is a sensible and noncontroversial statement.
All you had to do was provide an example of some ways in which brains interpret information

>>14830071
I've just shown otherwise and you've already conceded that your position is permanently BTFO.

>>14830430
No. All I had to do is to provide plenty of examples that this mouth breather is mentally ill and intellectually disabled. There is no real discussion to be had with this sort. You just make their stay as unpleasant as possible.

>>14831248
>I've just shown otherwise
Where?

>>14825872
Correct.

>>14831253
100 posts back when I defined "illusion" in a way that completely circumvents your kindergarten wordcel gotcha and you started acting psychotic and chanting incoherent slogans.

>>14831259
You just replaced the word "consciousness" with "illusion" as though that has greater explanatory power, but it doesn't

>>14831269
>You just replaced the word "consciousness" with "illusion"
No such thing has occurred. See? You are fully psychotic.

>>14831270
You gave a definition for illusion in response to the greentext to strengthen Dennetts position but it doesn't have greater explanatory power.
Consciousness is an illusion. Ok, so how do meat chunks and electrons form an illusion of consciousness? Thats just as much of an impossible task. This doesn't clarify or explain anything, it doesn't do anything to challenge or change the hard problem.

>>14831277
>This doesn't clarify or explain anything
The only thing I was clarifying and explaining is why Socratic wordcelism is impotent.

>>14831285
How does calling consciousness an illusion explain anything?

>>14831296
If it's not real then it's unclear what you're demanding others to "explain". Call me back when you have that sorted out. :^)

>>14831301
What do you mean? Phenomenological experience. Why does electrons shifting in a certain way produce qualitative sensations?
Whatever name you put on this doesn't change anything. A rose by any other name etc

>>14831305
Define and characterize "qualitative sensations" in an objective way so that you could ask an objective question that justifies your demand for an objective answer. Protip: you won't.

>>14831309
That's the problem. There doesn't seem to be an objective reason why motions of particles or processing of data structures would have qualitative sensations. There isn't any logical reason that entails it. There is no reason why being stabbed should feel painful, and there's nothing in physics or evolutionary biology or computer science that could explain this. That's the hard problem

>>14831322
>That's the problem.
Well, it's your problem. If you're not asking an objective question, then it doesn't need a /sci/ answer.

>>14831335
Sure. What do you think is going on, it doesn't have to be a /sci/ answer.

>>14831322
>There doesn't seem to be an objective reason why motions of particles or processing of data structures would have qualitative sensations
Powerful seeming, but to me. there doesn't seem to be a reason why they wouldn't

Why can't spooksters just be honest and admit upfront that believing in magic makes them feel comfy or whatever
All this beating around the bush

>>14831346
So you concede it's not an objective discussion, and that your perception that there is something objectively there, apart from the brain's prcesses, that needs to be explained as an outcome, is an illusion.

>>14831354
Why don't you admit that you're a bot with no qualia? You and your ilk are a separate, subhuman species. You will never be human. You will never have human intuitions. You will never have human values. You need to be separated from human society and be placed in some bugperson reservation where you can live under the laws of unconscious, eusocial humanoid insects.

>>14831347
It could be, but that isn't any less strange to me. So there simply is a feeling, a what it's like to be, for a red-black tree structure? Data structures just simply have feeling, in some sort of pan-psychist-computationalist thing? Either way I find the answer unsatisfactory. I don't know.
>>14831354
Experiences exist so there is no spook happening. When people use the word "magic" they really mean "I can't understand this within the context of the philosophy I already hold so I will say it doesn't matter to think about". Not satisfactory

>>14831322
Then use a neutral term, like experience. We both agree those exist.
Qualia is a theory laden term

>>14831358
No, I'm saying that there is no explanation in the motion of particles that could explain qualitative sensations. Illumination of the functions of the brain doesnt work here, as Witten was explaining. Some sort of distinction between subjective or objective isn't important

>>14831364
Your insecure is showing

>>14831377
>could explain qualitative sensations
You've already conceded that there is no definable objective substance to these "qualitive sensations" you're demanding an explanation for, so there is nothing to explain form an objective point of view.

>>14831377
>I'm saying that there is no explanation in the motion of particles that could explain qualitative sensations
Well, then I would just have to assert the opposite. And gesture to the literature that talks about physicalism.

>>14831377
Do you think there are explanations in terms of motions of particles that could explain.. the economy?

>>14831376
A rose by any other name etc
>>14831383
Why is it important to be explained from an objective point of view? If something exists but can't be verified by a third person perspective, then that's a problem for explanation but not a proof of non existence.
>>14831387
When it comes to physical theories, it always makes sense why certain functions or laws entail others. We can mathematically describe the functions and scalar values or matrices used in the descriptions of the objects in question and show that they HAVE to add up to a certain result or we would get a contradiction. This doesn't work for experiences or qualitative sensations. The only thing we can do is go "we have all experienced the feeling of solace, and we've run brain scans on 10000 people when they claim to experience solace and we see that they all have a similar (or different, it doesn't actually matter for this argument) brain state when they have the experience of solace, therefore solace is equal to that brain state".
But this doesn't actually have a true physical explanation unlike a true physical theory. There is no reason as to why such and such brain state should have some qualitative sensation or experience as opposed to another, unlike a true physical theory where if some object had a different value for its mass or electron orbital or whatever, it would entail an entirely different outcome or even a contradiction in some cases etc. This doesn't apply to the experience. It's weird.

>>14831408
>Why is it important to be explained from an objective point of view?
I don't know. You keep asking for an explanation of something that has no objective existence.

>>14831411
How would you explain the difference between objective and not objective existence with respect to this topic?

>>14831414
>How would you explain the difference between objective and not objective
And here we go back to the wordcel word games.

>>14826472
Did you just say the exact same thing with different words and think you made a new point?

>>14831417
>the exact same thing
If it's the exact same thing, how come the retarded greentext gotcha no longer works on it?

>>14831415
If you're claiming that qualitative experiences don't exist because we can't figure out a way to explain them "objectively" then you're wrong.

>>14831424
I'm not claiming anything. I'm simply pointing out that whenever I ask you to objective define and characterize [mouthnoise mouthnoise], you start to deflect.

>>14831426
You're problem is that you're saying that a lack of objective definition means something doesn't exist. That's false. Something being impossible to describe does not entail it has no objective existence.
Ineffable doesn't mean non existence

>>14826615
You sound like my 4th grade teacher questioning his life choices after I keep asking "why".

>>14831433
Your* sorry

>>14831433
>a lack of objective definition means something doesn't exist
A lack of objective definition means you're not referring to anything that can be objectively delineated part of existence, mouth breathing moron.

>>14831408
>A rose by any other name etc
No. It's literally not.
Isn't qualia supposed to be essentially private to the one experiencing the qualia?
If physicalism about the mind is true, it would have to be public.

In the sense of what's doing the experiencing is existing in the physical world, it can be observed and interacted with

I don't want to deal with problems like that, which is why I use a less theory laden term, 'Experience'. Which isn't incompatible with how I think reality is like.

>>14831439
>A lack of objective definition means you're not referring to anything that can be objectively delineated part of existence
No it doesn't. It means that language might not be capable of capturing it in a third person manner, not that it doesn't have existence. You're just wrong here

>>14826769
Ironic how you call everyone a wordcel when you are the only wordcel here, accepting words as they are without even questioning what they mean so your argument won't be exploited.

A quick litmus test to retards in this thread

When Dennet says consciousness is an illusion
What do you think he means by that?

>>14831445
>language might not be capable of capturing it
Capturing what? lol. You're not refering to any delineated part of existence. You're such a mouth breather it's shocking.

>>14831443
You can put your hand into a running blender and feel pain, but you can't look at the motions of particles and conclude there is pain from an outside perspective, and you can't derive the feeling of pain from particle interactions or processing on data structures without already having experienced and presupposing the existence of pain.
doesn't mean pain doesn't exist, and there remains no physical explanation that is logically entailed by any motion of particles or processing of data structures

>>14831408
>There is no reason as to why such and such brain state should have some qualitative sensation or experience as opposed to another
I don't get this

Can't I just say the experience IS the brain state? /reducible to the brain sate

>>14831462
>Can't I just say the experience IS the brain state?
You can say all sorts of semantically incoherent things.

>>14831455
>Capturing what?
Phenomenological experience/qualia.

>>14831419
It does work if you swap the word "illusion" with whatever nonsense you said because they both mean the same thing. You know what I mean when I said "the exact same thing". Fucking wordcels.

>>14831461
>you can't
you can

I'll just assert the opposite
now what?

>>14831462
No, because the motion of particles doesn't logically entail an experience.
>>14831466
There is nothing semantically incoherent in what I'm saying

>>14831469
>you can
Then you have to actually do it and not just say thay you are able to.. which you have not done and never will be able to, because you actually can't.

>>14831467
>capturing [mouth noise mouth noise]
You're still not refering to any delineated part of reality, mouth breather.

>>14831466
Please explain the contradiction entailed in that

>>14831481
I have done so several times in several posts

>>14831473
>There is nothing semantically incoherent in what I'm saying
You feel that way because you're either a mindless meat GPT or severely retarded. To anyone sane, saying X is Y when the two are from completely distinct categories is semantically incoherent.

>>14826531
>Socrates was a moron
You know that's a made up dialogue and Socrates didn't REALLY talk with Dennett, right?

>>14831488
Yes, saying the motion of particles is a qualitative experience doesn't logically follow

>>14831487
>just because i can't tell you what specific thing i'm referring to doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist
>what thing?
>the thing
>y-you know
>you know the thing!!!

>>14831492
Yes, you mouth breathing retard. I know that. Given this information, are you able to come up with a more reasonable interpretation? If so, demonstrate that in you next post. :^)

>>14831473
>the motion of particles doesn't logically entail an experience.

I'm saying the the experience IS the physical
I don't get what you mean by logically entailing an experience. I think the experience necessarily follows from the arrangement of physical matter.
You couldn't have matter arranged like my current brain, and it not be experiencing like I do.

Is that a logical entailment? I dunno, seems like it. I don't use that language

>>14831502
>the direct sense experience IS the imaginary abstraction!
>it just heckin' IS!!!!
Meds.

>>14831495
Any qualitative experience
For example the feeling of pain when you put your hand in the blender. There is a physical explanation for why the cells and particles in your hand are separated and ripped apart which is explained through classical mechanics and forces, all of which are mathematically and physically impossible to work out in any other way. There is no mathematical or physical reason as to why the feeling of pain would be entailed by that other than just saying "well it does because that's what our experiences do" which is not a real theory and can't become one.

>>14831507
>Any [mouthnoise mouthnoise]
Sorry, you've still not saying anything. Stopped reading after your first sentence, by the way.

>>14831513
You're not good at this

>>14831488
>To anyone sane, saying X is Y when the two are from completely distinct categories is semantically incoherent.
just wait until someone tells this guy his burgers are made of atoms

>>14831517
Then how come you keep conceding my point that your babble doesn't refer to any delineated part of reality?

>>14831502
>I'm saying the the experience IS the physical
You can say this, but you don't actually have a physical theory

>>14831519
How did you become so overtly mentally ill? You can't even respond congruently.

>>14831521
Whenever you ask for it, I give you the answer, and you pretend that it's not a direct answer to the question you just asked.

>>14831506
What's the "imaginary abstraction" on my view?

>>14831525
>Whenever you ask for it, I give you the answer

>>14831445
>language might not be capable of capturing it

Take your meds. You're really off the rails here.

>>14831501
That's the only interpretation, because you judged Socrates based on words and opinions an anon put in his mouth.

>>14831526
Every single part of your "physical" models is abstract and therefore imaginary by definition.

>>14831522
Okay. Glad we cleared up my ability to say it.

do you have a dualist theory of how ghost-souls interact with the brain and causes qualia and stuff?

>>14831530
>That's the only interpretation
So you have a subhuman level intellect. Alright, thanks for confirming. You can't say I didn't give you a chance to redeem yourself. How come these threads always attract the most shameful and mentally deformed cretins on the board? lol

>>14831532
When I talk about how things really are, do you think I'm talking about models?

>>14831528
You can prove that something exists without being able to construct it or explain it.
Saying phenomenological experiences exist but its impossible to describe or derive physically or explain from a second person perspective is not a contradiction

>>14831539
>when i'm talking about models do you think i'm talking about models?
Yeah.

>>14831537
You're talking to two or three different people here
This board needs IDs

>>14831543
>You can prove that something exists without being able to construct it or explain it.
You can't prove that something exists without being able to define and characterize what you're referring to. lol. What's your education? Provide proof.

>>14831545
I'm talking specifically to the poster I replied to, specifically about the thing he just said to me, you mouth-breathing cretin.

>>14831546
You can show something exists without providing a construction for it.
My undergrad was a degree in pure math and theoretical computer science.

>>14831544
regard

>>14831537
I know what you want to hear, but it's stupid. Did ancient thinkers even have a concept of consciousness? If so, was it the same as ours? No! So you don't know if he even would disagree with Dennett. Maybe he wouldn't even use the socratic method here, because he actually agrees with him and only uses it for people with stupid opinions. How is he a moron now?

>>14831553
So you're straight up going to expose yourself as a GPT bot that can't actually read. Okay.

>>14831534
You're arguing for a weird pan psychist perspective. Do you have a reason as to why certain motions of particles have to entail certain experiences? Because we can give reasons as to why motions or geometric structures have to imply certain results, but nothing in that physical or mathematical description can imply a feeling

>>14831559
>I know what you want to hear, but it's stupid. Did ancient thinkers even have a concept of consciousness?
LOL. Way to make yourself look even more profoundly retarded.

Just to be clear, when I say consciousness is physical
I don't really mean anything by it, because I can't define physical
it's not informative

As a physicalist, I already think everything that exist is physical, right?
I really just say it to trigger spooksters that believes in ghosts and shit

>>14831567
Ghosts and shit are physical.

>>14831560
I've answered every one of your posts in a completely congruent and coherent fashion, and your entire argument is just going "mouthnoise mouthnoise".
You don't actually have anything to say.

>>14831563
No, I'm arguing for physicalism
I just think there is 1 kind of stuff. Physical stuff

>>14831570
You're either psychotic or a bot. It's settled.

>>14831567
>As a physicalist, I already think everything that exist is physical, right?
So you're position is vacuous and retarded? Why should anyone care about what you're saying then?

>>14831569
if that's the case
It's perfectly compatible with physicalism

>>14831573
"Phenomenological experience" has a perfectly clear meaning

>>14831576
Show me the ghosts, spookster

>>14831582
>"Phenomenological experience" has a perfectly clear meaning
Then go ahead and define it for me.

>>14831577
Everything is compatible with the idea that all stuff is stuff.

>>14831572
That may be the case, but why should anyone care that you think there's only one kind of stuff when you can't even argue as for why that's the case
>>14831583
Spooks don't exist. Spooks are themselves spooks lol

Without retards believing in ghost, I wouldn't even use the term Physicalist
It's not something I call myself, it's basically just to clarify that my position got no supernatural mubo-jumbo

>>14831590
Grownups seriously have to make arguments for why we shouldn't believe in ghosts?

>>14831593
No one cares about ghosts. You're attacking a strawman.
If something exists it doesn't matter if it is of a fundamentally different kind than some other thing that also exists. Just because you want it to be the case that monism is true does not mean it is true. It may or may not be true, but you have to prove it.
So far, it's been clearly shown that at least with respect to physics and the motion of particles we can't derive qualitative experiences or consciousness, so for now monism is not the strong position.

>>14831589
Not if you got a theory were you postulate the existence of a new kind of stuff, that is definitively NOT the same kind of stuff as everything else
Like theism or substance dualism

on the other hand, Idealism I got a lot of common ground with
They also think fundamentally reality is 1 kind of stuff, just like me
it's just that they call if mental, instead of physical
which isn't really informative, cuz they can't say what it means to fundamentally be mental
just like I can't say what it means to be fundamentally physical

>>14831585
What it's like to be or experience

>>14831615
Yes you're right that it doesn't matter what the flavor of monism you pick, it's basically the same thing
It's clear to me that monism is not explanatory. It's insufficient. Even dualism is insufficient. Rather reality seems to be a plurality of interacting parts that can't be reduced to each other

>>14831615
>Not if you got a theory were you postulate the existence of a new kind of stuff, that is definitively NOT the same kind of stuff as everything else
No one was postulating any new kind of stuff. Stuff is stuff. There's different subcategories of stuff, but all stuff is stuff. :^)

>>14831601
>So far, it's been clearly shown that at least with respect to physics and the motion of particles we can't derive qualitative experiences or consciousness
How did they prove a negative?

>you have to prove it
No, you prove substance dualism, or whatever you think is the case. Show me the ghosts already.

>>14826454
Socratic dialogue is a cheap parlor trick that led to millennia of wasted effort. Everyone has inconsistent beliefs and unfounded assumptions. Digging around until you find one might be an interesting way of making a point or bad psychotherapy, but what it certainly doesn’t do is prove that the opposing viewpoint is correct.

>>14831617
>what it's like
Define what you mean by that. Notice how you're just going in circles? Your intelligence really is subhuman-tier.

>>14831633
This. If people applied their Socratic wank consistently, they themselves would stop talking altogether, but it really is just a form of pilpul to selectively undermine ideas that rub you the wrong way.

I don't know what it's like to be a bat. I don't know what it's like to be a software program. But if it is like anything at all to be these things, it will include a vague sense of dissatisfaction. I can only assume that the inner experience of a water molecule flowing down a mountain and the subjective qualia of an electron rushing through a conductor is one of suffering and yearning. A physical system at steady-state is one of desirelessness and peace. Show me a physical system at steady state, and I will show you joy.

>>14831601
What new entities to you think we have to postulate in order for it to be possible to explain qualitative experience?

>>14831628
>How did they prove a negative?
You show that there is no logical entailment.
>No, you prove substance dualism, or whatever you think is the case. Show me the ghosts already.
Already been done.

>>14831601
Monism is stupid though, as are its derivatives like The Egg. There's no point to anything if everyone is the same thing, and there's no reason not to kill everyone else because you can just say that they were you so it was fine.

>>14831644
>Already been done.

>>14831642
As an example, the experience of pain is something that can't be reduced to or logically entailed by particle motions or data structures, just like particle motions cant be logically entailed by the feeling of pain. They are of fundamentally different substances and they can't be explained or reduced to each other. They both exist. Beyond that it doesn't seem like more can be said.

>>14831641
>>>/lit/TeenageCringe

>>14831634
When you stick your hand in a running blender you feel pain. That's what is meant by that.
Ironically you are being the Socrates here and I am being the Wittgenstein

>>14831641
Lmao

>>14831669
>When you stick your hand in a running blender you feel pain. That's what is meant by that.
That doesn't have any intellectual substance that you can ask "why" questions about, so the question of "why" brain states "cause" it is a category error.

>>14831666
>can't be reduced to
On my hypothesis it can
isn't a problem

>>14831693
Mental illness.

>>14831693
You can say that but you still can't actually do it. That's the problem.
You can say "actually I CAN do that!" But you still can't and haven't shown that you can. It's not your fault it just can't be done

>>14831696
>>14831699
An experience can't be reduced to the physical, because ....

>>14831685
>That doesn't have any intellectual substance that you can ask "why" questions about
Why do you feel pain when your hand is shredded apart from a blender, as opposed to just having the cells and particles be separated without the feeling of pain or any other sensation?

>You're not conscious
>"uhh, pretty sure I am"
>Argument incontrovertiby defeated
Who is this guy, and how did he make the smallest brained argument in human history?

>>14831707
>Why do you feel pain when your hand is shredded apart from a blender
I've just explained to you that this question is a category error if by "feeling pain" you're refering to the qualia rather than to anything objectively characterizable.

>>14831704
It's not logically entailed by it

>>14831712
Qualia are the ground of reality for you so talking about objective reality is a spook.

>>14831716
Meaningless pseudbabble. You can claim that anything that can be rationally discussed is a spook, and everything that can't be rationally discussed is real if you want, but your question is still a category error.

>>14831712
So the qualia is not reducible to the physical

>>14831722
There is no "qualia" as far as any rational discussion about causes and effects is concerned.

>>14831730
Then the universe does not operate solely via "causes and effects" in the manner you're talking about

>>14831715
Cool slogan, retard

Now tell me what's preventing an experience from being reducible to the physical

>>14831668
>“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative of consciousness.”
– Max Planck: Nobel laureate and regarded as ‘father’ of quantum physics

>“It is impossible to give a satisfactory description of atomic phenomena without reference to the consciousness.”
– Eugene Wigner: Nobel Laureate discovered fundamental principles of symmetry in nature

>>14831719
Lmao, look at the non-logicians trying to work shit out.

>>14831734
Then why do you keep asking "why" questions about it, mouth breather? Either way, it's much worse for you than that because there is no "qualia" as far as any rational discussion is concerned in general, no matter what kind of relationships are being discussed.

>>14831711
This is the problem, right
That's not what Dennet is saying. Don't engage with this, if you are clueless

>>14831668
>“The stuff of the world is mind-stuff.”
– Arthur Eddington: Provided experimental evidence of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity

>“Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.”
– James Jeans: A mathematician from Cambridge University

>>14831737
>but max punk and huge wigger said!!
gay

>>14831735
I have several times in previous posts, I don't want to write it out again.
Read >>14831408
>>14831461
>>14831493
>>14831507
>>14831563
And maybe some others that I've missed

>>14831715
How do you still not get this?
My position is that certain arrangement of physical matter (logically? lol) entails consciousness

>>14831668
>“...all parts of the universe, including the observer and his instruments, merge and unite in one totality.”
– David Bohm: theoretical physicist

>“The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.”
– Bernard d’Espagnat: theoretical physicist at CERN and the Sorbonne

>>14831751
Aha, so you just limply assert that it isn't physical, fun
Then I'll counter by asserting that it is in fact physical, and you are wrong

>>14831755
Never seen anyone get so ass-blasted so fast. Keep it up.

>>14831668
>“Mind is inherent in the way the universe is built.”
– Freeman Dyson: mathematician and physicist

>“The need for mentality to be ontologically fundamental in the Universe.”
– Roger Penrose: Proved that black holes could be formed from the gravitational collapse of dying immense stars

>“The unified field is a non-material, self-interacting, self-aware, dynamic field of intelligence, which is equivalent to saying that it is a field of universal consciousness. It has all the fundamental characteristics of consciousness.”
– John Hagelin: CERN physicist and expert on string theory

>>14831759
The difference is, when you assert it is, you have to construct a logical argument using math and such to show that it has to entail such a thing, which you can not actually do.
All you can actually do is construct the physical theory to explain the motion of the particles and then sprinkle on top "and this also explains the experience" while never actually giving that entailing.
You and I are not both claiming the same thing. You are claiming that you are able to do something while not actually demonstrating that you are able to do it. I am claiming that no one can do this thing and not claiming that anyone is doing so.

>>14831772
oh no, you are using the L-word now
Why don't you have to construct a LOGICAL argument to prove that it's in fact, impossible for consciousness to be physical?
All I'm saying is that it's LOGICALLY possible, that's a low bar for me to meet.
There are no contradiction in my hypothesis, do you disagree?

I think your position is untenable

A blatant double standard in this discourse, it's so fucking annoying

>>14831754
And you have not shown how.
When the hand is blended up in a blender and the particles move in certain motions, every single particle interaction and motion is entirely entailed by newton's mechanics and these forces. That is entirely explained. But the feeling of pain is not entailed by this, there is no reason why there should be that feeling vs. No feeling or some other feeling. There is no physical reason for this.
This is what Witten was talking about when he says that explaining the functions of the brain can't bridge this gap.

>>14831785
>All I'm saying is that it's LOGICALLY possible, that's a low bar for me to meet.
Then prove it with logic, or stop pretending you can do something which you cant

>>14831792
Point out the contradiction in experience being physical
please

Bro, just solve the (hard?) problem of consciousness
lmao

You can't? Haha, guess I win and consciousness is magic

>>14831808
Why do mentally ill drones like you keep sperging off about magic?

>>14831800
The way the particles move is entirely mathematically defined by the geometry of space and the topology of the metric and the forces acting on the particles. The particles literally can not move in any other way. If you said "well what if it was some other way" you'd run into a logical contradiction. It literally does not work.
The pain feeling is not like this. Saying "why does it feel like this as opposed to some other way, or like nothing at all" does not derive any contradiction. It is not the case that if the feeling of the sensation of pain were different there would be a physical or logical contradiction. The only argument you can make is "it is that way because it is... and it's physical and it just is okay??".
Thats not a theory, that doesn't boil down the experience to the physical and there is no logical entailment there.

>>14831816
You seriously think you can explain consciousness without magic?
I'm just scared of dying, so I need to believe in magic to have a rational justification for thinking I'll exist forever in some sense

>>14831836
Why do you keep sperging out like you're psychotic? Is your intellectual impotence making you this mad? Maybe you should just close the browser.

>>14831836
Magic doesn't exist.
This is the problem here. Something not being explainable via physical forces does NOT MEAN it is magic or it doesn't exist. It just means that reality is strictly greater than physical forces. It is still completely natural, naturalism just becomes a dualistic or pluralistic philosophy as opposed to a monistic one.
It is not the case that non-monism is equal to "magic"

>>14831834
>it is that way because it is
same reason particles behave the way they do
Congratulations on figuring out that at some point explanations bottoms out


>The pain feeling is not like this
On my hypothesis, it is.

Where's the contradiction?

> "it is that way because it is... and it's physical and it just is okay??".
I think we're done here. What's the point of talking about a position you clearly have take no time to learn about
or aggressively pretend to misunderstand on purpose

huge fucking waste of time
keep believing a plurality of ghosts is the better explanation, I guess

>>14831848
You have not established that your "qualia" are a part of "reality" at all.

>>14831844
>>14831848
No, you guys don't understand.
I'm really insecure about people thinking I'm silly, but I'm also really scared of dying. I need to pretend I have a rational justification for believing in the afterlife.

>>14831861
he'll never admit to the irony

>>14831859
>On my hypothesis, it is.
>Where's the contradiction?
No matter how many times you say this, until you prove it, you're not correct.
Prove that there does not exist any mathematical logical or physical reason as to why pain has to feel a certain way. I can prove mathematically that the motions of particles have to move a certain way and that there can not exist another way for it to be without implying a contradiction
Prove the same for sensation. You won't be able to, because sensations do not work this way. They are not physical or mathematical.

>>14831861
Put your hand in a blender
>>14831874
There is no irony

>>14831861
Stab yourself in the hand with a kitchen knife lmao its just signals why not?

>>14831878
>Put your hand in a blender
That doesn't establish any concept at all, let alone one that can be related to the network of relationships that makes up our rational conception of reality.

>>14831881
See >>14831883
Your low IQ is not my problem.

>>14831883
Then no empirical experiment can be used to relate to the network that makes up our rational conception of reality.

>>14831888
Your mumbling doesn't address the argument in any way.

>>14831878
>Put your hand in a blender
Therfor, magic is real

excellent argument
fucking turd

>>14831892
If you can't do the experiment of sticking your hand in a blender to conclude the existence of pain, you can't argue that any experiment can be used to conclude the existence of anything

>>14831898
Calling something magic to dismiss it doesn't serve as an argument

>>14831900
>sticking your hand in a blender to conclude the existence of pain
This is meaningless babble. What does it means for "pain" to "exist"?

>>14831912
It means the same thing that anything exists, exists. "Pain exists" means the same thing for pain as "hydrogen exists" means for hydrogen etc

>>14831912
It means that you will react as if you're in pain when you're feeling it.

It means that pain has inherent meaning.

It means that it's irrational and not subject to deconstruction or abstraction in any way.

You feel pain as an intrinsically ultimately meaningful experience and there's nothing you can do to assuage it, any more than you can impose your will upon a red wall and change your perception of its color to that of green.

>>14831920
>It means the same thing that anything exists
I've already proven that it can't be the case because it's completely disconnected from the rest of the network of concepts and relationships that we use to characterize anything that exists. The thing you can't seem to wrap your little head around is that the concepts themselves have no substance except through how they relate to each other, and how this whole network of relationships is assumed to reflect relationships between aspects of reality. If you have some "concept" that not only isn't connected to this network, but in principle cannot be connected, it's not some mysterious island, but rather it is nothing. It's a non-concept. It has no rational or intellectual substance. You are babbling about nothing.

>>14831932
>it means that you will react as if
Mindless bots can react as if.

>It means that pain has inherent meaning.
This is world salad.

See >>14831938 you tedious retard.

>>14831938
>The thing you can't seem to wrap your little head around is that the concepts themselves have no substance except through how they relate to each other,
Wrong. Concepts have internal substances and the differences in these innate substances are compared to relate them.>>14831938

>>14831948
>Concepts have internal substance
Label-thinking drone.

>>14831654
Yes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bKGh0Svszo

>>14831944
Well, maybe I should be more clear ... I will act as if I am in pain because I feel it.

Maybe you're an NPC, or you've accidentally proven your own ideas incorrect by stumbling into the fact that the psyche is a closed system.

Either way, you're wrong until you put an axe through your hand and dismiss the pain as meaningless.

>>14831641
we need to bring back bullying

>>14831872
You're the biggest moron ITT

>>14831962
See >>14831938 you tedious retard. It stands completely unchallenged. I don't know what it means to talk about the "meaning" of raw experience but your babble is definitely meaningless.

>>14831951
Until you prove mathematically that pain has to work a certain way based on the physical motion of particles, you will never be able to reduce qualia to the motion of particles or the processing of data structures

>>14831995
> prove mathematically that pain has to work a certain way based on the physical motion of particles
Meaningless schizobabble.

>you will never be able to reduce qualia to the motion of particles or the processing of data structures
Reduce the what to the motion of particles? We've already established that your nonconcept doesn't tie into the network of concepts we use to analyze and rationally discuss reality. If you want to discuss "pain", you're gonna have to stick to something like neural correlates.

>>14831977
Okay, prove me wrong. Else, I'll keep pretending I'm rationally justified in my beliefs.

>>14832016
>Meaningless schizobabble.
Your argument boils down to the fallacy of pretending something is meaningless when it is not.
Neural correlates can not even in principle illuminate the problem as is already explained by me and Witten

>>14832027
Nobody needs to prove you wrong. This isn't reddit. Here everyone knows the rational thing to do is to shit in your mouth.

>>14832030
> pretending something is meaningless when it is not.
Why are you lying so blatantly? Looks like a concession to me.

Prove mathematically that the economy is reducible to the motion of particles
you can't find the economy in a test-tube

That means we should believe in economy-souls to explain the economy

>>14831978
I'm gonna be honest with you, dog, I'm gonna keep acting as if pain is ultimately meaningful and you're gonna do the same, regardless of what you type.

Pray tell, retard, how it is that unconsciousness can exist without the absence of pain and therefore how consciousness can exist without the inclusion of pain?

Any particle of sense data subjective experienced as a quale is infinitely more painful than the non-conscioisness of non-existence.

Also you're talking to someone who is an expert on this topic.

>>14832030
What's your take on every philosopher that holds to a physicalist position on the mind?
That they are just drooling retards that needs to read (you) and Witten? That they never figured out their position is incoherent
You need to think something like this, right

You are so fucking out of touch, to pretend it's not rationally permissible to disagree with you

>>14832034
I'm not. As explained, I can prove that the motions of particles have to be a certain way or else we could derive contradictions. You can't prove the feeling of pain has to be a certain way without deriving a contradiction. These are not meaningless statements.
>>14832037
Yes, the economy is driven by human agents which have non reducible qualia which drives their behavior and thus the economy is also not reducible to the motion of particles. This supposed to be a counter argument?

>>14832051
>I'm gonna keep acting as if pain is ultimately meaningful and you're gonna do the same
Pain is what it is. I have no idea what your psychiatric rambling about it being "meaningful" are supposed to imply.

>>14832052
>What's your take on every philosopher that holds to a physicalist position on the mind?
>That they are just drooling retards that needs to read (you) and Witten?
Unless they can provide the proof as explained then yes, they are morons unlike me and Witten.

>>14831995
>you will never be able to reduce qualia to the motion of particle
why do you keep repeating this?
it got no bite if you don't explain what's preventing this from being possible

>>14832057
>You can't prove the feeling of pain has to be a certain way without deriving a contradiction.
Why do I need to prove the feeling of pain has to be a certain way? This psychiatric rambling originates with you. We've already established that your nonconcept doesn't tie into the network of concepts we use to analyze and rationally discuss reality, so talking about why it "has" to be this or that way, and how "particles" make it be that way is schizoramble. If you want to discuss "pain", you're gonna have to stick to something like neural correlates.

>>14832062
>proof as explained
What the fuck are you talking about?
You are such a clown

>>14832063
Because unlike the motion of particles which can be shown to have to be a certain way via the derivation of contradictions in counterfactuals, sensations don't work this way.
Prove that pain has to feel the way it does as opposed to any other way, or even not at all. Prove it. Fucking do it. Show that logically, mathematically, and physically, it HAS TO FEEL that way. Don't just say "that's how it is", don't point to ten thousand brain scans
Show that if it were some other way it would be a contradiction and thus it can't be any other way. Show why it is to feel a certain way is logically entailed by the motion of particles. Prove that there can not exist even in principle some other way for it to be and that this is directly implied by the motion of particles or the processing of data structures
Or, just admit qualia is not physical and should just be accepted like the undefined term at the beginning of a math book.

>>14832060
>Pain is what it is.
Maybe elaborate on that a little, lmao. Holy shit, if you ever wondered why philosophy professors do best on the GRE out of all majors this is why.

At this point in my career I no longer consider nominalists humans.

>>14832062
Do you think physicalists just never thought about this?
Or is it perhaps that they don't need to do that, or it isn't actually a problem for their position
Holy shit, I don't even know what you are saying or referring to.
I don't think you do either. Just a lot of retarded posturing from you, pretending to have special knowledge.

It's such a bold fucking claim
That EVERYONE else is wrong, except you and that other guy
Conspiracy levels of deluded. Physicalists supressing the truth in their unrighteousness..

>>14832082
>Maybe elaborate on that a little
Why would I need to elaborate on that? My only point is that your mentally ill schizoramble doesn't mean anything.

>>14832086
>Or is it perhaps that they don't need to do that, or it isn't actually a problem for their position
It is a problem for their position and they do have to do this. I have the greatest physicists as well as the greatest philosophers on my side here. All of us can see what the problem is and what it would take to dissolve it. Why can't you, or the physicalists do it?
I've read Dennett BTW, he does not do it.

>>14832086
NTA but I suspect >>>/r/rickandmorty is a better fit for your intellectual level.

>>14832079
I don't know what you mean by qualia, I would probably just deny that it's a thing such as you define it (not that you can define it)
I don't define experiences in such a way that it's impossible to explain them in terms of the physical

>>14832092
You should elaborate because you're having a conversation.

Have you ever read people like Jung, Peirce, Wittgenstein, etc.?

Or are you a zoomer who's just discovered the pressures of idle argumentation? I would suggest heading over to /pol/ if this is the case, the people on /sci/ are generally well educated. You're not really elaborating on any particular idea, your just backing yourself into a corner by misusing words.

>>14832096
How do you account for physicalists just going on about as if this problem doesn't exist?
Are they just satanic or what?

You'dd think at some point they would catch on to this knockdown argument against their position

>>14832106
>You should elaborate because you're having a conversation.
There's nothing to say about the nature of the sensation of pain and in any case, you're deflecting and >>14832016 still stands.

>>14832097
No, but seriously
How do you make sense of all the physicalists acting like huge fucking retards. Just being in denial about this watertight refutation of their position.

Is the problem just that they haven't heard about it yet?
You should reach out to them, write a book, get published


My explanation is that this refutation is not a watertight as you pretend it is. Which explains everything as far as I'm concerned.
You have to hop through so many hoops of conspiracies

>>14832124
>How do you make sense of all the physicalists acting like huge fucking retards
Brainwashing, intellectual mediocrity, emotional investment.

>>14832079
>Prove that pain has to feel the way it does as opposed to any other way, or even not at all. Prove it. Fucking do it. Show that logically, mathematically, and physically, it HAS TO FEEL that way. Don't just say "that's how it is", don't point to ten thousand brain scans
This is so stupid
I can't explain how gravity works either. That doesn't mean we need gravitation-souls to explain it

>>14832120
So what are you studying? If you actually care about learning I can help you out, man.

You write pretty good, but your reading comprehension is very low for a college aged kid. Are you in high-school still? I assume private school educated.

>>14832128
Keep dancing

this is what happens when you double-down on beliefs with weird entailments

>>14832134
I accept your full concession. No need to get this mad, though.