/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15234876
It doesn't. The whole idea is nonsense. There is no way to deduce experience from something that has absolutely nothing to do with experience.

We don't have conscience, it's a made-up bullshit to turn people into goyim sheep.

>>15234876
Conscious sisters...

>>15234876
Consciousness = the capacity to collapse wave functions. Start there and the rest (panpsychism or solipsism, you choose) will make sense.

>>15234876
in a manner analogous to how computers form programs. the details have yet to be fleshed out. consciousness is just a program of awareness.

>>15234895
I think the word you're looking for is computation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind

>>15234876
ahah i just DONT KNOW maybe it CANt i dont KNOW
at least when we DIE maybe we find OUT or maybe NOT HAHAHAHAH

>>15234906
Where "computation" is from mathematical philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/#ComPro

>>15234893
https://youtu.be/SleaST-I5Eo?t=3392

>>15234876
Same way people form a business

>>15234876
>immaterial thing like consciousness
Consciousness is just the brain working, so it's completely material. It can't be removed from the brain as a real thing, that's just an abstraction.

>>15234926
>Consciousness is just the brain working, so it's completely material.
Lol. Can you hold consciousness with your hands?

>>15234926
>Consciousness is just the brain working
Prove it.

>>15234876
This is a completely moot discussion because "material" barely even means anything in light of modern physics. It implies some solidity, some tangibility, some concreteness, of which there is none to be found at the level modern physics considers fundamental. As you keep breaking down "matter", things only become more and more abstract until you end up with wave functions, virtual particles and all sorts of other bullshit that is little more than a mathematical formalism.

>>15234983
correct
the same is true for the word "physical", as Chomsky likes to point out:
https://youtu.be/zsLOVYTLt90

>>15234999
The underlying essence of buzzwords like "materialism"/"physicalism" is reductionism and measurability, which are completely at odds with the nature of a subjective experience.

>>15235006
well, I'm not sure if I'd say they are "completely at odds"
from experience it's clear that a lot of what's experienced subjectively does originate with some objective source that lies beyond the senses, and when we measure these phenomena as we experience them we tend to get measurements that are consistent and repeatable for the most part
this is after all the basis of science

>>15234911
Not watching your YT video Bodhi. Best give me a QRD

>>15234926
>A material object can collapse its own and other wave functions
A bold claim. Any proof?

>>15235013
> I'm not sure if I'd say they are "completely at odds"
Then explain how you are going to measure the subjective experience itself (as opposed to "correlates") and express its substance by breaking it down into particle interactions, or breaking it down into any basic components for that matter.

>>15234926
actually son, the wave function doesn't collapse, because it's just a statistical average of hidden variables.

this is now a superdeterminism thread.

>>15234983
>>15234999
But does that mean afterlife exists or not?

>>15234893
>>15235046

>>15234876
You can only take in information, rearrange it, modify it and express it. You're not fully aware of anything.
You are just the sum of a series of experiences which cause neurological chemical reactions with tolerances being created through genetics.
Everyone overlooks the very basics.

>>15235029
well, my point would be that that's essentially exactly what we've been doing all along, making measurements of the subjective experience, and only through these measurements trying to construct a feasible model of whatever objective truth that lies behind it
as you correctly identify, this model is becoming more and more like a mathematical, virtually an information-theoretic, construct
this is essentially the basis for a "science of consciousness" as expressed by e.g. Donald Hoffman, where one instead of continuing to treat the subjective experience as objective as used to be our intuition, we whole-heartedly embrace that the measurements we are making is of what we subjectively experience, and to then proceed to make a framework for description of consciously experienced phenomena
framed this way, we can see that this isn't actually a new idea at all, and certainly didn't originate with Hoffman, because what is being described is none other than what is called phenomenology
>Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view.
this was indeed Husserl's intention in formalizing phenomenology, and also how it was developed:
>Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) established phenomenology at first as a kind of "descriptive psychology" and later as a transcendental and eidetic science of consciousness. He is considered to be the founder of contemporary phenomenology.

>>15234876
How can an immaterial thing like interacting with an operating system come from a physical thing like a computer?

>>15235060
>that's essentially exactly what we've been doing all along
Give an example of someone measuring a subjective experience and not so-called "correlates" of it.

>>15235020

>>15235064
that's what everyone is doing
when you make a measurement, what you are measuring is something you're directly experiencing
so-called correlates of consciousness only exist in the brain, which is a very peculiar and special subset of subjective experience, but it doesn't apply to the rest of your experiences

>>15235071
>when you make a measurement, what you are measuring is something you're directly experiencing
Okay. How do I measure red?

>>15234893
>Consciousness = the capacity to collapse wave functions.
No.

The real question is that how is something physical like the brain able to explore something abstract and non-physical like mathematics.

>>15235072
by noting that an object is red you are making a "measurement of red" in the phenomenological sense
this would be opposed to e.g. a "measurement of blue" if you were to note that some object or experience were blue instead

>>15235065
Fine. Still not watching though.

>>15235077
>by noting that an object is red you are making a "measurement of red" in the phenomenological sense
What does "measuring" something " in the phenomenological sense" have to do with objective scientific measurements?

>>15235075
Yes.

>>15235079
why would you think I care? my presence here on this board is a gift to you retards. when I throw a dog a bone I'm not interested in what you think of the flavor

>>15235082
>objective scientific measurements
the entire point is that no such thing exists
science all consists of subjective measurements that are pieced together to create a model of whatever objective truth lies beyond the senses

>>15235089
So objective scientific measurements don't exist, but:
>it's clear that a lot of what's experienced subjectively does originate with some objective source that lies beyond the senses, and when we measure these phenomena
What's the connection between subjective measurements of subjective experiences to objective science about these objective phenomena you keep insisting on without any proof?

>>15235083
Photodetectors are not conscious.

>>15235096
>What's the connection between subjective measurements of subjective experiences to objective science about these objective phenomena you keep insisting on without any proof?
the connection is that it appears the me that there are other beings in my perceptions who look like me, and who themselves seem to be making measurements of their own, and when I confer with them about the measurements many of them seem to match up with my own
of course, this runs into the problem of other minds and the possibility of solipsism, you can always conclude that you're really just a single mind with dissociative identity disorder, and that there's no objective truth behind your experiences at all, it's not possible to disprove

>>15235089
you can't derive objectivity from any amount subjectivity

>>15235096
>>15235101
appears to* me

>>15235087
Didn’t read. Not watching.

>>15235097
If they collapse wave functions then they are.

>>15235106
didnt read, don't care

>>15235104
I strongly disagree with that statement
to me it seems that the consistency and repeatability of certain subjective experiences implies that they are rooted in an objective source
sure, you can't prove that conclusively, you can always decide to go with solipsism instead, but to me it seems far more reasonable and in line with my experiences that they are derived from an objective truth that lies beyond my perceptions

>>15235118
my opinion is that the measurements we make aren't subjective, if we're using the same tool to measure then it's an objective measurement

>>15235101
>other beings in my perceptions who look like me, and who themselves seem to be making measurements of their own, and when I confer with them about the measurements many of them seem to match up with my own
What does my "measurement" of red have to do with other minds, who may or may not be "measuring" red? You can keep playing wordcel games and I will keep bludgeoning you with your own words. :^)

>>15235113
K bye namefag

>>15235133
didnt read

>>15235127
you clearly don't seem to be discussing this in good faith, but the point is that you and other people will agree that a certain color is "red", even if you may subjectively experience it very differently qualitatively
in this way you can both agree that object x is "red" and object y is "blue", even if you have no way of knowing what each other are actually experiencing
this isn't playing games at all, it's quite basic so far, I'm certainly not the first one to point this out

>>15235134
K

>>15235138
>you and other people will agree that a certain color is "red", even if you may subjectively experience it very differently qualitatively
Okay, but what does my "measurement" of red itself have to do with other minds, who may or may not be able to make any "measurement" at all, and whose "measurement" may or may not be the same as mine despite their using the same label?

>>15235142
didnt click

>>15235144
>what does my "measurement" of red itself have to do with other minds, who may or may not be able to make any "measurement" at all, and whose "measurement" may or may not be the same as mine despite their using the same label?
the point is that from experience, when I ask people what color some object is, they will reply with the same color that I'm experiencing that object to be
in other words, there appears to be something objective beyond the perceptions that yields consistent perceptions to both of us
the fact that our experiences might be different despite using the same label is not what's important, I already pointed out how that's fully possible (i.e. the color I perceive as red might qualitatively be entirely different from the color they perceive as red), what's important is the fact that the majority of people seem to consistently report the same color for the same objects
this is ultimately the fundamental basis of science

>>15235152
>they will reply with the same color that I'm experiencing that object to be
No, they will merely use an agreed-upon label to refer to a distinction both of you can make. This doesn't say anything about the nature of their perception or how it compares to yours.

>there appears to be something objective beyond the perceptions that yields consistent perceptions to both of us
So what? We're talking about the perceptions themselves.

>the fact that our experiences might be different despite using the same label is not what's important
It's very important, because you keep trying to equate subjective perceptions that are inaccessible to any other mind, with shared distinctions, and you are failing every time.

>>15234895

No it isn't. There is a connection between the lowest levels of the program and the program itself because they are both material.

Conciousness is experiential. It is nothing like the material entities you're attempting to bridge it with, which is the reason you run into the Hard Problem.

These are two very different scenarios.

>>15235159
>No, they will merely use an agreed-upon label to refer to a distinction both of you can make.
yes, that's literally exactly what I'm saying
>This doesn't say anything about the nature of their perception or how it compares to yours.
that's not true, because it means that it compares to mine in precisely that manner of distinction from other colors, even if we can't know what it's like qualitatively for each other
>So what? We're talking about the perceptions themselves.
we're talking about how all measurements themselves are subjective and based on perceptions, but how these perceptions most likely are derived from some underlying objective truth that lies beyond the perceptions
>you keep trying to equate subjective perceptions that are inaccessible to any other mind, with shared distinctions
wrong, that's not what I'm doing at all
what I'm doing is precisely to point out that those shared distinctions exist

>>15235166
>we can't know what it's like qualitatively for each other
But you said we can measure what it's like the way we can measure mass or distance or any physical quantity?

>>15235163
there is a connection between the lowest levels consciousness and consciousness itself.

>>15234888
>jews made up the idea that humans have minds
retard

>>15235171
>But you said we can measure what it's like the way we can measure mass or distance or any physical quantity?
yes, ultimately those shared distinctions are exactly analogous to the shared distinctions we can make that allow us to talk about objective notions of mass and distance, just like we can talk about objective notions of red
the subjective counterpart in those cases would be "how heavy something actually feels" or "how far something actually seems" in the subjective experience of each person, which might be totally different qualitatively for them, but just like they can both agree that an object is "red" through such a shared distinction, they can also agree that something has a mass of "2 kg" or that a distance is "1 km" through such shared distinctions

>>15235190
>yes
So you can't know anything about what it's like to have that perception, but you can measure what it's like to have that perception?

>>15235199
>you can't know anything about what it's like to have that perception
again, that's not true, because that mutually shared distinction tells you something about the perception, even if it doesn't tell you e.g. what they are actually experiencing the color red as
>but you can measure what it's like to have that perception?
that's how all your measurements are made, you are always taking measurements of your own perceptions
you can't measure the perceptions of others, that's precisely the problem of other minds (you don't have direct access to the experiences of others), but you can still confer with each other and discuss those perceptions, and come to agree that they seem to have some objective basis due to their consistency and repeatability

>>15235203
>because that mutually shared distinction tells you something about the perception
What does it tell you about it beyond the fact that it's a distinction?

>that's how all your measurements are made
I can quote you stating the opposite about a dozen times. I'm starting to feel bad for bullying a mental patient who reads poorly educated pseudoscientists like Hoffman.

>>15235208
>What does it tell you about it beyond the fact that it's a distinction?
it doesn't tell you anything apart from that fact, but the entire point is that it tells you that fact, so it's rather absurd to try to brush that aside
>I can quote you stating the opposite about a dozen times.
then you are willfully misinterpreting what I'm saying, because I've been saying exactly that all along
>I'm starting to feel bad for bullying a mental patient who reads poorly educated pseudoscientists like Hoffman.
clearly demonstrating again that you're not discussing in good faith at all

>>15235151
You are no longer replying to a human. If you are reading this, I have trained a ChatGPT machine on your responses to continue shitposting on you. Your compulsion to reply will trap you in a silly loop with this machine until the thread dies. Thanks for playing N I G G E R

>>15235213
>it doesn't tell you anything apart from that fact
Okay. Is there anything to it beyond that fact?

>you are willfully misinterpreting
Is there anything to know about the mass of an object except the mass of the object?

>>15235217
>Is there anything to it beyond that fact?
that fact is literally the entire point I've been making all along
so again, trying to disregard that is rather absurd in this context
>Is there anything to know about the mass of an object except the mass of the object?
obviously, the subjective qualities that mass seems to confer are directly known through subjective experience, but like I've been saying all along these qualitative factors of consciousness can't be shared, and are irrelevant to the part that actually can be shared (the distinctions that allow you to talk objectively with others about colors and mass in the first place)

>>15235220
>the subjective qualities that mass seems to confer
A measurement of mass doesn't care about the subjective qualities that mass seems to confer. If you measure mass, you measure the mass and you know what the mass is. How come you can't measure red in that way?

>>15235225
>A measurement of mass doesn't care about the subjective qualities that mass seems to confer.
literally my exact point
thank you for reiterating it back to me
>If you measure mass, you measure the mass and you know what the mass is. How come you can't measure red in that way?
that's exactly what you can
if you measure color, you measure color, and you know what the color is

>>15235225
A measurement of mass doesn't care about the subjective qualities that mass seems to confer
Mass doesn't have any subjective qualities. It's time for you to take your meds.

>>15235229
I'm bored of slapping you around. Thanks for demonstrating that you and all your likes are essentially subhuman automatons with no subjective perceptions.

>>15235233
>Mass doesn't have any subjective qualities.
yes, mass is measured through measurements of the subjective qualities that it confers, e.g. through the measurement of the numbers on a scale
if you don't understand something that simple, you should probably find some meds of your own, maybe you'll start arguing in good faith at that point

>>15235237
> mass is measured through measurements of the subjective qualities
Again, take your meds. Your language processor is clearly malfunctioning.

>>15235235
>no subjective perceptions
I'm literally explicitly pointing out that those subjective perceptions are literally all that we ever measure
it's mind-boggling how you still haven't registered that
>>15235238
I'll take that as a concession, I guess
although it's a hollow victory for sure, since "winning" an argument doesn't mean much to me, what I'd like to see is a commonality of understanding, and clearly none can be had when one party isn't discussing in good faith
but since you clearly give up right after having reiterated my own point back to me, I guess I can safely conclude that you actually did understand the point after all

>>15235244
> it's a hollow victory for sure, since "winning" an argument doesn't mean much to me
And yet you keep desperately replying and contradicting yourself every other post as you swerve violently between the two ineffective deflection tactics.

>>15235248
no desperation here at all, but the way you gave up addressing what I wrote when you realized you were incorrect sure gives off some desperate vibes on your part
>contradicting yourself
haven't contradicted myself even once, I literally said the exact same thing all along

>>15235256
Listen, retard: you should call me back when you understand the difference between scientific measurements (establishing abstract relationships) and direct experience. Your repeated attempt to claim that they're both just "measurements" exposes your putrid tactic of verbal obfuscation.

>>15235268
>the difference between scientific measurements (establishing abstract relationships) and direct experience
literally the difference I've been explaining all along
try actually reading what I'm writing next time before embarrassing yourself like this
>they're both just "measurements"
this is your misinterpretation, and not anything I said ever
I never claimed the subjective experiences themselves are measurements, what I explained was that measurements are all of what is subjectively experienced, and that there's no such thing as an "objective measurement"

>>15234876
Consciousness is not immaterial? It requires a brain and a brain is a material object

>>15235275
Thanks for fully conceding that you can't measure subjective experiences. There is are no shared unit of subjective experience that you can abstracly relate anything to.

>>15234876
Consciousness isn't immaterial. Consciousness is a specific configuration of matter. If I destroy your brain I will also destroy your consciousness. Your consciousness is just information contained in an arrangement of matter.

If you want to think about it more consider a DVD. You give me a DVD with a movie on it. I snap the DVD in half an light it on fire. Where did the movie go? It didn't go anywhere. That data of the movie was the consequence of an arrangement of matter that got destroyed. The data is no longer physically represented because DVD is ashes now and the arrangement of matter that made up the data on the DVD is gone.

>>15235283
>you can't measure subjective experiences
everything you ever measure are your subjective experiences
in other words you couldn't make a more wrong statement than this
>There is are no shared unit of subjective experience that you can abstracly relate anything to.
that's exactly what there seems to be, hence why people can come together and make scientific models
what I subjectively measure to be "1 km" or "red" seems to match up exactly with what you subjectively measure to be that distance and that color
the measurements are something we each make subjectively, but the fact that these subjectively made measurements are in agreement points to the fact that they are somehow based on an objective truth that lies beyond our perceptions, and science is precisely the pursuit of this objective truth by making more and more accurate models of it that match up with our subjective experiences

>>15234983
The oddest thing is that a lot of people have this huge dichotomy between "concrete, tangible, material stuff" and "mental stuff / qualia / consciousness" when the whole notion of tangibility and concreteness is inherently consciousness/qualia-centric. They refer to the *feeling* of interactions with matter. When all references to sensory experience are removed, all that is left from physics is something very much not concrete at all, just a bunch of mathematical abstractions (which doesn't sound very "physical" or "material" either).

>>15234876
Anon, God exists. You have a soul.

>>15234876
There is no answer.

Guys I really respect like Nagle and Hoffman go down a route akin to Hegel's Absolute Idealism. Tegmark and it seems more of the physics folks end up on the panpsychism side.

Those who really can't let 19th century reductive materialism go, probably due to indoctrination since kindergarten makes it very hard to let go and oftentimes people have based their whole moral/value systems (e.g. many forms of modern humanism) on it being true. It's like religion. But it's also a paradigm that has been hit hard from all different sides for a century now and increasingly seems untenable. I mean, with eliminitivism that crowd has been reduced to denying consciousness and qualia exist to keep the religion alive. It's like fundementalism, if reductive materialism MUST be true, increasingly you have to accept all sorts of bizarre shit.

>>15235290
>everything you ever measure are your subjective experiences
Wrong.

>that's exactly what there seems to be
Now you seeo to be outright losing your mind. Explain what the shared unit of subjective experience is.

>>15235296
materialism isn't going anywhere, it's still the most reasonable view.

>>15235296
>I respect pseudoscientists with no scientific education known for unfalsifiable pop-science drivel aimed at the dumb masses

>>15235297
>Wrong.
not wrong at all, that's exactly the truth, you never measure anything other than what you subjectively experience, you can't
>Explain what the shared unit of subjective experience is.
those shared units are conventions (from Latin "convenire", "to come together"), and refer precisely to units like "meter" or units of color like "red"

>>15235301
Materialism has been dead for a century and continues to live only in the "minds" of zealous corporate-programmed drones, half of whom end up chopping off their own cocks.

>>15235305
cope and seethe, woo lover.

>>15235303
>you never measure anything other than what you subjectively experience
You never measure any subjective experience. You measure relationships in what is hypothesized to be an objective reality, throught its imprints on subjective experience. If you can't comprehend qualia except in some relational manner, I am sorry to inform you that you are not sentient.

>those shared units are conventions
Mouth noises are not units of qualia.

>>15235296
>Hegel
This is /sci/. Hegel is not /sci/. Hegel is toi/lit/.

>>15235312
>You never measure any subjective experience.
that's all you ever measure
when you e.g. measure something to be "10 cm", you are doing it through a subjective perception of looking at e.g. a ruler
>You measure relationships in what is hypothesized to be an objective reality, throught its imprints on subjective experience.
wrong, what you are measuring is the subjective experience itself, the relationships are constructed after the fact, which is the process of modeling the measurements scientifically
>If you can't comprehend qualia except in some relational manner, I am sorry to inform you that you are not sentient.
my point all along has precisely been to explain to you the difference between qualia, i.e. the subjective experiences themselves, and the measurements of the qualia that we can use to create scientific models of the underlying objective truth beyond the perceptions
it sounds like you're partially getting it now, at least

>>15235293
https://youtu.be/VoRmqbPFasE

>>15235320
Confirmed nonsentient.

>>15235326
except for the part where I've literally explained all along how everything you ever measure is subjectively experienced qualia
nice try, though
that's another concession, I take it?

>>15235320
>when you e.g. measure something to be "10 cm", you are doing it through a subjective perception of looking at e.g. a ruler
>doing it through
So what? The measurement, that is 10 cm, is nothing more than an abstract relationship. It has no substance of its own and doesn't confer any substance.

>>15235332
Nature itself has ruled your worldview as dysgenic and unfit, actively culling it. Your worldcel diarrhea dies with you. No one has ever lost an argument so utterly and conclusively as you and your likes.

>>15235338
>So what?
so that's literally the entire point, that's what
>The measurement, that is 10 cm, is nothing more than an abstract relationship.
that's what all measurements are, so again trying to talk about it as "nothing more" is absurd in this context
>It has no substance of its own and doesn't confer any substance.
again totally missing the point
the actual point is how those measurements are consistent and repeatable both by me as well as by others who agree when we agree on units (like "meter" or "red"), paving way to making a model of something objectively true beyond our perceptions

>>15235346
>that's what all measurements are
Which is why they never measure subtance. Substance is not measurable.

>>15235347
>Which is why they never measure subtance.
if by "substance" you mean the subjective experience, then yes, that's exactly what you're measuring
you seem to not understand the difference between the subjective experience itself and the measurement of it

>>15235353
You've already conceded that measurements are abstract relationships and can never be anything more than that. Abstract relationships don't capture or communicate substance.

>>15235356
I haven't "conceded" anything, because I'm just saying what I've been explaining all along
yes, the measurements themselves are not the subjective experience, but they are measurements of it
yes, that means you can't know that what someone else sees as the color "red" is the same thing you see as the color "red", but the fact that you can both agree that it's indeed "red" does absolutely capture something about the experience, because that means that you're both experiencing a distinct set of colors that you can differentiate between in the exact same way

Oh look, it's this I FUCKING LOVE CONSCIOUSNESS thread again

>>15235360
Your confused wordcel drivel doesn't matter. You have conceded that you can measure and build abstract models of relationships all you want, but you will never capture and express the substance behind the measurements. The substance itself remains inaccessible to any external inquiry. The relationships you capture put some constraints on what the corresponding subjective experience can be in terms of structure, that doesn't narrow it down to anything concrete and specific.

>>15235368
again, haven't conceded a single thing, just explaining the exact same thing as I did in the beginning
what you're saying now is literally just repeating exactly what I've said all along, i.e. how you can't directly experience others' perceptions, and thus can't know what seeing "red" is really like for them subjectively at all
and yes, those constraints are exactly what allows you to talk about an underlying objective truth beyond the perceptions, and is literally the fundamental basis for science
seems like you're finally starting to get my point, took you a while

Sorry but materialism is king. Idealism is geocentric anthropocentric nonsense. Dualism is obsolete category mistake from ignorance. Then again the idealist spammer here is either a troll or a bot.

>>15235369
I accept your full and direct concession. Now that we both agree that all the meat and potatoes of a subjective experience remains completely inaccessible and unknowable to anything except the mind that has it, explain how it is analogous to studying something that is accessible to all minds.

>>15235048
Even if it exists, the amount of information you retain after death should be the same as after birth. Meaning, you're doomed to lose everything you are.

>>15235376
I'm saying the same thing I always did
you're the one who has apparently conceded to me, for the third time
good on you, maybe you're finally getting it
>studying something that is accessible to all minds
the entire point is how those constraints you reluctantly had to concede existed are in fact apparently accessible to other minds, at least other minds like yours (which are the only minds we can effectively communicate with)
in other words, just like I've explained and that you've conceded, we can't know what each other is really experiencing as "red", but we both share the experience of being able to categorize "red" as different from "blue", and we both agree that a given object is either "red" or "blue" or some other color(s)

>>15235393
>those constraints ... are in fact apparently accessible to other minds
Who cares? You've already fully conceded that the substance is inaccessible. Notice how you are forced to keep trying to derail the conversation and talk about something irrelevant?

>>15235214
I didnt read this so I wouldnt know if you are a bot or so responding to it doesnt matter because I am just letting you know I didnt read it

>>15235395
>Who cares?
literally the entire point all along
thanks for conceding...again
fourth time now
>You've already fully conceded that the substance is inaccessible.
I can't "concede" something I've stated explicitly from the beginning and made a core part of my point
nice try, though
>Notice how you are forced to keep trying to derail the conversation and talk about something irrelevant?
notice how you keep trying to brush aside the core point I've been explaining to you as "irrelevant" when it's the most relevant part of the entire explanation?

I wish bodhi would stay on /x/ where she belongs.

>>15235285
This is on a level so retarded I can barely fathom it. Where did the movie put on the DVD come from? Someone's consciousness. You are a stone cold retard my man

>>15235406
>notice how you keep trying to brush aside the core point I've been explaining to you
You, as a lowlife on the margins of sentience, will never be "explaining" anything to me. At best, you will screech that by your incoherent drivel, you meant the same thing as what I succinctly and skillfully put forward. But let's put this aside. I am hereby narrowing down the discussion to only those aspects of subjective experience that you agree are accessible only to the mind having that experience. How is science going to study them?

>>15235409
that's irrelevant to the analogy.

>>15235408
I wish you didnt suck all day too but sadly that will never happen. I don't even go to /x/. I did go there some years ago and teach them all of this by just dropping links to articles I wrote. Ironically the schizo mouth breathers were able to pick it right up unlike the droolers here who think they are galaxy brains but are in reality the platnoic form of a midwit

>>15235414
No it isnt, the fact that you dont understand it is why you always run around in circles. All of everything first comes from mind. Mind made the dvd, mind made the movie, mind the tv you watch it on, mid made thus Universe

>>15235406
>notice how you keep trying to brush aside the core point I've been explaining to you
You, as a lowlife on the margins of sentience, will never be in a position to "explain" anything to me. At most, you can screech that by your incoherent drivel, you meant the same as whatever I succinctly and skillfully put forward. But let's put this aside. I hereby narrow down the discussion to only those aspects of subjective experience that you agree are accessible only to the mind having them. How is science going to study that?

>>15235421
it went over your head. unfortunate.

>>15235431
>no you
top kek @ midwittery, the retard yelling retard at everyone meme never gets old

>>15235422
I've been explaining all of this to you for quite a while
you're catching some of it, but it's a slow process
you'll get there
>How is science going to study them?
science is the process of looking at the subjective measurements everyone is making that they can agree upon, and then using that to try to make a model of what the underlying objective truth beyond perception might be

>>15235442
But you've already conceded that this approach only yields findings about what I just excluded from the discussion. Why are you bringing it up again, animal?

>>15235431
Basically I just tried to explain what the forms are to you but you are incapable of processing it. Everything first starts as a thought, just because you makes those thoughts into material objects then destroy them doesnt change this fact

>>15235449
>everything starts as a thought
this is the false delusion of the idealist.

>>15235451
>idealist
Found the certified subhuman.

>>15235451
Ok prove you arent dreaming right now.
I'll wait

If you were able to exactly extract all parts of the brain responsible for conciousness, and place them into another interface, biological or electrical, wouldn't you then be immortal?
In this situation, there's no copy. So if you take your conciousness and plop it and integrate into a more powerful brain, you would also gain new abilities.

In the real world, this surgery would likely kill the patient.

>>15235451
prove to me these things you call "material" exist outside of your mind. Prove I am real and this conversation isnt just happening in your mind. Again I will wait

>>15235454
prove you are dreaming right now. i, too, will wait.

>prove you are dreaming right now. i, too, will wait.

>>15235461
HAHAHAA at this 50 IQ response. Whether or not we perceive these things to be real is not what is at questions here half wit. We know we perceive them, whether or they exist outside of our mind is the question here dipshit. I dont need to prove anything what I propose is self evident unless you are legit mentally retarded

Looks like I forgot to take my meds again

>>15235466
>I dont need to prove anything what I propose is self evident
even within your own framework

You lost already due to being a massive retard incapable of having a coherent discussion. You dont even understand your own position

>>15235446
I haven't conceded a single thing, just explained the same thing all along
your attempt to exclude the core part of my point and the literal basis for how one goes from measurements of subjective experience to science is something you do in an attempt to avoid embarrassment, sadly to no avail since this desperation only makes it even more embarrassing

>>15235466
>i am allowed to demand proof, but you're not!

>>15235476
literal retard alert. do not engage, I repeat do not engage

>>15235475
>your attempt to exclude the core part of my point
I don't care about the core part of "your" point. I made a statement all the way back which you objected to. That statement was not about the core part of "your" point, it was specifically about what "your" take leaves out: i.e. the entire substance of a subjective experience. How is science going to study that?

>>15235478
>you: what I perceive to be real is real
>me: prove it
>you: prove we pecieve things!
this is literally how retarded you are

>>15235481
are all idealists this dishonest? jeez

Materialism is a mental illness: the thread.

>>15235487
Agreed

>>15235487
So dumb...

Your brain thoughts are things, separated into their basic components they as a whole form just your conciousness

But the same process can form other conciousness around you, similar yet not the same

>>15235485
I know you are retarded and all but for the peanut gallery. Let's use your same logic from the inverse. What you perceive to be real is real, I will let you have this given, even though you are wrong, but I will let you have it as a given. Ok so you are color blind. Does this mean the color green doesnt exist now because you cant perceive it? Dont bother answering there is no doubt your simple mind cant process this

>>15235480
you do obviously care quite a lot, since you're repeatedly trying to brush it aside despite how it's the crux of what's being discussed
>I made a statement all the way back which you objected to.
yes, that statement was the erroneous notion that measurability is "completely at odds" (emphasis on your words) with subjective experience
as I've explained at great length, and which you've conceded, the two are not "completely at odds" at all, due to how you in fact can (and do) measure that subjective experience, and compare your measurements with others to see if they're also making similar measurements
note once again how I've already explained how this doesn't mean that my "red" is the same as your "red", and I explained from the very beginning how we can never access each other's experience to find that out
you then tried to bring this up as a point of contention despite me already having explained that to you very clearly
>what "your" take leaves out: i.e. the entire substance of a subjective experience
see above, I don't "leave that out", I've addressed that since the beginning
>How is science going to study that?
first of all, science isn't an anthropomorphic entity that studies anything, science itself is what we refer to as the study of comparing the measurements we make of our subjective experiences
secondly, see what I've explained above and over and over again: the qualia themselves are not possible to communicate to others, and I never claimed that, so you trying to make a point out of that over and over just makes it clear that you're not fully understanding what I'm saying at all
my point is literally that what we refer to as science is the study of the parts that we actually can compare

>>15235496
>sometimes people see different colours, therefore all of reality is one big dream
bit too big of a leap for me.

>>15235501
Yes, this is why we refer to you as hylics because you cannot see when shown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS_gLFOrjMw

>>15235505
huh? you haven't shown that this reality is a dream.

>>15234876
>material thing
According to who?
>immaterial thing
According to whomst?

>>15234876
When did a material thing like our physical body form an immaterial thing like running?

>>15235480
anyway, I'm going to sleep now
closing the tab so I won't wake up tomorrow and feel compelled to address your repetitive attempts at avoiding embarrassment
thanks for conceding...four times?
five?
something like that
hope you learned something, maybe I'll explain it to you further in a later thread
enjoy getting the "last word" if you want, but sadly I will never read it as I'll be sleeping soundly and deeply while you keep frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog
lol
lmao even
bye

>>15235540
You are losing your mind with impotent rage after trying to lie your way and failing. lol

>>15235574
lmao. lololololol
this is the sixth time you've condeded
i taught you so much and yet you continue trying to "win"
enjoy your last word lol
bye again

>>15235577
I thought you closed the tab? I guess that's hard to do when you're foaming at the mouth? See >>15235574

>>1523498
Physics says very little about the essential nature of the physical (the material is just one form of energy, hence "physicalism" being in vouge over "materialism," which still implies corpuscularism). Physics has at least 9 major interpretations of quantum mechanics, none have majority support among physicists. Some are anti-reductionalist in that fundemental particles can only be described in terms of wholes, not wholes described by parts.

For example, in QFT, the field is essential, not the "particles" that make up the field. In interpretations based on information, nothing exists "of itself," everything is relational. Parts can't fully describe wholes because the properties of said wholes are in part defined by their relationship to other systems/the enviornment.

This doesn't totally rule out the idea of reduction in terms of "basic rules of nature result in all phenomena,' but it rules out reduction as being at all useful for understanding the world. Arguably, reduction IS ruled out by information theoretic approaches in that new differences = new information, which emerges over time historically. There is disagreement here and if mostly centers around functional versus "theoretically absolute" indiscernibility.

But reductionalist materialism has basically been drilled like a faith, and so it's hard to move on.

>>15235632
>In interpretations based on information, nothing exists "of itself," everything is relational.
These are the nonhuman interpretations of literal bots, which are irrelevant.

>>15235301
How is materialism at odds with panpsychism?

Mind would just be a basic property of matter instead of something that somehow emerges from it.

>>15235640
I didn't say anything about panpsychism. i'm just saying materialism isn't "dying" nor has its credibility declined over the years.

personally i don't believe in panpsychism because it seems silly to me.

>Mind would just be a basic property of matter instead of something that somehow emerges from it.
that's more of a definition of idealism than panpsychism. panpsychism is the idea that everything has some degree of consciousness. it doesn't say whether that consciousness is fundamental or emergent.

>that's more of a definition of idealism than panpsychism.
Why are they so mentally ill?

>>15235632
quality post

>>15235653
you have your definitions confused bucko

>>15235659
You have a delusional mental illness that makes you sperg off about "idealism" nonstop in every thread.

>>15235661
seethe, cope, et cetera

>>15235632
Mental illness

Modern idealists and other non-materialists are pathetic. It's like modern christian theologians trying to redefine god into something convenient and meaningless after their faith got destroyed by modern science. Basically X of the gaps shit (X - God, free will, idealism, whatever)

>Modern idealists and other non-materialists are pathetic. It's like modern christian theologians trying to redefine god into something convenient and meaningless after their faith got destroyed by modern science. Basically X of the gaps shit (X - God, free will, idealism, whatever)
Dysgenics like this are getting culled by nature as we speak.

>>15234876
If its formed from material components, wouldn't that be material?

>>15235898
Wouldn't you be able to directly interact with it prodding at the material parts?

>>15235901
you can do that if you wish, wouldn't recommend it.

>>15235840
What he said is true tho

>>15235397
You absolute nigger. Cheers

>>15234969
I can only hold it with my brain.

>>15234971
Ever interacted with a consciousness that was not coming from a brain?

>>15235952
Your "truth" dies with you.

>>15236027
>Ever interacted with a consciousness that was not coming from a brain?
How should I know? I'm still waiting for your proof of where consciousness is coming from.

>>15234876
How can a material thing like a logic gate make an immaterial thing like a virtual world?

>>15234893
Rubbish. That was pop sci faggot lies. It's just recording an experiment interrupts it. It's not foveated rendering

>>15237595
It can't. It doesn't. Are you retarded or are you a literal bot whose reality is a "virtual world"?

>>15237599
A series can, because we do it. A series of material things can make something immaterial.

>>15235046
Based and redpilled.

>>15236071
No it will live on you are just coping hard
Meanwhile the only way your "truth" become relevant again if its humanity goes back to neolitic conditions

>>15237604
>it will live on
How? You are a dysgenic nonreproducer.

>>15237608
I have a child i didnt raise him tho i live on a shithole country where courts and laws dont care about these types of topics

>>15237614
Also regarless of reproducion everybody knows that consciousness is just the work of the brain only schizos and dumb people think otherwise

>>15237623
>everybody knows
The "everybody" you're talking about are diseased nonreproducers with exponentially shrinking demographic. It's over for your worldview. Nature has ruled against it. You will now demonstrate your severe mental illness by trying to deny basic statistics.

>>15237627
What your propose then? Im a very open minded also idk whats going on with non reproductive stuff going.
consciousness being a product of the brain is not tied to any particular demography

>>15237627
Your idealist nonsense wasn't even the norm during your revered ancient times, most people were dualist because of human ignorance about the nature of themselves and the egotistical desire to be elevated above nature

>>15237676
>Your idealist nonsense
My what? You are legit losing your mind. Either way, materialism is self-culling, objectively speaking. No amount of delusional babble is going to make your demographic start reproducing at or above replacement rate.

>>15237667
>What your propose then?
I don't propose anything. I'm just pointing out that your materialist troonery is associated with a plethora of mental illnesses, social ills and self-culling behaviors, so it has no future.

>>15237696
>>15237698
>deflecting without addressing
Back to /pol/ with you, you'll find folks who unconditionally accept your religious nonsense there

>>15237706
>>15237706
Addressing what? I'm just reminding you of the simple fact that your worldview has no future.

>>15237698
>the consciousness being product of the brain is associated with all the bad things
I think you are trying to speak about the jews and their evangelical puppets and the academic thralls

>>15237722
I don't know what your psychotic rambling is about. I'm just reminding you that your materialist troonery is associated with a plethora of mental illnesses, social ills and self-culling behaviors, so it has no future.

>>15237726
You are the only one having a pyschotic rambling here my friend

>>15237727
I'm just reminding you of the sordid statistics for your demographic. Notice how this makes you lose your mind and sperg out about countless irrelevancies.

>>15237728
What is my demography acording with you? I want names and numbers

>>15237735
>What is my demography acording with you?
A middle class secular materialist from a crumbling first world country.

>>15237597
>that’s what popsci tells us
Popsci says consciousness is an emergent property retard. Neumann-Wigner is about as far from popsci as you can get.

>>15237765
Imagine thinking "emergent properties" make any kind of sense outside the context of a mind.

>>15237744
Im neither middle class nor a first worlder i think i said a pair of post above this one that i live on a poor shithole

>>15237795
>Im neither middle class nor a first worlder
Then you don't matter on any level, but my point stands completely unchallenged.

>>15237808
Who matters then? First world middle class nonmaterialists? Cause you sound like a worshipper of "noble savage" lifestyle, content in ignorance

>>15237808
Why

>>15237813
>Who matters then?
People with sustainable belief systems.

>>15237814
Because he's a miserable third worlder regard trying too hard to fit in with middle class white midwits.

>>15237825
I dont try to fit into anything i just dont have any reason to belive that im any more that my brain
Neithee you nor anyone else

>>15237832
You don't matter and your beliefs don't matter. Societies that adopt them die out -- something both common sense and empirical data easily confirm.

>>15237837
Ok? You are still just your brain dont care about the rest

>>15237849
Your toxic and self-culling opinions don't matter. They will die with you.

>>15237852
>t.

>>15237868
Ok. Why do you keep replying? At no point was I arguing anything about whether or not brains produce consciousness. Where is your incoherent rage coming from?

>>15237872
You said that brains are NOT product of consciousness

>>15237880
>You said that brains are NOT product of consciousness
I did? Quote it. lol @ you losing your mind with impotent rage.

>>15237884
Im free of rage i just get pissed when people say that brains are not the source of consciousness

>>15237896
>Im free of rage i just get pissed
Okay, then why do you keep replying to me? I didn't express any opinions about where consciousness comes from. I merely reminded you that your worldview is objectively harmful and has no future.

>>15237897
I dont know what worldview you think i have
My only point here is the source of counciousness

>>15237903
Notice how your impotent rage forces you to keep replying, even though I wasn't talking about the source of consciousness at any point. Your subhuman obsession and corporate-programmed zealotry forces you to keep replying.

>>15237906
Why are you soo rude i just made a mistake
It can happen to anyone

>>15237910
Why do you keep replying? I don't care where consciousness comes from. I was just pointing out that materialism is a self-culling ideology.

>>15237917
Because i already posted a lot on your thread

imagine being an idealist but you're too cowardly to admit your own position kek

>>15237921
Notice how your zealotry comepels you to keep replying to me and lying about why you're doing it.

Imagine being so deranged that you keep spamming your deranged delusions about imaginary idealists in every thread. How does one become so obsessed?

>>15234926
If that is the case, how can people in states with no brain activity (ie death or anesthesia) have conscious experience upon their reawakening? Is every case of a near death experience or experience under anesthesia fake?

>>15236027
Are we accepting personal anecdotes as evidence now?

>>15237931
My only motivation was this >>15237868

>>15235278
>it REQUIRES a brain

I don't think that's a testable hypothesis, Anon. The only consciousness we ever know is our own; even those we think exist in others is a subjective observation in our own consciousness.

>>15237951
Then how come I can keep you replying indefinitely merely by calling out a dysgenic religion that supposedly has nothing to do with the reason you're frothing at the mouth?

>>15237954
Because i already posted a lot here you should apreciate the free bumps instead of accuse of things that im not even sure what they are

>>15237780
Imagine being this pedantic and not knowing about entropic gravity theories.

materialism makes him seethe so much lmao

>>15237963
>you should apreciate the free bumps
Why? It's not my thread. Notice how you are forced to keep replying like the mentally ill drone that you are.

>>15237964
No one cares about your fringe pseudoscience theories. "Emergent properties" don't exist in any capacity except as an abstract in someone's mind. Real life doesn't have a Minecraft build system. Current year's midwit intellectual fashion is not objective reality.

>>15237971
Ok i wont reply anymore take care anon

>>15234969
Material doesn't mean the same thing as tangible.

>>15234926
might my liver have its own separate consciousness? It also is "working".

I wonder if we can ever hold speaking in our hands. No, I'm not talking about the mouth moving. Nor am I talking about the sound waves. Nor the air medium. I'm talking about speaking as a thing. You know, that thing that lives inside your mouth?

Checkmate materialists!!!!!!

>>15237995
"Material" doesn't mean anything at all at this point. It's just the ooga booga chant of nothing worshippers.

>>15234907
gem

>>15238009
>doesn't believe in anything
>believe that materials and energy are fundamental, come from nothing
>"it just is bruh, don't ask more questions"
the absolute state of atheism. it's fucking retarded. at least the jesusbootlickers doesn't delude themselves into thinking they're not worshipping anything

>>15237974
Okay, but by denying emergent properties you do realize you’re supporting my Neumann Wigner argument?

>>15238075
>denying emergent properties
No one is "denying" emergent properties.

> you’re supporting my Neumann Wigner argument?
No one is supporting your pseudoscience.

>>15238047
>believes in magical skydaddy
>believes that he is magical, comes from nothing
>"he just is bruh, don't ask more questions"
the absolute state of theism. it's fucking retarded.

Why should I believe in material things when I can not directly know material things? I'm stuck in consciousness 24/7.

>>15234895
There is no single part of the brain that enables it, and a whole one is not essential for it to exist.

>>15238047
You might have developmental delays

just because conscious is not physical doesn't mean is isn't dependent on it. if I rearrange your brain, i can make it so your only joy in life is to lick rocks. You brain makes decisions before your consciously aware of them anyway. There is no quantum woo making you more than your elements. There is no magic in the world.

how can non-chocolaty atoms come together to from chocolate cake ?

>>15234876
Lads, I just want there to be something after all is said and done. All of this has to amount to something, R-Right?

>>15235990

>>15234876
Well when you phrase it like that...

... of course you're going get weird avenues. I find it much more simple to come from a pure function approach. In my interpretation, to say that a brain "is" is like saying that a kidney filters. A brain is conscious because that was the "job" for some of its regions. What see it as profound because we can't separate our selves from the phenomena.

This is what its like to be all of those things working at once. I don't even see a binding problem because the unity is more an artifact.
Its not comforting but its honest.

>>15235485
>>15235476
NTA but his point is that you both accept as a given that you are perceiving sensory information. He asked you to prove that what you call "material" is more than just sensory information your brain is processing and your response was to ask him to prove the given you both accepts as a given, that everyone, everywhere, always accept as a given "I think therefore I am." So yes, your response is pretty retarded. Are you now denying that you are perceiving anything at all and wish him to prove that you are for you? Why?

>>15234876
The same way immaterial things like light come from material things like photons, emergence.

>>15240064
>your response was to ask him to prove the given
that's a lie. i asked him to prove that we're dreaming right now. that's basically idealism, and it is certainly not a given. you're just repeating the same lie he did in new words. gross dishonesty.

>>15240093
>that's a lie.
We are both lying? Why would we do that? Are you an actual schizo? Who talks like this? You misinterpret something nd your response is to attribute the other person to some malicious motive? That is some irl schizo shit. It is what he asked you and he told you himself schizo

>>15239109
>just because conscious is not physical doesn't mean is isn't dependent on it
false. if it were truly nonphysical, then you would be able to do whatever you wanted to your body without perturbing the mind.

>>15240096
go back and read my post. here I'll even quote it for you >>15235461 . there can be no confusion about what i asked.

>>15240104
You are a nutjob and need a therapist

>>15240105
>>15240104
Both ya'll gay, now kiss and make up.

>>15234885
>>15234888
Consciousness exists whether or not it's us who have it. You're not understanding the issue. Unless you're an NPC merely enacting mechanical processes, in which case keep doing what you do.

>>15234876
Same way software works on hardware, Brains are just biological computers, very advanced ones.

>>15237940
>conscious experience during death
chatGPT level of argument
>conscious experience during anesthesia
your brain still works

the "sense of self" is a mental construct

>>15240093
>materialists are actual schizos that can't interpret simple conversations and think you are out to get them by engaging in a simple conversation with them
>actual schizos
I TOLD YOU STUPID FUCKERS

>>15240287
The Universe is just a quantum computer, a very advanced one

>>15240900
>>15240897
You should know that you're the most retarded player on this board

>>15240906
He fathered you and every other retard on this board. Bodhi is the eternal archretard.

>>15240908
You seem upset that I insulted your schizo buddy. I wonder why

>>15240910
You seem upset that he is your father.

>>15240906
You should know there is no conceivable metric known to man that you will be able to measure up against me in. You are a spec of dust to someone like me

>>15240911
>>15240913
Schizo seethe

>>15240916
>projecting schizo
never seen this before .....

>>15240918
Like father like son.

>>15240918
Even your fellow schizo >>15240908
called you an arch retard. How do you feel about that?

>>15240924
This how much money I made in the last 2 hours. How much did you make?

>>15240932
Why are you avoiding my question, animal?

>>15240941
Why are you using my insults against your own father, animal? Are you frothing at the mouth again?

>>15240941
sorry I was busy doubling it

you were saying poor schizo retard?

>>15240947
Oh, so it was you. Did you shart in your pants today yet, mouthbreather?

>>15240953
Tell your handlers to double your meds while you're at it, animal

>>15240954
I feed on your impotent rage. I savor the knowledge that I've been living rent-free in your head day after day. Meanwhile I don't even know who you are, clearly just one of the countless retards mind-broken by me. :^)

>>15240960
>t.
poor and stupid, great combo, bet you are a real lady killer. If you need a grant some day for whatever stupid shit retards "research" look my up. If you are willing to humiliate yourself for my amusement maybe I will give you the money

>>15240965
Get your son under control. Wipe the foam off the corners of his mouth tell him to toughen up.

>>15240970
that's his mother's job. I am busy making money and thinking about boats and hoes and dunking on poor schizo retards

>>15240962
All of us are just entertained seeing your schizophrenia get worse each day as you get humiliated in every thread you post in. Auto hiding your posts from now on :-)

>>15240974
lmao, you are poor dude, nobody cares what poor people think

>>15240974
>All of us are just entertained
>us
Seething redditor begging for updoots. You couldn't make it more obvious from where you derive your sense of legitimacy and grasp on reality.

>>15240996
he is just a misunderstood genius. he can do sophomore level math after all! he will make his employer who pays him an annual income that is less than i make in a week but he will be able to laugh at us "schizos" on the animu forum so it's worth it!

>>15235076
>mathematics
just a tool to be able to make sense of the physical environment

>>15240953
Nice gains bodhi. Why dont you come to /biz/ and post as Forex Anon anymore?

t. /biz/raeli

>>15234969
Yes.

>>15235113
read less than you, care less than you

>>15235418
they picked it up just fine, your ideas are simply incorrect

>>15235478
nah I'll engage with him all I want, stupid cunt

>>15235901
every stimulus is a direct interaction with your consciousness

>>15240953
yikes dude. why admit to being poor?

>>15234876
>consciousness?
you dicot is not a dicot
you need to go back and get out the semiotic spade

consciousness is every as bit material as "material".

Sigh energy fields, string theory etc etc.

macroscale consciousness is just thermo dynamics.

>>15234983
this also

>>15234876
same way a material thing like a computer can form digital "things"
except we will probably never achieve the technology to make a computer self aware, we have no clue which mechanism are really at play in our brain and how deep it goes

>>15243433
Sorry I couldnt hear you over the 50 grand I made the last 2 days

What does /sci/ think of Sam Parnia?

>>15240011
Asking for the meaning of it all is "the wrong kind of question."

When you look for the meaning of anything else, you will find ways to justify it using something else. What's the meaning of hard work? Perhaps it builds character or feeds your family. What's the meaning of building character? Being virtuous is its own reward, or virtue makes your own life better, etc.

When you look for the meaning of "everything", there is simply nothing else available.

That means if you want to justify everything you'll either need to use a different justification scheme.

>>15234895
You've convinced me you know nothing about computers or consciousness

>>15234876
It's a wetware antenna

>>15235505
fuck yeah, just like my soi wars

>>15234876
Why did life evolve consciousness when it could have done the job purely on the cognitive level, like a computer does?
Because consciousness is essential. Not in the gay pantheist way, that everything has consciousness, but rather that everything alive and complex enough with a cognitive system will eventually develop consciousness, which will be an expression of Ur-Ego, the absolute prototypical and apodictical consciousness towards which we are all essentially drawn.
Consciousness is the binding of multiple streams of higher-tier mental acts based on representations into a single flux along the lines defined by the object's autopoiesis. We will not "solve" consciousness because the current scientific paradigm is to try and locate a functional system capable of accomplishing the supposed "tasks" of consciousness rather than attempt to define phenomenologically the "tiers" of intentional and cognitive acts into a coherent whole which would allow us to pinpoint the "emergence" of consciousness (to a recognizable degree) within living beings.

>>15234876
>consciousness is immaterial
most retarded take in the history of philosophy. Anyone saying this should be discredited and mocked.

>>15247377
What is the material explanation of color?

>>15234876
There is no objective proof that consciousness even exists. I don't think it objectively exists. It only exists inside the privacy of your (my) own mind. Not as part of the objective external world. Consciousness is a paradox that can never be resolved.

>>15234876
Social manipulation nigga
to make humans stick around and bend their will for you
A dog barking has never been as scary as another human's threats

threats, facial expressions, crying, friendship, communication
All require this platform, this evolutionary weapon, consciousness
the most direct evolutionary weapon mane.