/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15487581
try solving the problem of interaction instead of making weak points against physical ism.

How is it possible for the mind and body to affect and communicate with each other? how does it even happen?
Your brain is at some point communicating with the immaterial and the immaterial is literally moving matter in your brain.
it shouldn't be too hard to observe anomalous brain activity that can't be attributed to noise

>>15487581
What mind? There's no such thing.

>>15487621
I can literally talk in my own head, to myself.

>>15487581
Its metaphysical bro. It doesnt literally exist lmao bro.

>>15487581
the thing is universities and schools promote the science worshipers method or as i like to call it, the reddit method since most of the time they give you no time to really make a good project so you just resort to make it as fast as you can as long as you meet the schedule, you see is not working, just not show the flaws and focus on the good stuff in hopes that the teacher doesn't notice it, most students wont even make questions since they're in the same page and if they expose they're asking to be also exposed, at the end, your grades determine your future and that's how society works. maybe if you were a neet you would have accomplished something good but most people are not rich and since you're not an elite you can't get away from skipping school.

>>15487771
>metaphysical
More like abstract since mind exists as some dynamic complex degree of separation from the substrate of reality that can still be reliably understood and demonstrated in part, but never completely realized or fully conceptualized in whole.

What would lead someone like OP to question the explanation they heard without a theory of mind?

>>15487612
Quantum mechanics.

>>15487846
That helps explain lower electrical levels of the neural networks, but not the system as a whole.

>>15487581
your "mind" as in your consciousness/spirit whatever magic value-filled word you wanna use for it, is virtual. all that you are is contained in your material information. better deal with this or else

>>15487870
>information
>material

>>15487875
bro half of this board believes in magic souls shit. you have to make the distinction.

>>15487892
They are innately distinct since information is not material.

>>15487892
>>15487870
Is structural organization rather than information a better way to describe what you meant?

>>15487581
I'm so tired of modern 'skeptics':
>don't think for yourself only trust the experts
When the fuck did they get so intellectually lazy outsourcing their own thinking?

>>15487907
There, there, get it all out, bud.

>>15487870
This implies superdeterminism so you might as well smoke meth and shoot fentanyl since free will doesn't exist and everything is outside of your control even your own thoughts and actions.

>>15487970
seems I'm pretty determined by upbringing friends and experience to not do that, as the information I have determines me. It would be bad for my goals.
you are not doing shit because you choose to. just like a meth addict doesn't do meth because he chooses to.
determinism does not mean you can do whatever without repercussions. motherfucker we'll lock you in a cage if you act wild.

>>15487993
>It would be bad for my goals.
That's free will.

>>15488000
yes because I'm free to choose them, they are not imposed by family/friends/school/upbringing/social values and all that shit. If you take all of those away and replace them with completely different versions you still would have chosen the exact same things.

>>15488013
>yes because I'm free to choose them
Correct. I'm glad you're willing to admit when you're wrong. I hope you have a nice day.

>>15488019
damn boi, you are willing to accept my irony as a win for you. that's some bottom feeder bullshit.

>>15488023
Reneging on your concession is bad sportsmanship.

>>15487892

bro half this board believes in retarded fairy tales like physical matter

>>15487993

You might actually be retarded

>>15487760
you only imagine and presume thats going on in your head. the viscera is the part of body that really runs the show, the brain is just an operating system thats slaved to the viscera.

>>15488601

>you only imagine

oh no no no ah aha hahahaha

You just sunk your own battleship

>>15487581
>May we see it?
Music is encoded into etchings and exists on a disc. Can you see that music? With proper encoding/decoding of signals, you can. Same for brains.
Image reconstruction from brain activity https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2019.00021/full
Neural decoding in general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_decoding
Brain-reading in general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-reading
Detecting attention, thoughts, intentions, predicting various elements of these, the list goes on. Also includes inducting things, and here's a very short list compared to the total examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_brain_stimulation#Effects
Everything from emotions to specific cognitive impairments. All a product of the brain.
>B-buht that's not the mind!
If all you have is presupposing the mind must be something else, then all you have is pure sophistry. Otherwise all the evidence clearly supports inferring the mind is the sum of the brain. And body, of course, with respect to stimuli and experiences and how that alters the mind in the experiential sense. Though I've already wasted far too much charity on this shitpile troll post.

>>15488623

That's a lot of words to say "no we can't see it."

>>15488641
That's a few words to say "I'm illiterate". I'm sorry for your disability anon?
Can't currently != can't ever.
Partially currently -> probably total in future

>>15488623
>Can you see that music?
Yes with a microscope.

>>15488655
>Yes with a microscope.
No, you see the etchings. You can't "see" the music without decoding it and representing that into something visual.

Either /sci/ is retarded or you're all trolling. I hope for your sakes you're trolling.

>>15488657
>You can't "see" the music without decoding it and representing that into something visual.
That's just a silly semantic argument.

>>15488658
>That's just a silly semantic argument.
Then by the same reasoning seeing neurons means you can see thoughts. You don't get it both ways.

>>15487875
>he doesn't know about information theory

>>15488661
You can't identify any pattern or difference between the neurons of one dissected brain or another that would reveal insight into their memories.

>>15488661
skill issue. if you weren't dumb, it would be trivial to figure out the thought purely by looking at the pattern of neurons firing and the composition of the liquids surrounding the neurons. it's not my fault you can't do this.

>>15488664
>You can't identify any pattern or difference between the neurons of one dissected brain or another that would reveal insight into their memories.
That involves cell death and other anomalies introduced into the neurons because it is not literally a solid state object like a CD. Otherwise, yes, you absolutely can decode and have meaningful differences between given states of live brains >>15488623
>>15488666
lol

>>15488648

Neural mapping shows partial correlation at best. You have not shown causation.

What is the mass of a thought? What is the mass of a feeling? What is the mass of a color?

These are not rhetorical. You claim they have mass. So let's go, show us.

>>15488675
>Otherwise, yes, you absolutely can decode and have meaningful differences between given states of live brains
Delusional lmao. I bet you believe that rat study with the "AI algorithm" is literally reading thoughts too. There's a sucker born every minute.

>>15488678
>Neural mapping shows partial correlation at best. You have not shown causation.
Direct neural stimulation shows causation. Reasonable inference to the rest also being caused likewise. >>15488623

It's funny, I explain my reasoning with examples in a post and people whine that it contains too many words. I abbreviate the reasoning absent examples and people claim I haven't shown what I previously explained. Almost... almost like you're dishonest.
>What is the mass of a thought? What is the mass of a feeling? What is the mass of a color?
The mass of the electrical/chemical activity. You can convert joules to grams, you know.
>These are not rhetorical. You claim they have mass. So let's go, show us.
Do... do you not know you can convert units...?

>>15488691

>Direct neural stimulation shows causation.

No it doesn't. It shows correlation.

>The mass of the electrical/chemical activity. You can convert joules to grams, you know.

You are presupposing that the feeling is mere electrical/chemical process. Therefore you are starting from your conclusion. So if course you will validate your beliefs by doing that.

You still have not shown how thoughts or feelings are supposedly generated by the mind. You still have not shown how thoughts and feelings are physical matter. You can't even explain colors. If you could, you would have a Nobel prize. All you can talk about is finding correlations to reported subjective experience. That's it. And that's all you will ever find.

>>15488703

Of*

By the brain*

Freudian slip ;) I gave you the answer by accident

>>15487907
>When the fuck did they get so intellectually lazy outsourcing their own thinking?
Since they found a community in each other and cagey assholes figured out how to manipulate their collective energies to attack remnants of the establishment.

>>15488691
>Direct neural stimulation shows causation.
I guess you also think the patellar reflex means we control our legs through knee taps.

>>15488703
>No it doesn't. It shows correlation.
This is 7th grade science class. You know less than a 7th grader. Direct manipulation of the independent variable resulting in change to the dependent variable. Yes, it evidences causation. You don't even understand what children are taught about causal modeling in science. That's sad. That is really fucking sad man.
>You are presupposing that the feeling is mere electrical/chemical process.
No, it is not a presupposition. That is all the evidence shows they are. If you think otherwise the burden of proof is on you to evidence your hypothesis.
>You still have not shown how thoughts or feelings are supposedly generated by the mind.
I could tell you more, but you're a dishonest cunt and I don't have to in order to show inference to causation.
>You still have not shown how thoughts and feelings are physical matter.
Per direct stimulation, yes I have. Manipulating said matter produces thoughts and feelings. Independent variable changes dependent variable, 100% effect change attributable to independent variable. Same thing for removing parts of the brain, though we're not evil so we just study patients with unfortunate highly specific brain damage for that instead. Mostly. Okay so humans are kinda evil sometimes.
>You can't even explain colors.
I can but that's irrelevant.
>If you could, you would have a Nobel prize.
Says who? Nobel prize winner for visual processing in 1981 also published concerning segregations of processing with respect to things like color in 1988 as well. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.3283936
>All you can talk about is finding correlations to reported subjective experience. That's it. And that's all you will ever find.
You clearly don't know what correlation and causation are with respect to science. Even at an introductory 7th grader level.

>>15488747
>I guess you also think the patellar reflex means we control our legs through knee taps.
Strawman harder maybe someone will buy your bullshit.

>>15488754
>direct stimulation does not show causation
make up your mind dude.

>>15488756
>make up your mind dude.
Patellar reflex is not directly manipulating the motor cortex, now is it? Strawman harder.

>>15488757
The point is you are assuming the motor cortex is the initiator of an action - but what acts on the motor cortex to set it in motion? Eventually you reach a point where materialist explanation completely breaks down, unless of course you pretend this problem doesn't exist.

>>15488757
>The point is you are assuming the motor cortex is the initiator of an action - but what acts on the motor cortex to set it in motion?
Interactions with other parts of the brain that come together for your senses and what amounts to intention planning. All physical brain stuff, sensory processing, yada yada. All very well studied and documented.
>Eventually you reach a point where materialist explanation completely breaks down, unless of course you pretend this problem doesn't exist.
What problem? You made a false analogy comparing reflexes, and by the way the reflex caused by the nerve is evidence the nerve is responsible for the reflex, and now ambiguously claim there's "a problem". You're allergic to the burden of proof.

>>15488762
meant for >>15488760

>>15487581
the left chart in the picture is wrong as well, there is no such thing as a scientific method

>>15488762
>seething
Typical reaction from hard materialists when their delusion is challenged.

>>15488784
He was predestined by the atomic arrangement of the universe to mald about it.

>>15487870
>virtual
>say metaphysical without saying metaphysical
Weak.
Ive read a better argumentation about this from the less wrong shizophrenics

>>15488663
Even in information theory, information is not treated as a material. Do you think arithmetic is material too?

is there anything else inside the brain besides cells? I mean like structures

>>15487581
Sciencenigger:
>relies on statistics (math) for evidence of theory
>theory can never be proven
>theory is just some arbitrary words to try to describe a correlation

Mathchad:
>communicates a theory in a universal language
>proves it
>describes reality itself not limited to this universe

>>15488979
>in a universal language
No, there are many different branches of math that use different, sometimes conflicting symbols like how 1+1=2 in arithmetic logic, but 1 +1 = 1 in digital logic.

>proves it
Math doesn't prove math, the base logic proves math.

>describes reality itself not limited to this universe
No, its basically a comic book description that can estimate descriptions of completely real things, completely imaginary things, and everything in between because of the explosive nature of building formal logic on a self contradicting origin value.

>>15488751

I bet you think atmospheric static discharges are caused by lightning, too.

>>15488762

The burden of proof is on you. Even in your materialist belief system, the world we experience is a recreation in our mind. It is not the actual world. Everything we feel, see, taste, smell, hear would only actually be the neurons in our mind, meaning that you believe our experience of the world is a 1:1 neural reconstruction of some shadow world that exists outside of us. And yet, you think that this shadow world as you perceive it is exactly how it actually is, nevermind the fact that we clearly know that different animals experience completely different worlds based on their perceptual tools. A snake sees a much different reality than you. So why do you assume that the "laws" of physics just happen to perfectly match with our perceptual tools? Peak hubris.

Anyways, the burden is on YOU to prove that anything exists outside of mind. The burden is on YOU to prove that mind is caused by this alleged shadow external world.

But why do you even care? If you are correct, there is no free will and there is no meaning - we're all just the same material, there are no higher ethics, so who cares? Why do you do anything at all?

The truth is that you do have an a priori value structure that you cannot escape, but you pretend that it doesn't exist. You impose values by the simple act of attention and through classification. Attention itself is a moral act. You are a coward and a charlatan.

>>15489126
>arguing about who has the burden of proof instead of finding common ground and arguing about the actual truth of the matter from a mutual starting-point
You're both wasting your time niggas. No disagreement has ever been resolved by merely arguing about muh burden of proof.

>>15489126
>I bet you think atmospheric static discharges are caused by lightning, too.
Basic 7th grade inference to causality is a reversal of causality? That is some galactic tier cope.
>The burden of proof is on you.
My claim: It is reasonable to infer the brain is the source of it.
My evidence: Independent-dependent variable manipulation of the brain and various features >>15488623, giving grounds to infer causation.
Burden of proof satisfied. Next you'll retreat to solipsism to avoid allowing inferences.
>meaning that you believe our experience of the world is a 1:1 neural reconstruction of some shadow world that exists outside of us.
Um, no? Representations of reality, like maps, are just representations.
> And yet, you think that this shadow world as you perceive it is exactly how it actually is
If I did, we wouldn't need science.
>So why do you assume that the "laws" of physics just happen to perfectly match with our perceptual tools?
Why does water conform to the boundary of a crack in the road? Also, not perfect.
>Anyways, the burden is on YOU to prove that anything exists outside of mind.
There's the solipsism. Sounds like a "you" problem, and if you think I don't exist outside your head nothing I say will matter.
>But why do you even care?
Because I do. Can't not, so here we are.
>If you are correct, there is no free will and there is no meaning - we're all just the same material, there are no higher ethics, so who cares?
If you don't, and you need reality to depend on you being special, you might want psychiatric help. If other anons are right, for narcissistic personality disorder specifically.
>The truth is that you do have an a priori value structure that you cannot escape, but you pretend that it doesn't exist.
Near as I can tell my value structure is "enjoy stuff responsibly and don't die".
>You impose values by the simple act of attention and through classification. Attention itself is a moral act. You are a coward and a charlatan.
gibberish

>>15487581
Didn't we just have this thread yesterday?
Does 4chan need a /godfag/ containment board?

>>15487612
>How is it possible for the mind and body to affect and communicate with each other? how does it even happen?
No idea. My current pet theory is retrocausality or really weird asymmetry between whatever space time the soul exists in and normal space time such that choices are implemented by altering the starting state of the universe.

Regardless, I observe my consciousness existing therefore it exists. I am more sure of it than I am sure of the sun coming up each day, despite my best efforts.

>>15488623
Music is only given meaning by a consciousness so your analogy doesn't work. Meaning (of which truth is a subset) starts and ends with the mind/whatever. Nothing you posted addresses consciousness, it's all strawman shit. Consciousness is experience itself regardless of mind, reason, language, speech, sight, memory, whatever. I don't get why you're so emotionally attached to it not existing.

>>15489210
>Music is only given meaning by a consciousness so your analogy doesn't work.
In the analogy music is represented visually, i.e. so you could see it (say by waveform), by decoding into such a form. So, yes, it works. You just didn't understand the context.

>>15489200
Yes, this thread was posted yesterday, this isn't old 4chan where threads are bumped away after a few hours due to all the traffic, this is nuchan in the dead internet era where they can last for weeks because the traffic has declined significantly.

>>15489196
>Near as I can tell my value structure is "enjoy stuff responsibly and don't die".
How old are you? This is baby boomer tier myopia. "Responsibly" means nothing in the context of a nihilistic universe. That certainly isn't a reason to not believe in materialism but if you're going to cling to bullshit vaguely Christian ideas about morality or """human rights""" or even fucking sanity you cannot claim any kind of rational high ground compared to other cultists.
>B-but the chemicals in my brain force me to have these values
Ok? That argument justifies everything.
>B-but muh predictive power
Metaphysical implications don't have predictive power they just alter mental states and behaviors. In your case for the worse.

If you're going to be a strict materialist then stop being a hypocrite and abandon value systems entirely. Sick of this smug boomer redditoid crap.

>>15489219
That waveform has no meaning and presents no "image of music" outside the context of a consciousness, which is the thing we're discussing. I get exactly what you mean but the analogy presupposes consciousness.

>>15489227
>If you're going to be a strict materialist then stop being a hypocrite and abandon value systems entirely.
Um, if free will doesn't exist how exactly does one "choose" to abandon what one didn't choose to adopt? Good lord, even your strawmanning contradicts itself.

>>15489246
Yeah exactly, so you get modal collapse and truth itself loses value as all positions become logically equivalent. IE it becomes impossible to meaningfully advocate for anything.

>>15489251
>Yeah exactly, so you get modal collapse and truth itself loses value as all positions become logically equivalent.
If I value survival, understanding reality better is related to surviving. Same goes for what is responsible and how best to enjoy living. Truth still matters.
>IE it becomes impossible to meaningfully advocate for anything.
Except by the very same evolved things that make me want to do stuff. Same for you. If you lack that, ALSO another sign you probably want psychiatric help.

>>15489251
Value is an experience, not a decision.

>>15489258
>If I value survival
1) your valuation of survival is irrelevant, it's driven by impersonal deterministic processes just as a schizophrenics delusions are.
>understanding reality better is related to surviving.
Except when it isn't, atheists are more likely to kill themselves and revelations into the inner workings of reality post 1700 have created entirely new categories of psychological suffering.
>Same goes for what is responsible and how best to enjoy living. Truth still matters
Right: It matters according to your meaningless metric for "having fun." That metric has 0 importance in reality or for people who don't have the same neurological mechanisms you do.
>>>15489251
>Except by the very same evolved things that make me want to do stuff.
That justifies any and all positions so long as they are sincerely held. It doesn't mean anything, evolution doesn't guarantee convergence with anything let alone reality.
>same for you. If you lack that, ALSO another sign you probably want psychiatric help.
I'm not the one denying the existence of value whilst arguing for the superiority of my belief system LMAO.

>If you lack that, ALSO another sign you probably want psychiatric help.
Neurology is fluid over time (for a species), and therefore so is psychology. Appealing to the arbitrary values and neurological structures a majority of a group of smart monkeys happen to have for a very brief period of time is a retarded thing to do. It's appealing to a temporary majority.

>If you don't continue to believe in the delusions of human rights and morality despite evidence that they don't exist you are a threat to society and should be forcibly corrected (medication and incarceration)
>If you don't continue to believe in the delusions of God and the soul despite evidence that they don't exist you are a threat to society and must be forcibly corrected (burning at the stake)

At the end of the day it's all just violence.

>>15489261
Decisions are also experiences, as is the experience of the illusions of free will and choice that underpin the conversation we're having right now. My point is that your values aren't special and hold no relevance to someone else unless they already happen to coincide. What's your point?

>>15489131

It does matter because the burden comes from the starting premise. We have completely different premises. I start from the start. He starts from his conclusion.

>>15489196

>inference to causality

Correct, you are inferring causality, not showing it to be true. Thanks for proving my point.

>My claim: It is reasonable to infer the brain is the source of it.

Your problem is that you are starting from your conclusion. The only thing we know is that the world we experience exists in our mind. This is true under materialism or idealism. Materialism posits that there is a physical world out there that is then reconstructed by the neurons in our brain, but is made of a completely different substance than that of mind. You are creating a completely new ontological category to account for your theory. I am not.

>Next you'll retreat to solipsism to avoid allowing inferences.

Inferences are fine, but they should be limited to the minimum amount possible. The only inference that I make is that other beings are also conscious. You are making massive inferences that require completely new ontological categories. And it is not solipsism. The fact that you even mention solipsism shows that you a midwit who doe not understand the idealist position.

>Um, no? Representations of reality, like maps, are just representations.

So how can you derive any truth from the faulty representations? Who is to say that your representation of reality is any more correct than that of a snake? You can't even posit what reality or matter even is - you have no idea, even under your own theory.

>Why does water conform to the boundary of a crack in the road? Also, not perfect.

Water and the road are the same thing under your view. Matter. They do not exist as things. Water and the road are inventions of the mind. We only can say that water conforms to a crack in the road because we presuppose that water, the crack, and the road exist as things.

cont'd

>>15489275
>1) your valuation of survival is irrelevant
Not to me. Analyzing this from the perspective of the universe is just nonsense sophistry.
>>15489284
>Correct, you are inferring causality, not showing it to be true. Thanks for proving my point.
The evidence shows the inference is supported. Welcome to science, thanks for proving my point you don't know the first thing about it.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

>>15489289
>Not to me.
Sure, but that's completely irrelevant to this conversation.
>Analyzing this from the perspective of the universe is just nonsense sophistry.
Objective reality is a sophist talking point?

>>15489196

cont'd

Physics is not an explanation of reality; it is a model of the world that we created.

>There's the solipsism. Sounds like a "you" problem, and if you think I don't exist outside your head nothing I say will matter.

There you go. Completely misunderstanding my position. It is not solipsism. I never said it only exists in *my* mind. We do exist in a shared space. It is a shared mental space. Maybe you should take some time to steelman your opponents before you make yourself look like a complete fool.

>Because I do.

lol

>If you don't, and you need reality to depend on you being special,

What does this even mean? In what way am I saying that reality depends on me being special? Special how?

>you might want psychiatric help. If other anons are right, for narcissistic personality disorder specifically.

You once again expose your complete lack of knowledge of what idealism actually is. But sure, everyone smarter than you who actually understands this stuff is a narcissist. lol

>Near as I can tell my value structure is "enjoy stuff responsibly and don't die".

Moron. You impose a value structure by the very act of existing. The "things" that your mind sees are a value structure passed down to you through mankind. When you look at a blob of colors and your mind separates them into "table, chairs, plates," you are imposing a value structure on the world without even realizing it.

But even talking about your "ethics," how do you decide what is "responsible" to enjoy? Against what do you measure that?

>gibberish

I called you out for exactly what you are. A clown, a charlatan, a willful idiot. So eager to deny your own existence, your own meaning, and to deny reality. You so desperately want to be nothing. Pathetic coward. Fools like you are holding humanity back.

>>15489219

Music does not exist as music if you represent it any other way you retard. It can only exist in consciousness.

>>15489251

Nailed it.

>>15489258

See, you are the true narcissist. Here you are claiming that the only meaning that exists are your own animal impulses for "fun" balanced against survival. You act as if you are a psychopathic narcissist who assigns zero value to anyone else or anything. You probably actually are not, though. You have a value structure passed down to you that you operate within and you do not even realize it.

>>15489289

>Not to me. Analyzing this from the perspective of the universe is just nonsense sophistry.

Maybe you actually are a psychopathic narcissist. You keep outing yourself. We get it, in your world view only your impulses have meaning.

>The evidence shows the inference is supported.

Nope, it doesn't. You would actually get somewhere if you didn't start from your conclusion. You seem very afraid that there might actually be meaning in this world beyond your animalistic impulses.

>>15489303
>Nope, it doesn't.
"nuh uh"
Not an argument. Demonstrate how it does not, by what criteria, and for what reasons. I'll even accept valid syllogisms or symbolic logic.

>>15489408

>Prove a negative

Yeah no, it doesn't work like that. How about you prove your claim that a material world exists outside of mind? We both know that the world we experience is in our mind. You are the one claiming there is another ontological category out there called physical matter. So let's go, prove it beyond baseless conclusions premised on correlations that fit your predetermined model.

You can't, but I'm sure you'll instead call me a narcissistic wootard, which is hilarious because you are the one believing in woo (matter), and you are the narcissist who claims that the only meaning that exists in your life is whatever impulses you are predetermined to act out. Just another coward afraid to take responsibility and face the implications of free will.

>>15489427
>Yeah no, it doesn't work like that.
You made a claim that it does not support causal inference. Therefore, you have a burden to justify that claim. Yes, it does work like that, if you aren't a dishonest sophist.

>>15489485

I causally infer that you are a robot designed by Daniel Dennett to troll /sci/. There, now you have the burden to justify the claim that you are not.

>>15489558
>I causally infer that you are a robot designed by Daniel Dennett to troll /sci/. There, now you have the burden to justify the claim that you are not.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Your turn. Only, sad for you, I gave evidence. What now? You might actually have to think your poor widdle humanities brain to death

>>15488623
>Music is encoded into etchings and exists on a disc. Can you see that music? With proper encoding/decoding of signals, you can. Same for brains.
yes
>Image reconstruction from brain activity https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2019.00021/full
yes
>Neural decoding in general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_decoding
yes
>Brain-reading in general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-reading
yes
>Detecting attention, thoughts, intentions, predicting various elements of these, the list goes on. Also includes inducting things, and here's a very short list compared to the total examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_brain_stimulation#Effects
yes
>Everything from emotions to specific cognitive impairments. All a product of the brain.
no define "anxiety" or "happy" or "sad" in the context of brain scanning you have nothing because they are abstract catchalls that are convenient for humans but not for describing computation, same thing as consciousness, worthless goal posts when the achievement is being able to map thoughts in the first place

>>15487612
>Your brain is at some point communicating with the immaterial and the immaterial is literally moving matter in your brain.
Literally all of those interactions are physical

>>15489622
>no define "anxiety" or "happy" or "sad" in the context of brain scanning you have nothing because they are abstract catchalls that are convenient for humans but not for describing computation
So did you just ignore the link on electrical brain stimulation, which lists anxiety and the other emotions, and said "yes" anyway only to contradict yourself with this example? An example which, by the way, shows you are SO unwilling to learn about the relevant neuroscience you won't even read an incredibly small summary section of a goddamn wikipedia entry?

If you mean to imply some contradiction or other point unrelated to such stimulation, you need to explain what you mean. As written it reads as though you assumed only basal functions can be reproduced this way, which is utterly ridiculous and not true at all.

>>15489591

My evidence is that you espouse the same views of Daniel Dennett and do not appear to have consciousness. Therefore, I infer that you are a Dennett robot.

There, I presented evidence. Now the burden is on you to prove you are not.

Oh what's that, you reject my evidence? Well I reject yours.

>>15489723
>My evidence is that you espouse the same views of Daniel Dennett and do not appear to have consciousness. Therefore, I infer that you are a Dennett robot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
>There, I presented evidence.
A logical fallacy is not evidence.
>Now the burden is on you to prove you are not.
You're so generally inept you can't even construct a valid logical argument with which to "own" the 7th grade causal inference model. Jesus christ that's sad.
>Oh what's that, you reject my evidence? Well I reject yours.
You continue to run and avoid providing any justification for doing so. Seems like you're scared.

>>15489740

You are operating from a logical fallacy. You are assuming that matter is fundamental and that the brain generates mind. I don't know what else to tell you. You are wrong. All your "evidence" is mere correlation. You don't have a single shred of causation. You don't have a single shred of evidence for matter existing outside of mind.

>muh inference based on evidence that doesn't support my conclusion but I pretend that it does

You are presupposing your own conclusion. Talking to you is pointless. You are dogmatic.

>>15489291
How did I understand your shitty meme then? I'm literally thinking right now, bro, it's so over for you.

>>15487612
I think we will need to accept it the way it is. There is this something that changes.. but what is it?
Atempts to solve this by aproaching the problem with different ontological perspective just fails.. we dont even need to assume any kind of nature of phenomena yet question still remains: How does it work...
Saying consciousness is mental property just muds the water. Even if we finde the "seecret engredient" how do we explain its own bridge to mental and physical.. its a rabithole.

Where do this mental images happen... where do this sounds happen.. in side my head? Yea.. but where..
A brain processes.. okay but where lmao.
A whole of brain.. okay.. but how..

I like physicalism and functionalism but ill be damned.. Chalmers altho i dislike his ontological aproach, does clearly show there is this "how it feels to be".

>>15489769
You understanding something has nothing to do with consciousness.
Kids are consciouss yet dont understand. This is fail of Searls chinese room. He ltrly explained how understanding works yet missed it.
Every single phenomena under umbrela term of consciousness is explainable by brain processes and mechanism. Only one is unsolvable: why and how do we have qualitative experience.

>>15489782
>I am not conscious, and neither are you.
>Kids are consciouss yet dont understand.
GPT?

>>15489782
>Kids are consciouss yet dont understand. This is fail of Searls chinese room.
Another anon here: interesting observation but lacking in detail. Children have different degrees of consciousness. For example: they are taught to unlearn solipsism / to differentiate between subject / object and to regard some objects as subjects. When a child is born, there may be a ''qualitative'' experience but it's very ''narrow'' and there is no experiencer yet.

>>15489809
No im trying to tell you that term consciousness referes to many phenomena. Awarenes, self awarenes and qualitative experience among others..
Its not 1 unified thing or property it is umbrela term that referes to many phenomena.
You can have qualia without awarenes of them.. you can have awarenes but not qualia..
People who became blind trough life are example of being aware and not having sensory input of vision..

>>15489776

There is no physical. There's your solution.

>>15489825
Indeed anon, thank you for contribution.

>>15489839
MY GUY READ WHAT I WROTE
No matter ontological nature the question is still there. You think you fixed everything just by stating all is mental?
You did not.. you just renamed things.

>>15489766
>You are operating from a logical fallacy.
Tu quoque fallacy. Your continued terror and avoidance of the evidence is just continued concession of the weakness of your position. I'm waiting chicken. Bawk bawk bawk bawk baaaaaaawk

>>15487907
>When the fuck did they get so intellectually lazy outsourcing their own thinking?
About the same time they stuck their heads in the sand every time they heard something they didn't like, like >>15487918, then when media and social media gives them talking points to feel superior and intellectual while never understanding the topic itself.

You'll notice they always have the exact same talking points, they're NPCs, just programmed by mass media and "authority" figures.

>>15489927
>You'll notice they always have the exact same talking points, they're NPCs, just programmed by mass media and "authority" figures

You mean like people who call other people NPCs?
Who are programmed by echo chambers?

One finger forth, three fingers back

>>15489846

No. The brain is a representation of your consciousness. That's why brain activity correlates. Your brain exists as an idea. Same as your body.

>>15490068
Yes
Conaciousness is representation of your brain. Thats why brain activity corelatws with mental states. Your consciousness exists as an idea....

Only thing you do is turn picture of reallity upside down. Nothing special..
What is special is your postulation of consciousness as an entity that ocupies the body, yet that clearly is not the case since consciousness is not static fixed phenomena, rather a flux of changes.

Questions are still here.. a bit different perhaps.
A) How does X produce Y
B) How does Y produce X

But lets suppose you are right. A thought experiment if you would indulge my interess.

Let us suppose at this very moment, your short and long term memory cese to exist, your sensory organs cese to function. My question is, would you be consciouss of your state? Yes/No? If yes, then how.
>You are a thing (you claim consciousness is)
>You have no sensory input nore long and short term memory.
>Heck lets add this to soup: your prefrontal cortex is gone

>>15487581
>May we see it?
Why would you ask that?
The eyes are a part of the brain. So seeing is still creating.

>>15490100
>sensory organs cese to function.
>the heart and the stomach stop functioning
you just kill that person and three others

>>15489917

lol

You can't prove any of your absurd claims. Must suck to.be an indoctrinated retard.

>>15490100

>your postulation of consciousness as an entity that ocupies the body

No, that is.not my postulation. The body is a representation of consciousness. Therefore the body correlates to consciousness. If you punch a wall it will hurt...not because you punched a physical wall but because you punched a wall mentally.

And yes, of course you would still exist, although I don't know medically if that is possible.

>>15490100
this is similar to someone born without sensory input or chemical feedback to the brain (don't know if possible).
my personal opinion is that there's no one there. your body is what creates your "consciousness", and it uses a lot of info around you to manifest it.
like the V formation for a flock of birds. the V is not real, it's just information, it's made out of birds.
the "V" exists for whoever decodes it as such.

>>15490410
Okay... in that case you still have to answer: How does mental state produce representation of physical body?
How does consciousness produce feelings?
If you will tell me you dont need to, then physicalism does not need to explain it either.

Furthermore i did not ask if you would exist, i asked you if you would be consciouss.

>>15490430
Agreed. If i am not wrong this is in line with emergentism. Altho i am not sure if they claim a new novel property arises or not.

Still.. having mental images keeps me wake at night.

>>15489280
The point is that nothing collapses because there is no value decision, you don't decide what has value, you experience the value of things, when you drink you are nourished, you can't suddenly decide that liquid has no value to you.

>>15490844
Huh, nice observation anon.
Indeed. We give (positive) value to things and actions based on how they interact with us (how we experience them). If you like something, its not that you decided to do so, the experienced thing you like is what made you say you decided that.
This may explain why finding objective rational criteria for what is good/bad etc fails (or if you wish produces so many possible theorys).

>>15490850
>>15490844
The fact you don't "give" value to things is why that hollow void of people who demand their will gives things value is horrifying to watch. It is also why they treat people so badly, and in turn can't see the value in others.

Trolling or not, the attitude expressed by those people pretending accepting reality constitutes a moral failing are the most vile. They supplant the value others experience and treat it as something of their fashioning and only after their fashioning. Is that not the very essence of evil?
>>15489261
I've thought about this for a long time and couldn't figure out how to say it simply. Thank you.

>>15490857
Now that you say it, it seems so a bit.
When you spoke of "void". That is spot on. Each time i tryed to finde rational criteria for what is good or bad for me i failed to finde any constant on which i could build criteria for determining value.
Left only with empty void as you say.
But then i thought to my self: That is like a hammer telling a blacksmith what is good or not. A hammer (reasson) should not tell blacksmith (me) what is good for me. It does not experience, i am the one that experiences.

>>15490880
>>15490857
Now wait a minute..
It sounded good at first but, as much i cant deny that feelings and emotions are experience, good/bad are not. They are indeed constructs we apply to experience.
Consider only heroin user. He enjojs the trip (experience) but knows its bad (judgment value).
Or a trip to a dentist
Pulling out root of teeth hurts (experience) but you know it is good for you (value judgment).

Goodnes and badness cant be grounded in experience, in a sense it is not a thing that we experience rather the judgement of experience.

So i guess i am going back to my void.
Altho.. distinction between experience and valuejudgment is indeed a new step forward.

>>15490884
But heroin is a good experience (high) followed by a bad one (withdrawal) while the dentist is a bad experience (pain, numbness, loss of control) followed by good (less teeth pain/loss/better health), something can be more than one thing and the value always depends on context. Eating carrots is generally nutritious and good for you, eating only carrots is bad because carrots do not have a compete nutritional profile, so goodness/badness depends on context and the specific experience, it isn't always the same experience.

You are struggling with dynamic relative value rather than a complete void of value.

>>15490884
>>15490919
I should have stuck with the water metaphor, I don't know why I chose carrots, but water is good when you are under hydrated, but bad when you are over hydrated and the trick is finding the right balance instead of depending entirely on past bias.

>>15490884
Value and value judgments are different in that context so you might be confusing what was written if you're equivocating the two as the same thing. Value judgments are products of experience as you say, but the experience of value in and of itself is something else.

Put another way, imagine treating people like objects in your blacksmith analogy. That's the hollowness of those sorts, and there's definitely a reason lots of anons seem to quickly identify these kinds of people as narcissists. Probably that exact reason even if they don't have the words.

>>15490919
Indeed anon,
for clarity sake, would your view encompas that good and bad are predicated to interactions which produce positive or negative experiences? Meaning, goodnes is positive/usefull interaction (experience) while badness is negative/useless interaction?

I like that you mentioned balance, virtue ethics of Aristotles are on that path. Maximising usefull and positive experience while avoiding negative and useless ones trough balance between extremes.

>You are struggling with dynamic relative value rather than a complete void of value.

Yeah, but point is, because i didnt yet construct whole picture of it i miss "guiding" hand in some scenarios which leave feeling of emptyness.

>>15490943
I think i understand now.
Treating blacksmith as a hammer rather then a human individual.
Have you ever read Martin Buber? His work "Me and You" (if i remember the name corectlly). It points out just this. And i agree. How couldnt you sense someon as narc if he does not have awareness that others "function" (lets say it like that) as you do (seeing yourself abow or special in relation to others)

>>15490968
Addition: Just to make it clear with you anon. Would you say then that experience of value is experience it self (feeling) while judgment value is judgment of that experience (feeling)?
With that in mind, would your view state that we should build criteria for value judgment based on experience of world rather then constructing it out of abstract ideas which are notnground in experience?

>>15490968
It is not experiencing others as having value except in relation to the only thing they can value (themselves). The projection on this point is really quite remarkable see here >>15489303 "no YOU are the narcissist YOU don't value anything" from simply relating the fact value is from experience. The fact we experience and value that experience, often in a way that's just kind of automatic, is definitely not what narcissism is. Narcissism is more like value doesn't exist to be experienced, especially the value of others, unless it feeds that hole they have. So people become objects to fit that purpose, and the world is akin to objects to be worked by some mere whim same for its people.

Sort of like people who can't understand why someone talks to others, or shares information, or wants to stop harmful falsehoods. If you literally do not experience other people as valuable for their own sake, and only in relation to whether they personally satisfy a personal need like an object does, you won't understand why because you can't. Not you personally just in general, of course. I've no idea who you are.

>>15490973
>Addition: Just to make it clear with you anon. Would you say then that experience of value is experience it self (feeling) while judgment value is judgment of that experience (feeling)?
Something like that , but not a synonym of experience. You have to be really careful with words or they lose meaning instead of add meaning. You experience, and part of experience is feeling what you would describe as value in things or others. It just sort of happens as a gestalt of your world, and if you don't have it chances are something is pretty fucked up with it. Value judgments are the more higher thinking like you mentioned with getting your teeth pulled.

>>15490978
I think i see the point you are making.
Altho i think Narcissism should be left for more radical dimension (there is the aspect of manipulation).
What you are refering to is egocentrism. Lack of differentiatiom between self and other. I have an interesting example of it from my life.
A friend of mine sat with me at a bench in the park and she constantly criticised what others do, saying why it is useless and meaningless. She did not see that they do not live the way she does, that someone likes to tallk about cars, someone about psychology, science etc..
Iow. she didnt see the value as you say in others.

I dont know what you mean by "experiance other as valuable" (maybe because i am one of those people but tend to reflect on my state) but would you please tell me more about it? I might just need to make connection between experience and idea.

>>15490980

>>15490980
Understood anon. Wouldnt that then be just what anon here is saying: >>15490978
?
For you postulte value as feeling encompased by experience. What if you dont feel anything about other persone? Would that make you a narc or egoistic?
Seeing value only when you feel it.

Also (idk if you two are separate anons) but thak you for meaningfull chat.
>>15490978
>>15490980

>>15491005
That's all me I just didn't see your second message until I submitted already

>>15490999
>What you are refering to is egocentrism.
No. What I am referring to is narcissism.
>A friend of mine sat with me at a bench in the park and she constantly criticised what others do, saying why it is useless and meaningless. She did not see that they do not live the way she does, that someone likes to tallk about cars, someone about psychology, science etc..
>Iow. she didnt see the value as you say in others.
You have to be very careful about that kind of thing. Being angry with people and hurt is also very different from narcissism. A little knowledge is dangerous because you can make mistakes like that, and I also don't think that's egocentrism. That sounds more like someone in pain and very isolated and lonely, and cynical as a result. If she genuinely didn't care it wouldn't even enter her mind to be upset about it, and sure maybe it's superficially "egocentric" but the more you're hurt the less you care to be fair to others too. Sort of a sensible survival mechanism that can also get stuck if you think about it, since if you're trapped with a bunch of assholes feeling bitter about it is probably the only way to survive without being taken advantage of.

I wouldn't call it egocentric is all. I don't even use the word, because it's just judging people for their problems. Narcissists are something else entirely though.

>>15487581
>>>/x/ is the place for you, choprafriend

>>15487760
>literally

>>15490831

>How does mental state produce representation of physical body?

The same way it creates representations in dreams. Which is to say, it is beyond our comprehension. We have no direct access to truth, at least until our bodies die, so we will never know. That's the same question as "how does anything exist?" There is no answer that we can ever grasp.

The difference from materialism is that materialism claims that everything has a determinative cause. I am not claiming that. Some things are inherently unknowable to us. This is where we need to humble ourselves and show humility.

>How does consciousness produce feelings?

Same answer, but consciousness *is* feelings.

Think about this: when a dog is happy, you are seeing pure happiness. Life is whatever the current feeling is. That is fundamentally what you are. That's why seeing other people happy sparks joy.

Life is consciousness experiencing itself; humans are recursive awareness of that awareness. We control where we direct our awareness, and the recursive nature of awareness (like two mirrors facing each other) amplifies the feeling to which we direct our attention. Think about your life, with bad moods, depression, happiness, joy, hunger, whatever. Whatever you pay attention to is amplified.

We are also recursive with one another. Basically we're all mirrors of consciousness amplifying feelings back and forth, adding to the universal consciousness. So when you do bad things and make others feel bad, you are adding negative feelings to universal consciousness.

These recursive feelings bounce around ad infinitum. When you die, your localization of consciousness (body) dissolves and you are released back into the universal consciousness. Except that you aren't "you" anymore because you aren't localized. But instead you are a part of the universal consciousness that contains every thought, feeling, and memory from all of life ever. Free will means you get to choose to bask in infinite happiness.

>>15491149
Dude if you're so scared of dying just talk to a therapist and fucking get over it already
>Which is to say, it is beyond our comprehension.
I love people like you. Impossibly high arbitrary standards of evidence for science, but then you just go "lol beyond comprehension" the second you're prompted to explain how your bullshit works.

The only thing I will never understand is why any of you think that bullshit tricks anybody.
>Y-YOU CAN'T KNOW ANYTHING!!
>makes bunch of random claims
>B-BECAUSE I KNOW OKAY
Fucking hilarious

>>15491246

You're out of your league kid. This isn't one of your courses, and therefore you are clueless. You might actually need to try thinking for yourself rather than googling to find another "scientific" study that supports your belief system.

There is a limit to human understanding, and if you haven't discovered that yet then I can't help you. Your hubris knows no bounds. You get your rocks off thinking about humanity finally knowing ultimate truth, but guess what? It doesn't, it can't, and it never will. I think you're the one that needs a therapist to learn some humility.

>>15491543
>B-BECAUSE I JUST KNOW OKAY???

>>15491547

Yep. And you don't. Just like great artists can just paint a masterpiece. You can't go to school to learn how to be a true artist.

You are the equivalent of painting by numbers. You know the theories, you know the tools, you know the technique, but you don't have the spark. Sorry kid. You can develop it, though, if you nurture it and approach these questions with a truly open mind. Try working on using your right brain rather than your left brain. This would genuinely help you understand a lot more.

>>15491586
>Science doesn't know shit, so use the lessons of its left-right brain theory to improve yourself.

>>15491612

Sigh you really are retarded. Science as a platonic ideal is a fantastic tool. Science, when properly conceived, works hand in hand with philosophy and theology. Modern "science" is largely an abomination - a grotesque mutation of true science. But that doesn't invalidate all "science."

Your comment betrays that you have an incorrect conception of idealism. Idealism does not replace science. Science is a tool of this world created by humans. Idealism is a metaphysical model. They both coexist in perfect harmony.

>>15487581

>>15491697
Left/Right brain is not true science any more than other phrenology/psychology pseudos, you are the retarded inconsistent one.

>>15491811

Well you're just wrong about that. Try reading pic related.

>>15491856
Sure, I bet its full of repeatable measurements instead of a bunch of inconsistent and incomplete rhetoric grotesquely mutating the scientific method and no more accurate than tongue flavor charts.

>>15491697
>Science, when properly conceived
AKA "Just ignore any/all science disagreeing with my prior held belief and it works out bro"
>Science is a tool of this world created by humans. Idealism is a metaphysical model. They both coexist in perfect harmony.
Anything can coexist if you're enough of a hypocrite.

>>15491867
>>15492096

Seething. Why are you so personally invested that a book you know nothing about triggers you?

>>15492168
Pure projection. Also, we're two different anons.

The real question is why are you so triggered when people spot your blatant hypocrisy? Are you so stupid you don't realize how obvious it is?

>>15492183

Explain how I am a hypocrite.

>>15492208
Arbitrarily changing evidentiary standards to preserve desired belief. Hypocrisy by definition.

>>15492215

How so?

>>15492218
>How so?
Listing science as "compatible" with idealism and theism >>15491697. Either you are being scientific, in which case the evidentiary standard excludes them, or you're not and science is not compatible. If you are changing standard between them to claim they are compatible, this is hypocrisy. If you attempt a third route claiming some "superior evidentiary standard" that somehow works better than science, show us your nobel prize for this astounding discovery and all your amazing evidence from predicting and verifying things not yet known.

>>15492231

The scientific method is not incompatible with idealism, nor does it rule it out. In fact, the scientific method does NOT support materialism unless you start from the premise that materialism is true. You are completely blinded because you cannot get your brain to operate outside of materialism.

Oh, and "evidence" will not solve it either way. It can only be solved by inference. And your theory involves more inferences, and more strained inferences, than mine.

>>15492261
>The scientific method is not incompatible with idealism, nor does it rule it out.
Yes, it does, by parsimony. You're just admitting you have no relevant scientific background nor education.
>In fact, the scientific method does NOT support materialism unless you start from the premise that materialism is true.
By induction, yes it does, and without presupposition. Also parsimony again.
>Oh, and "evidence" will not solve it either way.
Admitting science is not compatible explicitly is a weird way to claim I'm wrong.
>It can only be solved by inference.
If your inference is not on the basis of evidence in reality then it is not science.
>And your theory involves more inferences, and more strained inferences, than mine.
Feel free to show me your inference model and work demonstrating your more successful predictions. See, the problem you have is that in science we can also test things like that by the successes of the models in predicting reality and predicting how things happen. I wasn't joking about showing me your nobel prize and superior "science+" evidence. If my inferences are "more strained", the modeling would be worse. Go on then. Show me.

>>15487581
Your mind is your brain. Only retards think otherwise.

>>15487970
No. Determinism means that events have a determinant causal origin. With a suitably advanced method of analyzation you could reliably determine how someone would react to any given event. Free will exists insofar as we are capable of interpreting the universe to a greater degree than a common animal. But the difference between a boulder rolling down a hill and you choosing to eat steak instead of sushi is a matter of degrees. We are all ultimately elements. You can choose to deny that and claim we’re some ethereal substance, but you can’t prove it.

>>15492318
How much mass does a thought have?

>>15487846
the "god of the gaps" of Science/atheism

>>15492329
That implies there's just one. Really atheist materialism is solely god of the gaps arguments (see: "dark" physics, multiple dimensions, panspermia, macroevolution, etc.).

>>15492322
>How much mass does a thought have?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
Cope

>>15492331
>That implies there's just one. Really atheist materialism is solely god of the gaps arguments (see: "dark" physics, multiple dimensions, panspermia, macroevolution, etc.).
God of the gaps: "We don't know therefore God"
AKA: Argument from ignorance
Science: Hypothesis and inference
If you think they're the same you're equally clueless about logic and science.

>>15492337
If you didn't know then you could have just said that. No need to broadcast your inadequacies to 4chan. It's embarrassing for you.

>>15492340
"We don't know therefore [dark matter/quantum/SUSY/aliens/long timelines]."
Yeah sounds about right to me.

>>15492322
How much mass does the image you view have? I don’t know. Are you going to say eyes aren’t how we see? No, then you would be a total retard. I don’t need to be omniscient to understand that the brain is what we use to think, and that if various parts of it are damaged or removed our minds change drastically or no longer function.

>>15492344
“We don’t know but dark matter capably explains this gap. We will continue searching to provide evidence of this phenomenon.”
“It was all God, the fossils are fake/Satan planted them there/God is testing you.”

You rely on religion because for whatever reason 4chan is now flooded with terminal contrarians that consider it chic to be an annoying theist instead of an annoying atheist.

>>15492344
>"We don't know therefore [dark matter/quantum/SUSY/aliens/long timelines]."
lol the desperate dishonesty

>>15492351
>capably explains
ahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>15492353
Yeah, people who believe in materialist nonsense are incredibly desperate. It's hard to take them seriously anymore after all their miserable failures.

>>15492354
unidentified matter does capably explain it, else the models would not work. Your ignorance is not an argument.

>>15492358
>the models
kek! oh save the precious models!!

>>15492360
>kek! oh save the precious models!!
The model assuming it is matter would not work if it wasn't matter. That's almost as retarded the other post you wrote >>15492344 "we don't know what kind of matter it is therefore we don't know what kind of matter it is" as "evidence" science is "god of the gaps".

kek the retardation is so strong I'm getting my popcorn

>>15492371
Show me some "dark matter." I'll wait.

>>15492376
>Show me some "dark matter." I'll wait.
Shown the same way gravity is. Cope harder. What next, earth is flat?

>>15492383
LOL!

>>15492385
>doesn't know things are demonstrated by their effects all the time
>Thinks that isn't scientific
wew lad

>>15492278

I will shut you up for good because we are tired of your charlatanism, hubris, and blind spots.

Materialism requires these statements to be true:
1) your conscious perceptions exist
2) the conscious perceptions of other living creatures also exist
3) there are things that exist independently of, and outside of, conscious perception
4) things that exist independently of, and outside of, conscious perception generate said conscious perception.

1 is a a shared premise - "I think therefore I am." If you dispute this then you are denying your own existence, do not even understand your own theory, and are a bona fide retard.

2 is a another shared premise inferred from 1. At least I hope we can agree on that. Otherwise you are a solipsist.

3 is a huge leap because it creates a completely new ontological category - stuff existing outside of conscious perception for which you can never actually have any direct evidence.

4 says that this unknowable abstract stuff (matter) is actually responsible for the only thing you actually know - that you exist (1). It actually postulates that abstractions generate the concrete; that the inference generates the known. This completely inverts the normal direction of inference, which is to infer the unknown from the known. You are completely ass backwards.

>>15492405

Cont'd

My view only requires 1 and 2 to be true. Both of which you, presumably, agree with. It acknowledges the only known (1) and makes an inference from it for 2. It requires no new ontological categories and does not work backwards from the abstract to the concrete.

I am guessing, though, that you will dispute 1. You will argue that consciousness is not real. Which you can say, and we can never prove you wrong with your much-cherised "evidence," but in doing so you are denying your own existence (subjective experience) and making yourself out to be a total clown who does not even acknowledge that you exist. The problem is that you do not know who or what you are. You spend all your time obsessing over models and zero time introspecting. By the way, physics only models our mental conception of reality, not reality itself. So once again, to reiterate, you are trying to say that an abstract inference somehow generates the concrete known. All your precious physics means jack shit. That's why I laugh at your whining about science and evidence and whatever other garbage they put into you head in school.

You should pay me for this lesson.

>>15492405
>I will shut you up for good because we are tired of your charlatanism, hubris, and blind spots.
By actually demonstrating your epistemology can better model reality? Oh wait no of course not how silly of me to hope.
>3) there are things that exist independently of, and outside of, conscious perception
>3 is a huge leap
No it isn't. If stuff does not exist independent of perception nothing could've evolved to have perception. To resolve this contradiction you would have to posit perceivers antecedent the cosmos, and yet more perceivers perceiving those perceivers, ad infinitum.
>4 says that this unknowable abstract stuff (matter)
Isn't unknowable. "justified true belief". Induction from its known properties working in the real world is the justification, and I do not require absolute certainty for knowledge.
>It actually postulates that abstractions generate the concrete; that the inference generates the known.
Utter nonsense. Does no such thing.
>I am guessing, though, that you will dispute 1.
Why the fuck would I dispute the brute fact of experience? You're so far up your own ass it's hilarious.
>You should pay me for this lesson.
If I were teaching your related logic philosophy class you'd get an F. I wouldn't pay you to brush my shoes. Not because you disagree, but because of your hysterically inept analysis of point 4, and because nowhere in point 4 is the logic you claim existed. That definitely gets a student a giant point reduction.

>>15492354
You know literally nothing about dark matter. You make the equivalent shitposts of popsci but as a thesit ibstead of an atheist

>>15492385
Literally no argument. The end result of every religious cuck’s ideology is increasingly nervous stupid laughter

>>15492278
>parsimony has anything to do with truth
Wow, I dont think there is word for how much of a psued you are. I bet you learned that evoking occam's razor mean you win the twitter argument on tumblr didn't you? JFC fuck off and die you fucking retard

>>15492510
Aw the poor baby can't think of an argument. They break so easily these days

>>15492516
Why do people post bad bait like this?

>>15492516
You are an actual literal retard who unironcially needs meds. It is glaringly apparent you are incapable of rational thought or argument

>>15492522
Still not an argument because you are still just spouting ad hominem drivel.

>>15492524
You are a doo doo head. Prove me wrong or I win. This is your level of "argumentation." You are an idiot, and being an idiot, are incapable of understanding how stupid you are. Stop wasting people's time posting on this board you fucking clown. Go be stupid on /tv/ or /pol/

>>15492537
He's worse than that because many people already proved him wrong and he just lies about them.

>>15492522
>throws tantrum
still not an argument
>>15492537
>BAWWWWWWWW
kek

>>15492537
>You are a doo doo head.
That is exactly the same drivel as all your previous non argument statements, with such gems as:
>You are an actual literal retard
>I dont think there is word for how much of a psued you are.
and
>LOL!

>>15492539
>He's worse than that because many people already proved him wrong and he just lies about them.
Oh do please entertain me with your illiteracy. Where was I "proved" wrong?

>>15488623
Correlation does not mean causation.

>>15492584
yawn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_and_independent_variables

>>15492421
lmfao you got utterly BTFO

>>15492586

You need to deduce conscious experiences from brain states in order to reasonably say brain states cause conscious experiences.

Otherwise, all you have is correlations, just a model of behavior.

>>15492421
>No it isn't. If stuff does not exist independent of perception nothing could've evolved to have perception. To resolve this contradiction you would have to posit perceivers antecedent the cosmos, and yet more perceivers perceiving those perceivers, ad infinitum.

It is a huge leap to say physical entities exist out there beyond the both of us. You are stuck in the category of consciousness, so you have never and will never directly know this material/physical stuff.

You know what's not a huge leap? Saying the observer independent world beyond you and I is also consciousness.

Idealism does not exclude an observer independent world

>>15492624
>You need to deduce conscious experiences from brain states
lol
1. "deduce from brain state" would literally be just correlational
2. You didn't click any of the links. There's plenty of active variable manipulation. That means it isn't just correlational.

>>15492634
>It is a huge leap to say physical entities exist out there beyond the both of us.
100% of all the evidence so far supports that. Not a huge leap. There is not a single model accepted in science, or used by anybody including you idiots, where adding something "nonphysical" improves its predictions.
>You know what's not a huge leap? Saying the observer independent world beyond you and I is also consciousness.
0% of any of the evidence so far supports that. Making it the hugest leap.

>>15492643
>100% of all the evidence so far supports that. Not a huge leap. There is not a single model accepted in science, or used by anybody including you idiots, where adding something "nonphysical" improves its predictions.

The models work just as well in the idealist mstaphysics. Science is metaphysically neutral since all it can tell you is how reality behaves, not what it is.

Materialism can't - even in principle - explain consciousness. In Materialism/Physicalism, the world is fundamentally quantitative; everything there is to the world is be captured by a list of numbers: mass, spin, charge, ... Consciousness is qualitative: the burn of a hot stove, the taste of an apple, the smell of burning wood. These have nothing to do and are incommensurable with each other by the nature of how Materialism characterizes the world, so you're left with the hard problem. Quantitative things have nothing to do with qualities, so you've chosen a metaphysics that by definition can't explain consciousness.
>0% of any of the evidence so far supports that. Making it the hugest leap.

It is completely reasonable to suggest that the world is of the same type as what you can directly know. Empericism. There is direct evidence of the category in question. We do not know and will never directly know this material/physical stuff.

>>15492636
>1. "deduce from brain state" would literally be just correlational

No.

To reasonably believe that consciousness is just brain states, you should be able to precisely deduce why neurological must lead to conscious experiences.

At the very least, which no Materialist variant has been able to do, you should be able to explain or deduce a single conscious experience.

The taste of BBQ sauce for instance. Give me a precise neurological activity that must be the taste of BBQ sauce and no other conscious experience. It could not be the smell of a rose, the sight of red or anything else.

Pick any conscious experience you want.

>>15492670
>The models work just as well in the idealist metaphysics.
Underdetermination is not evidence.
>Science is metaphysically neutral since all it can tell you is how reality behaves, not what it is.
Counts as evidence toward an ontology inductively. 0 for 2.
>Materialism can't - even in principle - explain consciousness.
Self-modeling not only sensedata but self awareness explains it well enough that this paper has 150 citations and counting. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276065623_The_attention_schema_theory_A_mechanistic_account_of_subjective_awareness
Plus practical application in AI development. Scientists demonstrate their work, people like you only make excuses and invent fictitious problems to cope.
>In Materialism/Physicalism, the world is fundamentally quantitative [...] Consciousness is qualitative
False dichotomy. Your personal incredulity and ignorance of how the body and brain work are not arguments. Experience, sensation, etc, are all evolved quantitative structures and the sum of that for experience is no different from the sum of any model.
>It is completely reasonable to suggest that the world is of the same type as what you can directly know.
Logical fallacies are not reasonable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

>>15492679
>To reasonably believe that consciousness is just brain states, you should be able to precisely deduce why neurological must lead to conscious experiences.
Says who? Direct variable manipulation is so bog standard it's 7th grade science. Arbitrary standards and more hypocrisy is all you have.

>>15492686

>Self-modeling not only sensedata but self awareness explains it well enough that this paper has 150 citations and counting. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276065623_The_attention_schema_theory_A_mechanistic_account_of_subjective_awareness
Plus practical application in AI development. Scientists demonstrate their work, people like you only make excuses and invent fictitious problems to cope.

Appeal to authority.

Your metaphysicalism position is inherently defined to not be able to explain consciousness. Lets drill there, enough with the side winding.

You defined the world to be quantitative, fully described by quantities. Now. You expect to be able to deduce qualities from a category that has nothing to do with qualities. This is nonsense, so all I can say is good luck!

>>15492687
>Says who?

That's what it means to explain something in terms of another thing.

>>15492689
>Appeal to authority.
Nope. Appeal to "it actually works and is useful", because unlike you liars honest people do real work.
>Your metaphysicalism position is inherently defined to not be able to explain consciousness.
Says you, based on fallacious reasoning already explained. >>15492686
>You expect to be able to deduce qualities from a category that has nothing to do with qualities. This is nonsense
Argument from incredulity again. Try again.

>>15492699
>Appeal to "it actually works and is useful"

What worked. Give me one conscious experiemce that can be deduced from the framework. The authors should pick up their 1 million dollar prize money.

>>15492696
>That's what it means to explain something in terms of another thing.
"Direct variable manipulation is so bog standard it's 7th grade science. Arbitrary standards and more hypocrisy is all you have."
You have no reason to reject direct variable manipulation and keep avoiding addressing it.
>What worked. Give me one conscious experiemce that can be deduced from the framework.
Already gave you what counts for causal inference. I don't care about your personal incredulity. You can either argue the causal inference or keep throwing toddler tantrums.

It's embarrassing to be an idealist. Not a single one of you has the balls to even open a link and look at what was listed as the direct variable manipulation. So far not a single one of you even know what causal inferences even are. Yet without a single shred of embarrassment you post diarrhea like this as if you expect anyone actually involved in science to do anything but point and fucking laugh at you. Infinite lolcows

>>15492714
>Already gave you what counts for causal inference. I don't care about your personal incredulity. You can either argue the causal inference or keep throwing toddler tantrums.

So, you can't give a single conscious experience that can be deduced from the framework. Got it.

>>15492717
>So, you can't give a single conscious experience that can be deduced from the framework. Got it.
So all you have is personal incredulity. Like I said. Yawn.

I wonder if even you are dumb enough to think anyone falls for your bullshit.

>>15492720

You claimed the theory "works well enough", so give me a single conscious experience it can explain in terms of physical arrangements. That's not arbritrary. At the very least, you should be able to explain a single conscious experience in your proposed framework.

>>15492731
>You claimed the theory "works well enough", so give me a single conscious experience it can explain in terms of physical arrangements.
I don't even need that theory to do so. I did so way back here >>15488623 and you dishonest little cowards have avoided it ever since.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_brain_stimulation#Effects
Oh look. Direct variable manipulation. Changing the physical stuff changes, removes, and produces, conscious experiences.

I can't wait to watch you move goalposts and tapdance your way to claiming that's totally not evidence. Inb4 lying and claiming that's "just correlation" like all the other idealists.

>>15492735

>produces, conscious experiences.

How did you go from physical stuff to consciousness precisely?

Give me the chain fron the physical to conscious experiences.

>>15492738
>How did you go from physical stuff to consciousness precisely?
Change the physical stuff you change the consciousness. Literally as simple as shock the brain the right amount in the right spots.

>>15492744

>Change the physical stuff you change the consciousness.

Why does changing the physical stuff change the consciousness? Make consciousness as a result of physical arrangements obvious to me.

>>15492761
>Why does changing the physical stuff change the consciousness?
Absent any other evidence the most parsimoneous answer is "because it is produced by that physical stuff".
>Make consciousness as a result of physical arrangements obvious to me.
Nipping this bullcrap in the bud now: Nobody has to do any such thing. You can *wish* it were obvious to you, but nobody is required to cater to your personal ignorance or incredulity. If you want to go find out in excruciating detail get a PhD in cognitive neuroscience, or spend an equivalent amount of time reading all the extant available literature on the subject of the brain, neurons, biology and evolution in general.

The simple fact that changing the physical stuff causes changes to consciousness is the evidence. Does it leave many questions? Sure. Does that matter to whether or not the physical stuff can be causally inferred to cause consciousness? No. If you think it does, try applying that to literally anything else and check your own hypocrisy. "Well yes I can see gravitational lensing but make it obvious to me why gravity is a thing". Personal incredulity is not an argument, and it is not a failing of anyone else's argument.

>>15492679
Newton did not need to produce an accurate mathematical formula to deduce gravity exists. Your request is asinine

>>15492765

Changing any number of disparate things can be said to "cause" a change in many other disparate things. Likewise, not changing some things can be said to change other things, and changing some things can be said to not change other things. All of this is nonsense.

>>15492778
>All of this is nonsense.
Every single time. Direct variable manipulation is perfectly fine for you liars when it comes to understanding physics, medicine, literally everything we do in science EXCEPT FOR consciousness. Then all of a sudden "no no there could be something else!!"

Hypocrite. You are all hypocrites.

>>15492765
>The simple fact that changing the physical stuff causes changes to consciousness is the evidence.

How is that a fact if you haven't shown the physical to exist?

> "Well yes I can see gravitational lensing but make it obvious to me why gravity is a thing"

I would ask the same thing. Showing that the world behaves according to a model does not show the ontology of the model.

>>15492786
>Direct variable manipulation is perfectly fine for you liars

Actually, it isn't. I think that Causality is occult nonsense (Catholicism) in general.

>>15492775

He never showed gravity to exist as part of a physical ontology. He showed that it is a very useful behavioral model.

>>15492810
>How is that a fact if you haven't shown the physical to exist?
>Muh solipsism
Fuck off the science board >>>/x/
>>15492814
>Actually, it isn't.
Feel free to stop using computers produced by science effective immediately then. In the meanwhile >>>/x/

Big surprise. Hypocrites and solipsists. Who could've seen this coming?

>>15492816

Computers are produced by factories.

>>15487581
Answer me this /sci/, the classic matter transporter dilemma dictates that if you break down your body and reconstruct it elsewhere you are just dying and a perfect copy with all your memories is being constructed in your place, but this assumption that your consciousness is innately tied to your cellular and by extension your molecular composition, does it not mean that you only really exist in the present and that any past memories you have were just wired into your brain by past consciousnesses that are now dead?

In effect, does it not mean that you have died countless times while reading this post as the cells in your mind die and are replaced?

>>15492823
And dishonest twats like you are produced by chalmers and narcissism.

>>15492824
>In effect, does it not mean that you have died countless times while reading this post as the cells in your mind die and are replaced?
Technically yes meaningfully no

>>15492407
>My view only requires 1 and 2 to be true
>2 to be true
By this line of argument only 1 would be true.
How would you be able to claim 2 without directly perceiving someone else's perception?
Your "huge leap" already happened between 1 and 2.
idealism is solipsistic at its root.

>>15492873
They always have to resort to it in the end to escape admitting causal inference to physicalism is valid. Every single fucking time.

>i am allowed to say "consciousness just exists for no reason"
>but you're not allowed to say "the physical just produces consciousness for no reason"

the hypocrisy of idealists.

>>15491149
>The same way it creates representations in dreams
And that way is?
>Which is to say, it is beyond our comprehension. We have no direct access to truth, at least until our bodies die, so we will never know.

I really thought you will tell me something interesting and meaningfull yet you are just hypocritical (and this is not intended as insult, that is a fact for you criticise other view for something you yourself do)

>>15492891
You think that's bad, try convincing the cult of quantum physics that just because the state of an electron is entangled until it is observed, does not mean that the state of the electron is not predetermined.

>>15492897
based superdeterminist?

>>15492891
It's worse. You can give good reason, the very same reason they themselves rely on the products of science, and you get "n-nuh uh".
>>15492897
You're not wrong. It's astounding how often causality denial rears its heads whenever special snowflakes want to rescue their dumb ideas.

>>15492884
I'm actually on the fence for this Idealism vs Materialism thing. I'm just saying if he's going to argue for Idealism at least own up to the full measure.
>>15492891
That's because consciousness, aka perception, comes first. The only way you can even posits there might be things other than your awareness is because you are aware of something.
Awareness is the starting point of all possible knowledge.

Describe red to me in a way that will allow me to see it the way you see it. I am blind. That's what I thought.

>>15492405
>1 is a a shared premise - "I think therefore I am." If you dispute this then you are denying your own existence, do not even understand your own theory, and are a bona fide retard.

Nope nope nope. That is only if you identify yourself as an idea. Iow. only if you assume you are the mind. Which clearly is absurd.

>3 is a huge leap because it creates a completely new ontological category - stuff existing outside of conscious perception for which you can never actually have any direct evidence

Really? No direct evidence? Not even that its a fact that you are allwqys consciouss of something? And if there is nothig to be consciouss of you wouldnt be consciouss? Why dont you go under anestesia and tell us what you where consciouss about.
The very fact that there must be something outside us to interact with us so we can be aware and consciouss about it throws your assumptions in garbage.

Also hahah... that would be solipsism no? Which you so determinly apply to other anon in 2.

>says that this unknowable abstract stuff (matter) is actually responsible for the only thing you actually know - that you exist (1). It actually postulates that abstractions generate the concrete; that the inference generates the known. This completely inverts the normal direction of inference, which is to infer the unknown from the known. You are completely ass backwards

No it is not abstraction it is a nominal description. This is 5th time we have to explain to people like you difference between naming something and interpretating something.
You are ltrly doing the very thing you acuse others off. And again it shows inherent hypocraci of idealists

>>15492899
>based superdeterminist?
Doesn't have to be. Though I suppose that depends on whether one would consider stochastic theories like broglie-bohm to be superdeterministic. It only technically qualifies as "hidden variable" in the sense dynamic nonlinear systems are predictable via the "hidden variable" of the total system state and "non-local" likewise.

Funny thing about that. For some reason you don't hear about the most obvious and intuitively inferred quantum model because everyone wants to believe in magic instead. Somehow the most popularized would rather the universe must magically stop working like everything works because "reasons".
>>15492902
>Awareness is the starting point of all possible knowledge.
Which is all well and good to premise knowledge on the brute fact of experience RIGHT UP UNTIL you regress to it and exclusively only it to avoid falsification of your pet fucking special snowflake theory. If they owned up to it right away there'd be no need for argument because we could all more immediately have pointed and laughed. That's why they lie for 50 posts before realizing they can't bullshit who they're talking to and THEN admit it.

>>15492910
>Describe red to me in a way that will allow me to see it the way you see it.
Category error. If I describe music in its notation you aren't hearing the music from the description. It has to be converted into the right signal to be music again. In other words,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93brain_interface
There's no reason this can't be done.

>>15492917
Do it then faggot.

>>15492917
EXACTLY ANON
This whole 1stP/3rdP argument is just nonsense. Proponents of qualia bash physicalists for something they them selfs cant do. Transfer experience trough words. Well no shit..
But they give a blinde eye to a fact that description of mechanism behinde experience can be used to reproduce it... noo but why would anyone consider that..

>>15492914
>whether one would consider stochastic theories like broglie-bohm to be superdeterministic
technically it would be superdeterministic because i assume that it violates statistical independence, and that is the sole criterion to qualify as superdeterministic. but i lean toward locality being real, personally.

>>15492920
Not my specialization. I don't give a shit about neurosurgery.
>>15492926
Often times you'll hear them abuse the term "category error" which is, I think, why people don't realize they're the ones making one. Hopefully that helps you deal with their bullshit in future. However while that specific formulation was broadly a kind of category error the specific concepts they most often fuck up is division/composition,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

It really is always the same. "Durrr muh mary's room" you might as well claim CD's can't be made to play music because 1's and 0's aren't musical notes. It's a category error and is almost always paired with a fallacy of composition or a fallacy of division.

So there you go. With three concepts you can BTFO 100% of idealist rhetoric. They might as well argue that bricks can't make walls.

>>15492914
There's something I've taken to calling the "charity as business dilemma." Basically companies like the Red Cross make their money from donations that are funneled into relief efforts, but if those relief efforts ever stop because they fix all the problems, everybody working at the Red Cross will lose their job. Effectively, charities that operate as businesses actually have no incentive the fix any problems which is why their efforts are slow and ineffective. They need to keep up a front of doing something while also not rendering themselves obsolete. This is where science is, scientists make shit money but it is still money, and if they for example, discovered the meaning of life the universe and everything, we would not need scientists anymore and all the scientists would lose their jobs. Quantum physics isn't afraid to tackle new frontiers because they're afraid of starting again, they're afraid of tackling new frontiers because it means the experts that dedicated their lives studying nonsense will be unemployed.

>>15492894

No. Consciousness is the only known thing. Your own existence is proof. You don't need external evidence. You ARE the evidence.

>>15492914
There is actually no reason why you people should get this worked up over this arguement.
Because there is a very direct way to settle it all.

Demonstrable magic.

If consciousness is just a product of physical interactions, such as the brain, then magic would not be possible.
If solid evidence of demonstrable magic/esp..etc. ever surfaces, then that settles the argument.

>>15492902
>That's because consciousness, aka perception, comes first
begging the question.

>>15492928
>technically it would be superdeterministic because i assume that it violates statistical independence, and that is the sole criterion to qualify as superdeterministic.
Right. I'm not saying that it isn't, but one never knows what somebody's opinion is as to classification. I'd conceive of it similarly.
>but i lean toward locality being real, personally.
I used to, but that was due to the grotesque abuse of the concept of "non-locality" by all the insane retarded shit. However, non-locality need not be woo. You can equally compare it to any dynamic nonlinear system, so any stochastic analysis, where the determination of some given moment is a product of the total system. Same way weather systems work and nearly everything else in reality. It is in that sense it is "non-local", and yes that does qualify.

Basically the reason nonlocality turns most people off is the screaming retards pushing blatantly retarded fantasies and abusing the concept.

>>15492934
Can you prove anybody but you is conscious? Keep in mind self awareness and consciousness are two different things.

Quantum physicists be like
>Yeah things on an atomic scale follow different rules to things on a macroscopic scale
>And yeah you can directly follow the scale on a linear path from small to big
>But it MUST BE QUANTUM GRAVITY IT MUST!

>>15492935
>Because there is a very direct way to settle it all.
I was going to point out the colossal absurdity of conceiving of aspects of consciousness as distinct entities, earlier, but I didn't want to give the lying little shit more weasel room. You don't need to use the magic example for that, and they probably won't see the connection. Rather, ask where the distinct concepts are. Where is taste? Pain? Tallness? Idealists are effectively arguing for a reality where *concepts* are severable from the physical, and to say that exists necessarily entails the concepts existing as distinct things. Okay then, where the fuck are they? Show me the concept of red. It's utterly fucking nuts.

>>15492939
That's not begging the question. That's just stating the fact.
Asking what, or if anything, created consciousness/awareness is like asking a theoist what created God or asking a scientist what started the Big Bang.
It might not be something you can know ever.

>>15492900

You retards worship causation as a religion. Causation ain't real bitch. Your brain made it up.

>>15492944
If you don't like the quantum gravity BS there's also stochastic emergent gravity. I was rather pissed off to learn there, too, my ideas were not original, and I was scooped hardcore.

Basically for quantum mechanics we've a SANE and sensible inference that fits everything we know, and see, about literally everything we've ever seen. Just emergent stochastic systems. The only reason this is not the dominant ontology is because selling woo seems to get more attention than "Yeah actually in the end it works like everything else does".

>>15492950
>That's not begging the question. That's just stating the fact
no, in fact it is begging the question.

>It might not be something you can know ever.
irrelevant, it doesn't follow that consciousness is fundamental. and this is not even to mention the brain studies.

>>15492952
>Throw brick at window
>It breaks
>URM BUT HACKSHUALLY THE ELECTRONS MEAN ANYTHING COULD HAVE HAPPENED WHEN THE BRICK HIT THE WINDOW INCLUDING THE UNIVERSE COLLAPSING

>>15492947
The closest example to help understand the Idealist standpoint is video game.
In a video game the rendered object in a gameplay would be the physical objects.
The not rendered programming objects would be the concepts such as "red".
It exists and produces the physical, but it cannot be interacted with during gameplay.

>>15492934
You are skiping the whole set of facts why are you consciouss in first place. You are just throwing out the window fact that you need something to be consciouss of. Yet you are here presenting interpretation of consciousness as some ghost in machine. Not even considering that you are abusing umbrela term for many phenomena which everyone in PoM agress upon. You know that you are conaciouss because you are aware that external stimuli produce experience when in interaction with you sensory organs. Why is this so hard to comprehand to you? Are you willingly ignorant? I dont understand.
Who is this "You"? The ghost in machine?
The idea that requires whole set of steps which you so willingfully neglact?

>>15492962
I guess I should've explained why it's nuts. You can invent an ad hoc reason why it "can make sense" by analogy, but that's all it is. Worse, it's unfalsifiable, that is to say untestable, by definition. So it's fucking nuts in the sense that it's the exact opposite of everything we do in science, and basically requires admitting it's nothing short of a religious faith claim.

Not saying you couldn't through some contrivance come up with a testable hypothesis for it, but I've literally never seen a single idealist EVER do so.

>>15492952
Learn what terms religion and worship is then we will tallk.
Oh and also define "real"for us when you are so happily typing this word.

>>15492957
>and this is not even to mention the brain studies
Brain activites correlates with what can be perceived internally. We can never know for sure whether it correlate or causes awareness itself.
>it doesn't follow that consciousness is fundamental
But it does, quite directly too.
This fact doesn't mean we should discard material science. The materialism model thus far predicates change in what can be perceived very well.
Until something better comes along it's the best we've got.
But don't mistake the map for the terrain.

>>15492969
>Brain activites correlates with what can be perceived internally. We can never know for sure whether it correlate or causes awareness itself.
If you're the same person who was already given resource on this, you're just outright lying now. You are actively being deceitful by continuing to pretend all we have is correlating brain activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_brain_stimulation#Effects

If not: For fuck sake will you retards read someone other than Chalmers he's a con man.

>>15492969
>we can't know, therefore consciousness is fundamental
you can't be serious, lol

>>15492969
>But don't mistake the map for the terrain.

This... really this... this is all science is doing.. maping terrain. Or better, creating a blueprint of how reallity works. It is not even concerned with what is it or why is it (in grand scale). Yet for some reasson, no one in philosophy understands this.

>>15492957
>no, in fact it is begging the question.
As for YOU, no, brute facts are not begging the question. Asserting therefore consciousness "is fundamental" to the universe itself is, however, an association fallacy. Asserting it in an argument where that premise is also in the conclusion to "prove" it being fundamental would be begging the question.

You're getting a lot of shit wrong and it's painful to watch. He said consciousness comes first, not the idealist retardation about consciousness underlying the universe.

>>15492974
>It is not even concerned with what is it or why is it (in grand scale)
of course, because that's impossible to obtain.

>>15492970
My mistake there, "causes" would be the correct word. Just as a pinprick would cause what can be perceived externally.
But "something" is aware of both the pinprick and brain activities at the furthest end. That "something" is termed "consciousess" by the Idealist side, not "memory" or "intelligence", but an awareness.
This awareness is the fundemental.

>>15492975
you're getting it wrong, not i. it is begging the question. and you seem to misunderstand idealism. it IS the belief that consciousness comes first.

>>15492970
>Chalmers he's a con man
>Builds view of phenomena based on faulty intuition and different ontological framework without providing reasson why should he use it at first place
>Uses it to show faults of physicalism, while ignoring the fact that physicalism does not even function on ontology he does
>Postulates "secreet engredient" which should explain gap between physical and mental, but does not consider that that makes problem even more unsolvable (bcs introducing another element)
>Con man?
Anon why do you think he is conman gosh hahah he is just using unverfiable story to shitpost in scientific community

>>15492978
>This awareness is the fundemental.
Okay, now you're confusing even me with your word choices. Are you still referring to the cogito, as in fundamental to knowledge, or are you making the idealist fundamental claim about the universe? Because back here, unless I lost track of who was posting what, you just pointed out the simple fact the fact you experience comes first >>15492902

>>15492977
And that is perfectly clear to most of us right? Yet there is this percent of people who refuse to acknowledge this and keep creating and using storys built on assumptions and interpretations to push it as only true world view while doing exactly what we know we cant know.
I am loosing my mind about this.

>>15492980
>you're getting it wrong, not i. it is begging the question. and you seem to misunderstand idealism. it IS the belief that consciousness comes first.
No, anon. There's a difference between the simple epistemic fact knowledge about the world and subsequent inference begins from cogito versus saying consciousness is fundamental or solipsistic arguments. Usually solipsists, which idealists invariably retreat to, arbitrarily reject inference.

Look, the only thing confusing here, now, is whether he originally meant the banal observation about epistemology or not. Or if he swapped to the idealist claims in between. No, cogito is not an idealist point, it applies broadly to many epistemologies including fallibilism. It *can be* a premise in an idealist point but it is not necessarily idealist.

>Was just thinking about this
>There is a thread about it
Solipsism: 1
Everything else: 0

>>15492992
Jokes on you i was just thinking that you will think that there will be thread like this and be smug about it. You are in my mind anon.

>>15492985
>Are you still referring to the cogito, as in fundamental to knowledge, or are you making the idealist fundamental claim about the universe?
I'm making the argument to fundamental to knowledge. Which if made makes the idealist position possible (though of course not proven).
In my view, like I mentioned above, what proves the Idealist position conclusively is magic.

>>15492990
solipsism and idealism are very clearly separate things.

solipsism = "i am the only consciousness"
idealism = consciousness is fundamental

it's that simple.

>No, cogito is not an idealist point,
i know. but i don't know why you're bringing up the cogito.

>>15492994
You're right, I am.
Solipsism: 2
Everything else: 0

>>15492995
>Which if made makes the idealist position possible (though of course not proven).
...It is literally the only way any position is possible. If you don't exist you don't have positions. I am not sure if you even know what you mean?
>In my view, like I mentioned above, what proves the Idealist position conclusively is magic.
Now I am even more confused. What? How do you connect those two dots?

>>15493000
>solipsism and idealism are very clearly separate things.
Yes, they are, but every idealist retreats to solipsism when cornered was my point. Case in point my argument with the earlier shitforbrains, possibly plural, where both of them retreat to solipsism and denying causality. As I rage about here >>15492816
>i know. but i don't know why you're bringing up the cogito.
Because based on what the other guy's original post was about, in context, that's what he meant. He also confirms that's what he meant after I just asked here >>15492995.

The problem is you appear to have misinterpreted what he meant in that specific post earlier, hence my trying to clarify so you stop talking past one another. Doesn't mean he won't **also** argue subsequently that consciousness is fundamental to the universe or some nonsense, but cogito is not an idealist only position. Externalizing the cogito, or consciousness, as both fundamental and severable, is.

>>15492982
>Anon why do you think he is conman gosh hahah he is just using unverfiable story to shitpost in scientific community
Right?

>>15493004
>Now I am even more confused. What? How do you connect those two dots?
I'll get a bit into the Occult then.

Materialism model of reality:
-Big Bang
-Matter
-Intelligence (single organism)
-Conscicousness (self-aware high level organism)

Idealist model of reality:
-Pure conscious awareness
-looking in on itself
-Fractal incommensurability
-??? (Kabblah, Buddhism..etc. they have many models)
-The current perceivable universe

The point is, Idealist view of reality posits magic, the ability to cause change to world through will, bypassing any physical interactions that can be explained by the current materialism model.
If this can be demonstrably done, then their position becomes unassailable by the current materialistic paradigm.

I realize I should've explained to you both how the cogito applies in more formal terms just in case you actually want to know why I'm saying what I am.
>>15492995
>>15493000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_criterion
The cogito as a brute fact is a solution to the problem of criterion. Namely, "the starting point of knowledge", which is just experience. If you didn't exist to experience you can't have knowledge. That is not the framing of the whole of the original cogito, nor gets into Russell's criticism of assuming the nature of the experience (which is NOT a brute fact to be clear). Point is that it's just the starting point that makes knowledge conceptually possible. *That* is not about idealism, to be specific.
>>15493028
>If this can be demonstrably done, then their position becomes unassailable by the current materialistic paradigm.
Eh. Fuckit. I'm game. Is it a magic circle potlock or do you provide the chalk and candles?
Jokes aside I don't personally care to argue because you're at least positing some way to test your hypothesis.

>>15492958

Electrons aren't real bitch

>>15493038
ur mom wasn't real

>>15487846
Quantum Mechanics, at this part of the country, at this time of year, localized entirely in your head?

>>15493028
all change starts with will

>>15493061
will me up some coffee, then

>>15493032
>Eh. Fuckit. I'm game. Is it a magic circle potlock or do you provide the chalk and candles
Heh, according to /x/ UFOs manage to pull off FTLs are based on techs of said magic.
Now with all the latest fiasco and the Congress looking seriously into this latest whistleblower, if something turns up, then who knows.
Either way, time to laugh at schizos again or get our collective minds blown I got my popcorns ready.

>>15493075
>Heh, according to /x/ UFOs manage to pull off FTLs are based on techs of said magic.
Of course they would.
>Now with all the latest fiasco and the Congress looking seriously into this latest whistleblower, if something turns up, then who knows.
Nah. Everyone got clickbaited. There may be veracity to his claims of legacy systems operating within and between agencies when they're not supposed to be doing so anymore, but he has no evidence. He, like all the rest, is just claiming that "someone totally saw this I swear". Like most people who are going to lie, it's a lot more profitable and easier to sell the lie when it's paired with an irrelevant truth.

>>15493075
>trump gets indicted for some stupid shit and LOOK UFOS right when the evidence of Biden taking bribes gets proven for fact
ah to be young and naive again

>>15492421

>No it isn't. If stuff does not exist independent of perception nothing could've evolved to have perception. To resolve this contradiction you would have to posit perceivers antecedent the cosmos, and yet more perceivers perceiving those perceivers, ad infinitum.

You just discovered God, congrats! I knew you could do it!

>Isn't unknowable

Yes, yes it is. All you ever know is your consciousness. Seethe more. You got BTFO. Nothing you can say refutes any of those four things, despite all your sophistry.

>>15492670

Stop, stop, he's already dead! This is almost sad at this point, like beating up a retard.

>>15493270
>You just discovered God
Nope. I just proved "God" for idealists requires special pleading and is otherwise infinitely improbable by comparison.
>Yes, yes it is. All you ever know is your consciousness.
Cope. "Justified true belief". As justification inference is perfectly fine.

>>15492786

Because your starting premise is wrong. I think the actual problem is that you are not self-aware. You are an NPC with no awareness of your inner experience. You are an animal. That is why you don't even know what we're talking about.

>>15492873

Yes, we only know 1. 2 is an inference. But materialism makes the same inference. I really don't think you dispute that. Are you trying to argue that only you exist? Now who's the solipsist?

>>15493288
>Yes, we only know 1. 2 is an inference. But materialism makes the same inference
>Inferences are okay if and only if they support my bias
kek

>>15492670
>Materialism/Physicalism, the world is fundamentally quantitative

You are just strawmaning at this point.

>>15487581
Mind is the brain. Specificaly, mind is concept that referes to certain workings of a brain. That is clear to anyone but philosophy, which forgets that concepts are not allways referetion points for "things" in them self.
This thread is rigged from start, assuming mind/brain duallity in very beggining. Saturating neutral conversation with unecessery ontological biases.

>>15493270
Holly crap someone actually holds Barkleys idealism...

>All you ever know is your consciousness

With all due respect anon, in this case id you hold this belife, you should shut the fuck up for you know nothing and anything you say is bullcrap.
This is not intended as an insult, this is common sense conclusion drawn as implication of your premise.

>>15493322
>Holly crap someone actually holds Barkleys idealism...
Oh come on anon we both know lying for jesus is why most idealists hold to such a retarded ideology. Presuppositionalists, like those from Van Til's ideology, do the exact same thing.

>>15492913
>only if you assume you are the mind. Which clearly is absurd.

You are your mind you absolute retard. You keep stating the answer but ignoring it. You have stated the key to understanding everything but refuse to acknowledge it. You are your mind. That is not absurd. It is reality. It is absurd to suggest anything else.

>Really? No direct evidence? Not even that its a fact that you are allwqys consciouss of something? And if there is nothig to be consciouss of you wouldnt be consciouss? Why dont you go under anestesia and tell us what you where consciouss about.
The very fact that there must be something outside us to interact with us so we can be aware and consciouss about it throws your assumptions in garbage.

wtf are you smoking? You can never know anything outside of your consciousness. The rest of your words are pointless.

>>15492914

You are seething so hard. You got nothing bitch.

>>15493335
>wtf are you smoking? You can never know anything outside of your consciousness. The rest of your words are pointless.
>continues to pretend knowledge means absolute certainty
lmao

>>15492942

It is an inference that both idealism and materialism make. Are you the solipsist now?

>>15492947

There is no physical you retard. The only thing that you know exists is consciousness. You can seethe about it all you want, but facts are facts. I operate in a world of facts. You operate in a fantasy land.

>>15492964

The physical world is unfalsifiable. Your entire theory is anti-science and unfalsifiable. What now?

>>15492965

You worship causation and materialism as your god, you dogmatic freak.

Real in that context means existing as material as defined by materialism. But you knew that and are just playing dumb.

>>15493010

You are beyond stupid. Not a single person in this thread is a solipsist. Denying physical causality as fundamental does not make you a solipsist. You are simply stupid.

Watching the keyboard warrior idealist tryhard individually reply to every single fucking post, while claiming others are seething, and failing to make a single salient point... this has GOT to be one of the funniest fucking things I have seen in a long time.

>>15493283

>blah blah blah I can't refute shit so I will shitpost

The sad thing is you actually discovered God but reject him. We know where you'll be going when your body dies...

>>15493290

How stupid do you have to be to infer that a concrete fact is caused by a complete unknown abstraction that you can never directly experience or know exists?

>>15493322

That's a lot of words to say you can't refute it. I accept your concession.

>>15493341

That is what knowledge means. You have the mind of a child.

>>15493367

Prove that anything outside of consciousness exists. We'll wait.

>>15493384
>Prove that anything outside of consciousness exists.
Stuff had to exist prior to consciousness evolving, else it could not have evolved. Therefore, stuff outside of consciousness exists.
>B-buht muh sky daddy
Completely ad hoc. What consciousness existed prior to your sky daddy? If he always existed, then on the same basis the cosmos always existed and with the same special pleading you're going to use. What now?

>>15493330
We do.. i mean look at them.. Dogmatism, presuppositionalism, contradictions... classic bullying tactics with ad hominem in it.
These people are trully something else
... no wonder most of scientific community wants them on meds.

>>15493335
>You are your mind you absolute retard

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Oh boi this is best one yet...

>>15493360
Present arguments that are not built on assumptions and interpretatiom and i just might take anything you and your cult buddys seriously.

>>15493439
>... no wonder most of scientific community wants them on meds.
Oh come on don't be silly. Scientists don't even know these retards exists. They're like young earth creationists. Normal sane people have no clue unhinged retards like this are even a thing anymore.

>>15493402

>Stuff had to exist

You fail. Baseless assertion. Try again.

>>15493442
Just to make clear why i laugh at you:
First i am consciousness
Then i am mind
... my gosh anon you are swinging from assumption to assumption like some feral monkey.

>>15493443

Prove anything exists outside consciousness and then we'll talk.

>>15493449

Consciousness is mind.

>>15493448
>You fail. Baseless assertion.
lol no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
Valid syllogism. Try again.

>>15493451
Oh boi... as i said before.. consciousness is produces by interaction. If there is nothing you can interact with, you wouldnt be consciouss. Yet you are. Therefore, things exists outside my consciousness.


But also as i told your budys many times.. ill give you adress.. we will meet. We will throw you out of the building, if you keep existing in my consciousness then ill accept your view, if not.. well.. you get it

>>15493453
No its not..

>>15493367
I enjoy watching sophists piss and shit themselves. That is what you are, a sophist, which is nice way of calling you a pilpuling kike. You have lost but are too stupid to realize it. You are cultist too stupid to refute your cult beliefs and think denial is a substitute for truth. You are a fool as are are the other people in your cult

>>15493500
qq

>>15493460
>>15493464

There is nothing more to say to you obtuse tards. You deny your own existence. It is pointless and fruitless to discuss with you. Truly lost souls.

>>15493402
>consciousness evolving

You're just assuming consciousness emergered with no justification.

>>15493297

Where is the strawman? Physicalism makes quantitative abstractions the world "out there".

>>15493584
>You're just assuming consciousness emergered with no justification.
evolution is the justification. Your personal ignorance and incredulity aren't arguments. Try again kid

>>15493624

Evolution will not show that your chosen ontology of physical entities in the observer independent world (which I agree the OIW is there) is true.

>>15493673
>Evolution will not show that your chosen ontology of physical entities in the observer independent world (which I agree the OIW is there) is true.
Impossibility of the contrary given evolution does. Learn to read kid >>15493402

>>15493402
>Stuff had to exist prior to consciousness evolving, else it could not have evolved. Therefore, stuff outside of consciousness exists.

> assumes consciousness emerges, begging the question.

>>15493686
>assumes consciousness emerges, begging the question.
Nope. We evolved, and evolved consciousness. Ergo, consciousness is emergent.

>>15493716

>again assumes consciousness emerges, begging the question.

You are super dense

>>15493730
>You are super dense
Nah, you're just a liar. I assumed no such thing. You're assuming antecedent consciousness to assume I am assuming. Hence, lying. I am only using things we actually know and have evidence for, you're adding an ad hoc rescue device to save your bullshit.

>>15493716

> We evolved
Agreed
> evolved consciousness

This just doesn't follow no matter how many times you repeat it. Evolution is ontologically neutral. What precludes our type of (private) consciousness from forming out of the medium of a universal consciousness?

>>15493826
>This just doesn't follow no matter how many times you repeat it
It does, you just keep assuming consciousness must be something else. All the evidence supports the simple fact consciousness evolved.
>What precludes our type of (private) consciousness from forming out of the medium of a universal consciousness?
The fallacious nature of the proposition. It's special pleading "Oh well THIS consciousness doesn't need a consciousness to have formed it", or infinite recursion if not specially plead, and most obviously complete lack of evidence.

Of course all that being said it's really just to escape the obvious contradiction inherent to supposing consciousness came first. All evidence contradicts that.

>>15493826
Take your meds holy shit lmao

>>15492584
Causation is still a type of correlation.

>>15493866
>All the evidence supports the simple fact consciousness evolved.

You don't have any evidnece of your ontology.
You can't even explain a SINGLE conscious experinece in purely terms of physical entities.

>>15492679
>you should be able to precisely deduce why neurological must lead to conscious experiences.
Sensation yields behavior and behavior in an existence this complex depends on choice.

>Give me a precise neurological activity that must be the taste of BBQ sauce
There are trillions of neurons for your conscious experience, we don't have the computation power to simulate neural nets that large and even the scale we can simulate are large and complex enough that the full electro-chemical formula probably can't ever be simplified enough to your simple minded satisfaction since even DNA its convoluted to explain genetic sequences and biological traits beyond the scope of a single post.

>Pick any conscious experience you want.
They all rely on neural networks, so work harder to understand those than try to convince yourself you can only be ignorant to avoid the work it takes to understand something intricate and elaborate.

>>15492731
>o give me a single conscious experience it can explain in terms of physical arrangements.
A conversation is a conscious experience whose internal experience can be explained with LLMs and demonstrated with GPTs like you.

>>15493908
>You don't have any evidnece of your ontology.
Induction is evidence and 100% of it supports my ontology. Cope and seethe.

>>15492910
They are working on brain implants that can do that, its not something that can be described verbally or semantically in the detail you are asking.

If you could hear I would try to equivocate it with something like thing of colors as different intensities of sound and telling green from red, etc is like telling screaming from whispering, tc, but I can't just talk in red, so you can't hear what I see.

>>15492942
>Can you prove anybody but you is conscious?
Yes, the basic test for consciousness is called "How Many Fingers Am I Holding Up" if the person is blind, just play "What Is Your Name", but we aren't talking about the exceptions we are talking about the general rules and anyone else, not someone with multiple disabilities specifically.

>Keep in mind self awareness and consciousness are two different things.
Consciousness is self awareness plus environment awareness and reacting to sensation and the tests prove all those.

>>15492952
>Your brain made it up
So you are saying that the brain caused something to happen?

>>15493270
>You just discovered God, congrats! I knew you could do it!
That is the exact opposite of god, though, with god, you have to stop at some ultimate beginning rather than regress infinitely.

>>15493350
>I operate in a world of facts.
No, you operate in a world where you need a physical computer to transmit your retarded thoughts because you can not just consciously communicate directly to the rest of us since consciousness is an emergent experience dependent on lower physical one rather than direct base property.

>>15493360
>You worship causation and materialism as your god,
Not without causation since you can never actually say if the worship is caused by him.

>>15493370
>actually discovered God
No, you admitted you would require infinite steps to discover your god, so fuck off and get to stepping and come back when you have reach an infinite amount.

>>15493384
Wait until you go to sleep and prove it to yourself as there is unaccounted time you slept away.

>>15493500
I thought you gave up.

>>15493968

God is infinity. That IS the essence.

>>15493730
you have to realize he is literally mentally ill, psychotic even. you may as well be arguing with a mumbling crackhead on the streets of San francisco. can't he can't even follow simple logic?

>>15493991
i just dropped a nice fat turd in my toilet boil. Get your dog bowl and you can have it to chow down

>>15494110
lol I can't believe you keep running into that trap of a point. That was the whole point you idiot. Your idea is INFINITELY implausible

>>15492958

Yes. Some windows do not break when hit by bricks, others break without being hit by bricks.

>>15494600

Your hubris is infinite lmao. Just because you can't conceive of infinity doesn't mean it's non-existent. The entire concept of God is inherently infinite in nature.

>>15494462
Says the German porn-esque shiteater

>>15494110
Then if god is opposites and begins at the end of some infinity, it means its existence is nonexistent.

>>15494995
>Your hubris is infinite lmao. Just because you can't conceive of infinity doesn't mean it's non-existent.
Um, no. I am correctly conceiving that your appeal to an infinitely regressive chain of perceivers is infinitely unlikely due to infinitely compounding improbabilities.

You are literally accusing me of failing to conceive of what you're failing to conceive.

>>15495195
>>15495336

Humble yourself. You really think you can conceptualize God, who is simultaneously existence and non-existence, and encompasses all, and is infinite in every way? You have to understand that "God" is inherently unknowable.

Sigh, the hubris of man. Open your heart and welcome the unknown and you will find the answers you seek. Or continue down your futile path with no end.

>>15495623
>Humble yourself.
Says the arrogant fuckwit thinking he knows best by appealing to an **infinitely improbable** argument and not only claims to be right but smugly asserts others are arrogant for pointing that out.

Can't help narcissists I guess