/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15658150
no science or math

>>15658150
go back to philosophy board or something

>>15658150
What is the word for a sort of metaphysical bicameralism? I believe that consciousness is resultant from a part of our being (the conscious part as opposed to the mechanical physical part) existing at a higher dimensional state of existence, and that part converses metaphysically at a quantum level within our brain cells with our 3rd dimensional physical being (That which is tangible and what we view as 'self,' though in reality the self is that higher existence that thinks (therefore is), not our tangible material body that has no identity of itself) and manipulates the brain's functioning by manipulating the brain cells at a quantum level. Therefore, the physical acts out the will of that supra-physical self. That is what gives us a consciousness, in my cosmological world view. What is the appropriate word for this way of thinking?

>>15658150
>>15658188

What about free will?

>>15658150
No. Just no.

>>15658237
The physical body might be just a puppet to the puppeteer that is our consciousness, but based on your theory, bicameralism would be another puppeteer that controls that metaphysical consciousness: e.g. ("God" -> "Self" -> Physical body) as based on your theory instead of just ("God" -> "Self"). There might be another layer added, but nothing has changed in a theoretical sense.

I wouldn't call your theory a way of thinking, it would just add another layer to our understanding of consciousness. You could maybe argue that the physical body is the conscious mind and that the metaphysical is the sub-conscious, but that would just give us a deeper understanding of bicameralism: e.g. ("Metaphysical self -> "Physical Self"), but one "Self" still has no control of their actions.

>>15658188
Where should this general go

>>15658188
Consciousness is a topic in quantum mechanics. Are you saying quantum mechanics isn't science?

>>15658585
This

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nwcbfMHNf8

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.

>>15658605
I have been watching a playlist of all this guys videos since you first posted a link to one a few months ago and I have to say he knows his business and is a good source for noobs to get acquainted with the science and arguments. Good find anon, you are not a faggot

>>15658620
>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.

>>15658550
Well, not exactly. There is no God in my equation of consciousness. It is simply Self -> Physical. Perhaps the physical imposes bounds to the "self" that make it seem like it is actively puppeteered, but that would be illusory. It is not entirely coherent to me that a "God" actively puppeteers all consciousness. I don't think one can ever comprehend what that proposition really even means.

>>15658628

I don't understand why people take the opinion of a man who very likely is qualia blind (genetically unable to notice the uniqueness of qualia) seriously.

He hasn't even done the basic study of consciousness through direct experience through practices like mediation.

>>15658430
doesn't exist.

>>15658605
When I suggested wavefunction collapse is tied to consciousness people called me a retard. Time to watch 36 more videos on why /sci/ is always wrong.

>>15659138
>When I suggested wavefunction collapse is tied to consciousness people called me a retard.
they were right. the wave function doesn't collapse, it's just an average

>>15659153
>probability of potential event flailing up an down
>observer observers
>position fixed
How is that not a collapse? What do you mean just an average? An event took place in the physical world.

>>15659173
it's because the wave function does not describe the probability of any future events. rather it's some kind of average of hidden variables

source: sabine (legit)

>>15659188
>rather it's some kind of average of hidden variables
Ah, that makse sense. Ty.

>>15659188
buy an ad sabine

Explanation of qualia, consciousness, free will, and the intelligible universe:

https://youtu.be/xqY08gN_FCM

>>15658650
God = Unbound Telesis = The One = You (me, everything)

>researchgate.net/profile/Dirk-Meijer-5

There really ought to be a bigass open consciousness symposium bringing all sorts of inquiring minds and researchers together to solve the hard problem once and for all

Been keeping a list of promising individuals in this regard, maybe i'll try to get them all to team up some time lol

>>15659237
>God = Unbound Telesis = The One = You
I never really understood this. If that's the case what happens when two of these entities cross paths? Do we all meet on neutral grounds (earth) and have this shitass no powers experience or is it more like a Russian nesting doll where all gods are contained in the first god repeating recursively which is (You) and if that's the case fucking why the fuck are we doing that and where do these interactions between entities take place?

>>15659237
Then what is the reason for our apparent distinctness? What does God even mean here? Just consciousness? or us? Saying we are or consciousness is God doesn't prove the existence of either. This seems like circular reasoning ngl. See this is what your statement does:
>We exist. How do we know? Because we are conscious (Or in descartes words, because we think). Where does Consciousness come from? God. Who is God? We are God. How do we know he exists? Because we exist. How do we know? Because we are conscious. Where does it come from? God. Who ............ (ad infinitum)
And it goes on forever. That statement doesn't solve our problem of the origin and nature of consciousness at all, just gives us another circular argument.

>>15659153

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question

>>15658430
>>15659098
Here are possible mechanisms for how free will could exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8EkwRgG4OE

>>15658237
Dual-aspect theory maybe?

Don't mind me, just dropping the truth.

>>15658628
Dennett has always struck me as a very angry, catty man.

>>15662181

Reminder that Aquinas was never refuted; only ignored.

>>15662181
>>15662202
What was unique about Aquinas that hadn't been said before? What did he come up with on his own? Genuine question because all of his stuff reads as "Copy and paste it, but change it slightly so the teacher can't tell" type of work taken straight from philosophers before him and just expressed in Medieval Catholicism's taste. Still impressive for his time, but why should we living today think anything of him, considering we aren't Medieval Catholics.

>>15662217

Aquinas combined the prior stuff with God and ethics. Theology + philosophy + ethics + metaphysics, none of which has been refuted. It wasn't that it was so groundbreaking and unique, but he synthesized everything into truth.

>>15662227
I see. Yeah that was my impression of him as well.

>>15662240

Read him though. His system is still the closest to truth. Of course, it all hinges on God. So start with proofing God (through Aquinas or others).

>>15661614
That question makes no sense.

>>15662710
It's guaranteed. What?

>>15662715
Don't promise me nothing. You're nothing. There is nothing to worry about you standing face to face with me. Before or after your hells.

nick land says that life is anti-entropy. consciousness is the fundamental property of a system that is capable of reversing entropy. it is seeking a higher order of energy.

this seems plausible to me

>>15662718
Looks symmetrical to me.

>>15662719
Trust me
You're doing the wrong thing.

This is not how you escape.

>>15658150
How do materialists cope with the fact that local realism has been debunked? Reality is fake and an illusion, created by your mind. The material world is made up of matter and energy, things like atoms and photons and other particles. But every experience you have is non-material. You don't experience the world in terms of atoms or photons. Photons have wavelengths and these are represented by color. But color only exists inside your mind. Color is not material. Same with molecules that bind to your olfactory receptors. Smell is an experience in your mind, but molecules don't intrinsically have a "smell." You can't measure the smell of a molecule, that doesn't make sense. You can however measure the concentration of a substance or determine its molecular structure and weight. So everything you experience of and know about the material world is in non-material terms.
Different animals experience reality differently. Some animals experience more colors than others. Cats see human faces as cat faces. Whom then has the correct view of reality.

The only way the universe could exist is if there was a conscious entity able to experience its existence. Consciousness affirms reality. Consciousness is fundamental.

>>15659098
It exists if you believe hard enough in it

>>15664674
You're doing to much lol. Reality doesn't make sense it's just that simple. Anyone who tells you it does is a huckster trying to sell you shit

>>15664674
>The only way the universe could exist is if there was a conscious entity able to experience its existence. Consciousness affirms reality. Consciousness is fundamental.
Yes there's no reality without beings to experience but the universe could exist without being observed, it just no one would know

>>15664674
Behold! The "Mind"

Color, smell and consciousness exists only in picrel. Feel free to call it the "mind" if you want. But refusal to use concrete language in favor of abstract language doesn't prove the inexistence of the concrete material reality.

>>15664704
What's abstract about anon's post? Also, you're the one with the onus to prove material reality exists not the other way around.

>>15664724
>What's abstract about anon's post?
I was referring to his usage of the word "mind." Not saying it's wrong, simply stating that it's just an abstract word with the same meaning as the concrete word "The nervous system."
>Also, you're the one with the onus to prove material reality exists not the other way around.
Honestly, explaining the entire process for Visual processing is a bit too much when you can just google it. The brain (call it the mind if you want) is responsible for processing color though. And it is very much real and material. I'm sure you can read up on how it happens though.

>>15664791
>sources: google it bro
Perception of color is stems from qualia. I can read about visual processing until I am blue in the face and never be able to connect the dots because the photon is both a wave and a particle. That's nonsense in a physical world.

I studied Buddhism at Berkeley

>>15658585
true, but OP's post is just about bullshit that has nothing to do with the physical basis of consciousness

>>15664837
>physical basis of consciousness
What the fuck is that?
>Inb4 muh brain

>>15658188
based

>>15664810
>sources: google it bro
Of course, you want me to write out whole chapters in a 4chinz thread? If you don't know the basics, you have to learn them yourself. If you do not know basic visual processing, it is not possible to teach it all to you here, you will have to read for yourself a bit.

>qualia
I'll just quote your own words for this one.
>That's nonsense in a physical world

>>15664674

based

The final answer is so simple. Here you go everyone:

>reality is unknowable because it is, for lack of a better term, God's imagination
>we are made in God's image, so we perceive reality as God intends us to
>we can never know actual reality (God) until death
>the world does not actually exist as something physical, but we perceive it as physical, so there is no real difference to us
>humans, having rational minds in the likeness of God, can "create" objects and ideas as well, through our rational mind

There, that's it. I can't believe Kant and Hegel and all the others struggled with this so mightily. The problem was they were trying to work backwards from perception to reality, which is impossible. You first need to have faith in God and then work downwards from reality to perception. But at least QM is showing that the emperor has no clothes and people will start waking up.

>our minds construct reality out of unformed, immaterial potentiality
>God constructs us and gives us rational minds in his image

>>15662710
Found the NPC

>navel gazing thread

>>15664877
>you want me to write out whole chapters in a 4chinz thread?
>stakes claim
>flabbergasted by the notion of defending it
>/sci/ Science & Math
As for qualia being nonsense. Clear your mind and close your eyes. Eventually you're going to see colors. If that isn't a subjective experience you should have no issue pointing to the physical manifestation of color in the brain. No need for whole chapters either.

>>15664897
How exactly is that some type of "Qualia" and not the brain? Please explain.

>>15664924
Because if color manifested physically we'd be able to conduct experiments where people would perform this exercise and we would surely see specific brain activity light up in the brain using magnets or xrays thus proving the universe is material and all this consciousness shit is schizoposting rambling of unhinged lunatics. What a triumphant day would that be for all materialists, no?

>>15664933
What exercise are you talking about? Imagining things in your head? That does lead to activation in the brain though. Or are you talking about something else?

>>15664944
>What exercise are you talking about?
>Clear your mind and close your eyes
No, simply observing from within. More meditation than imagining.

>>15664949
"Clear your mind and close your eyes" doesn't mean anything. It's just a buzzword unless you explain what you mean by that.
>meditation
The effects of meditation are observable in the brain.

>>15664977
> doesn't mean anything
It means exactly what is stated. Close your eyes, clear your mind, focus and then wait. It's closer to meditation because once your mind starts wandering if you aren't used to that you're going to lose focus. Also, yes affects of meditation are observable in a sense that we can see a reduction in stress and anxiety, but I haven't heard of someone publishing a study of mri'ing a monk's brain to look for physicality of color.

>>15664986
>Close your eyes, clear your mind, focus and then wait.
Clear your mind of what? Clear it to what state?
Focus on what?
>but I haven't heard of someone publishing a study of mri'ing a monk's brain
There's quite a bit of studies of all kinds on that subject. Here's one example https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030439400700451X?via%3Dihub and there's many more.
>to look for physicality of color.
What does that mean? You keep saying ambiguous things without defining them.

>>15665018
>Clear your mind of what?
Thoughts
>Clear it to what state?
Empty
>Focus on what?
Imagine a stage light shining onto your mind and each time a new thought emerges observe it with a light and let it pass. Do that until the empty state is achieved.
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030439400700451X?via%3Dihub
This is too broad. What we're discussing is narrower. We're only interested in seeing evidence of color being a physical event in the brain.
>What does that mean?
Your foundational claim is that everything in this universe is physical. That should include the phenomenon of people who madidate seeing colors. Because you're not actively attempting to conjure something as you would in imagination and take a passive role as an observer once color pops up in your mind we should see something physical happen in the brain.
>You keep saying ambiguous things without defining them.
I honestly don't feel that to be the case.

>>15664791
>The brain (call it the mind if you want) is responsible for processing color though
The brain is material. It is composed of atoms and molecules that make up neurons. The mind isn't material. It is not composed of atoms and molecules. It doesn't occupy a point in space-time like the brain does. It doesn't have any physical properties like mass or volume. So far scientists have been unable to describe how non-sentient matter gives rise to sentient awareness we call consciousness. How neural synapses create experiences. Recently the Monoamine Theory of Depression was debunked. That we don't know anymore how SSRIs work and that it isn't from modulating serotonin reuptake. You can argue that the CNS gives rise to the mind, but the mind is still an abstract representation of the physical world.

Everything you are is immaterial. With you referring to your consciousness. That awareness, the ability to have experiences. Try to find one aspect of yourself that is material. You don't experience in atoms or particles but in subjective experience. One person's smell of garlic may be different to another's. Another may not be able to smell garlic. But the chemical composition of garlic, that's an objective measurable thing.

So far the materialist approach has not yielded any results in figuring consciousness out. Hopefully in the future we start to approach it from a different angle which would help us finally make headway towards one of the biggest questions of existence.

>>15665026
>>Clear your mind of what?
>Thoughts
>>Clear it to what state?
>Empty
>>Focus on what?
>Imagine a stage light shining onto your mind and each time a new thought emerges observe it with a light and let it pass. Do that until the empty state is achieved.
A contradiction. If you're imagining a stage light scouting for new thoughts, your mind cannot be "empty" and clear of thoughts. The stage light itself is a thought. In fact, your mind can never be "empty." Even when you're sleeping, there is something always going on in your head. You can never "think" of "nothing" it's a paradox if you think about it. This is why I ask you, what do you mean by "clear your mind & focus" because as of right now, we still don't know what that means. There is no way to have zero brain activity. Your mind simply cannot be "empty" as long as you're alive. Even comatose people have brain activity - thoughts. So explain correctly, what you mean without a contradiction or a paradox.
>We're only interested in seeing evidence of color being a physical event in the brain.
>>What does that mean?
>Your foundational claim is that everything in this universe is physical. That should include the phenomenon of people who madidate seeing colors
Still no real answer though. What do you mean by "seeing color physically" that is a meaningless statement. If color is a result of brain processes and we can detect those brain processes, then we can indeed detect the color physically. Do you want a room in the brain that has colors shining in it like some cartoon? What do you want to see that would prove colors physically?

>>15666609
>your mind cannot be "empty" and clear of thoughts
What would you describe the state where during period of time where your the shining light is scouting and no new thoughts emerge? I would classify that as empty. Obviously, no one is making the case for zero brain activity.
> So explain correctly, what you mean without a contradiction or a paradox.
I have, several times. You keep getting tangled up during your mental gymnastics routine.
> Do you want a room in the brain that has colors shining in it like some cartoon?
It has nothing to do with my wants. It's an expectation of a universe that contains everything in a physical form. An expression of that then should be detectable. How the fuck am I losing you here?

>>15666636
>What would you describe... (can't quote full, word limit
You can say that it's "empty" if you want, but you still have brain activity going on. So the "emptiness" does not matter. Whatever exists in that state of mind certainly exists in the brain. The brain still has activity going on, the light itself, and whatever else happens during that state can be seen in the brain. The "empty" state is then not really "empty" if you still have stuff going on in your head. You can remove certain "thoughts" but even the act of eliminating thoughts itself is a thought. When the light is scouting and no new thoughts emerge, that is still cognitive activity since the act of scouting itself is a thought. The light exists in your thoughts only, so your brain & thoughts sustain it's existence. So how does this exercise prove anything immaterial then? If you had 0 brain activity, and we were still seeing colors & lights (meaning that scouting light was self-subsisting and required no physical/material sustenance), then I would see your point that the colors & lights perhaps come from something immaterial. But you do have brain activity, so your point is not made since it can be said that light comes from the observed brain activity. And especially so, since without that brain activity, we have no evidence that the light would still exist.
>It has nothing to do with my wants.
It does have something to do with your wants. The universe has no "expectations". Our want for evidence that the cognitive processes are material is fulfilled by basic observation of our physical being. If your "want" for evidence is not fulfilled and you remain unconvinced, you would need to explain to us what type of evidence do you need to be convinced? If no evidence would convince you, then it is useless to argue since there is nothing one can prove to you. If there is something, then tell us so that we may be able to talk for that evidence. So again, I ask, do you want to see in the brain?

>>15666861
>So the "emptiness" does not matter.
We're talking past each other because you can't separate mind and brain and I know already that you think mind is too ambiguous.
>Whatever exists in that state of mind certainly exists in the brain
Demonstrate this to me by showing a physical reaction in the brain during a time where the mind is perceiving a color.
>state is then not really "empty" if you still have stuff going on in your head
Is a toothpaste tube empty when you can't extract enough to put on a toothbrush or when there are zero toothpaste molecules in the tube? Both can be the case given appropriate context This a semantics fuck all argument that misses the point I am making.
>You can remove certain "thoughts" but even the act of eliminating thoughts itself is a thought.
You don't eliminate thoughts. You don't control your thoughts. You simply observe them take place.
> it can be said that light comes from the observed brain activity.
Great, pop open a skull and get someone to poke a brain with some metal rods and see if we can get some colors going. The problem is you're right we do have brain activity so you don't actually know which part of all the traffic is the color part. Is that not meaningless? How can you make assertions based on such weak evidence?
> And especially so, since without that brain activity, we have no evidence that the light would still exist.
It obviously would not. That feels like a moot point. If there is no brain activity what you have is a corpse.
>he universe has no "expectations".
I am not talking to the universe. I am talking about the claim you made that requires certain things to be a fact.
> you would need to explain to us what type of evidence do you need to be convinced?
I have. Several times now.
> So again, I ask, do you want to see in the brain?
Right now some fucking neurons firing would be nice.

>>15658650
NDErs say that God is running the afterlife though. And NDEs are real and prove that there is an afterlife, since the book in pic related is known to convince even hardened skeptics that there is an afterlife.

And NDEs are more real than this world, in every way. For instance, NDErs report expanded intelligence. One NDEr said that the greatest supergenius who ever lived, with the help of the greatest supercomputer of all time, would be immeasurably dwarfed by the intelligence she had access to while in the light, so much so that it would be closer and fairer to compare the intelligence of Einstein to that of an ant. Literally and seriously. And as another NDEr described their cognition during their life review:

>"I looked up, and saw four translucent screens begin to appear - and form a kind of gigantic, cubed box all around me. It was through this method that I was shown my life review. Without ever having to turn my head, I panoramically saw my past, present, future - and there was even a screen behind me that displayed a tremendous amount of scientific data, numbers, symbols and universal codes. I was in complete amazement because (as all of this was occurring) I realized I understood absolutely everything I was seeing - even in the most microscopic detail! There seemed to be no limit to the thoughts I was able to think or the ideas I was able to absorb. In this space, what we tend to think of as a limited comprehension or single-mindedness here on Earth, becomes truly infinite and limitless here! I kept thinking over and over how true it is what they say: that when we go back home - we all really are of one mind!"

From here: https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

Another way NDEs are more real is how one NDEr said that he saw more than 80 new primary colors in the NDE world, compared to the 3 primary colors we have here.

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

So God is real.

Carl Jung. His theories aren’t scientific and have no place in clinical psychology, but is he still worth reading?
In my head I’ve reasoned that his work should be taken as an artistic interpretation of the unconscious and holds value in the introspection that accompanies it.
Just as our interpretation of art affects how we see the world around us, Jung’s work affects how we see ourselves. Life imitates art.
I’m curious to hear other people’s thoughts though.

>>15666921
>We're talking past each other because you can't separate mind and brain
No no, you have simply presumed that they must be different in origin without offering any argument for your claim, and I reject that thesis unless you can prove it.

>showing a physical reaction in the brain during a time where the mind is perceiving a color.
>some fucking neurons firing would be nice.
Quite a bit of neurons are firing all the time, and many physical reactions taking place when you perceive color. You have to be more precise than that in the type of evidence you're looking for. You are yet to tell me what type of evidence is needed to convince you.

>You don't control your thoughts. You simply observe them take place.
So as I understand, you believe we are simply observers of thoughts that are foreign to our being? Where do these thoughts come from then, and what exactly is doing the observing? Correct me if wrong, and if you have any evidence for these things, I'd love to see it.
>you don't actually know which part of all the traffic is the color part. Is that not meaningless? How can you make assertions based on such weak evidence?
I have no clue what you think "strong" evidence is, but it is not true that the brain is a mishmash of undecipherable traffic. Even if it were, your point would not be proven. There is certainly quite a bit of evidence, for example, that visual imagery is processed in the brain and is not of foreign origin. If you would like to make a claim opposing that evidence, you have to provide evidence of your own for it.

>This a semantics fuck all argument
Semantics matter. You said "zero brain activity," which would prove your point if true. But simply depressed brain activity, as you say right now, doesn't.
>If there is no brain activity what you have is a corpse.
Exactly. Only a corpse can have zero activity. So your exercise is useless in proving a mind-brain dissociation, unless you can somehow prove that corpses see color as well.

>>15667327
>No no, you have simply presumed that they must be different
>>15664791
>I was referring to his usage of the word "mind." Not saying it's wrong, simply stating that it's just an abstract word with the same meaning as the concrete word
An abstract thing can't be the same as the concreate thing. I didn't presume that. You did, dipshit.
>You have to be more precise than that
No, you have to be more precise than that you're the one affirming a physical universe. I can't a prove a negative so you have to prove the positive. So you are looking for something more precise not me.
>So as I understand, you believe we are simply observers of thoughts that are foreign to our being
Yes.
>Where do these thoughts come from then ... I'd love to see You want me to explain the metaphysical? Are you you understand the conversation? We don't know, this is what we're bickering about.
>, but it is not true that the brain is a mishmash of undecipherable traffic.
Good, then you should have no problem isolating the color thing because the brain is so well mapped. Sounds like a good thing to me. My point was you can't isolate the color, if you can do it.
> that visual imagery is processed in the brain and is not of foreign origin
Yes, what you can't do is show me the isolated physical part of the process in the brain.
>Semantics matter.
They sure do, really helps the strawman slide right in because I didn't say "zero brain activity" you did. What I said was set state of mind = empty.
>So your exercise is useless in proving a mind-brain dissociation
No, it isn't because my exercise isn't rooted in zero brain activity.

>>15667359
>An abstract thing can't be the same as the concreate thing.
An abstract is something that exists in thought only. If you say thoughts themselves are entirely abstract, where does it all emerge? Because an abstract cannot birth an abstract and still be real, it has to be rooted in something concrete to be observable. So what is that "real" thing that the abstract emerges from, if not the the brain.
>No, you have to be more precise than that you're the one affirming a physical universe.
Correct. I do not know what you deny though? Do you deny the brain altogether? You haven't given me a thesis of your beliefs. What do you want me to even prove and be precise about. That's what I'm asking, what evidence do you want.
>I can't a prove a negative
So why claim it then?
>you have to prove the positive
Do you deny it? Let me know exactly what you deny, bcos I haven't made any outstanding claim yet
>We don't know, this is what we're bickering about.
But we do know. What we know is that the metaphysical doesn't exist. How? Because there isn't any evidence. You are the one who claimed the existence of the metaphysical. Now, didn't you just say
>you have to prove the positive
so the existence of a metaphysical is a positive claim, you should have evidence for it by your own maxim
>My point was you can't isolate the color, if you can do it.
Wdym by isolate the color? Color perception comes from a trait identification process in the brain. There aren't flashing LED lights in the brain.
>Yes, what you can't do is show me the isolated physical part of the process in the brain.
Which process? There's thousands of processes. Specify what you want
>No, it isn't because my exercise isn't rooted in zero brain activity.
Useless differentiation. "Empty" by definition has to be zero. If it's not zero, then it's not empty.

Welcome home brothers.

>>15658150
blessed thread. stembugs (midwits who are in cs or engineering) seething in replies

>>15658150
hey guys. here's a method for examining consciousness. you first observe how your body moves on it's own. then you extend this autonomy to all your mental processes. you replace the pronouns of your internal monologue so that it does not say "I." eventually you've dissociated yourself from everything. I find that the only connection between thought and consciousness is the will, but that the will is somehow different from consciousness. I also find that my consciousness is extremely connected to sensations from the body much more than to my thoughts.

>>15667815
>you replace the pronouns
Not gonna do that. I'm not a tranny.

>>15667815
No thanks. This is retarded.

>>15667499
>So what is that "real" thing that the abstract emerges from, if not the the brain.
What makes you so certain there is a "real" thing at the bottom of that barrel? If the world operated on only classical mechanics you would be right, but it doesn't Once we break down the "real" inside to a quantum level things get a lot more abstract, no?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW-QjBsruE
As a side note, what I am asking for is in essence a led light going of when the switch happens from abstract to physical because the brain doesn't operate differently from the rest of the universe, right?
>I do not know what you deny though?
An only physical universe. If the universe is material only all transactions are settled in material means which means we should see it because we happen to be able to see physical shit.
>So why claim it then?
Personal anecdotes from my own subjective experience I think would be schizophrenic to cite as any sort of evidence in this conversation. Which is why it would be nice if you could prove your argument because I can't prove my end without killing myself.
>Do you deny it?
Challenging the status quo.
>Because there isn't any evidence.
Just because you can't see a road doesn't mean the road doesn't exist. That's such a silly trap to fall into because it's rooted in arrogance of believing the human brain is capable of being all knowing. What makes you say that? We can only see like a small portion of rf why would the rest of our squishy tools be any different?
>so the existence of a metaphysical is a positive claim, you should have evidence for it by your own maxim
Yeah, we both know I can't do that. If I could tap into the metaphysical I'd just make your brain explode from my end and call it a day.
>color perception comes from a trait identification process in the brain
Except now that you've staked an only physical universe you can't claim oh it's abstract bro, no fuck that. It's all physical show me the physical.
1/2

>>15667499
>Which process?
The abstract to real one. We're communicating via the ip protocol. Show me the real to abstract protocol.
>Useless differentiation
I define the parameters of my exercise you don't get to dictate split hair conditions to be in order to obfuscate your faith based belief system.
2/2

>>15668498
>>15668494
>What makes you so certain there is a "real" thing
Because we are real? Or do you think we are not real? Because if there is nothing that is real, then we are all abstractions entirely. Then reality is an illusion, and nothing exists. Then what experiences this illusion? another illusion? at some point you have to hit something that is real. You say you deny an "only physical universe" but it seems you deny the physical in general if you think there is nothing real at the bottom. If you don't deny the physical totally, then we can't be abstractions and there has to be something real. And if there is a physical, then what is the point of it? Since everything meaningful, in your opinion, such as cognition, comes from the abstract. So why have the brain and the nervous system? Certainly the physical serves some purpose. Now if you say that the abstract births the physical, that's just not possible. Thoughts don't bring into existence matter. So it must be the physical birthing the abstract.

The real to abstract protocol is brain processes. Light enters your eyes, goes to the brain, is processed there as imagery. What do you think is the purpose of this entire process if it yields nothing in the end? Why do we find that these processes happen at the same time as your cognitive functions, and if these processes are disrupted, the cognitive function is disrupted as well? We see clear double dissociations with many functions, how do you explain that if the physical does not matter?

>Except now that you've staked an only physical universe you can't claim oh it's abstract bro
Abstract is not non-physical. The metaphysical woowoo is non-physical. You see a woman on your screen. She is not real. But she is physical. Because the image exists as a result of mechanical processes that happen in your device. Not because there is an actual woman inside your screen. Not having an actual woman inside the screen doesn't mean that the picture is non-physical.

>>15669184
>Because we are real?
You could be a brain in a jar right now and experience all the same things. What do you mean, real? If cause and effect can't be drilled all the way down at best this is a hopeful guess.
>Or do you think we are not real?
I think real is ambiguous given we can't rely on material evidence to track it all the way down.
>Then what experiences this illusion?
The act of seeing as an entity is the only constant, good luck defining that in physical only terms though.
> but it seems you deny the physical in general if you think there is nothing real at the bottom
Not true, I think the universe can't be all physical if there is nothing physical at the bottom. There is something else. However, physicality "exists" from the perspective of human being. There's just no way to tell if this is a real physical location or an illusion simulating a real physical location and to assume the former is pragmatic to run a functioning society, yet insufficient when defining the entire universe, because something clearly is missing.
>then we can't be abstractions and there has to be something real.
We could be abstractions that require a physical world to meaningfully interact. Physical doesn't necessitate real, could just be like joining a server (earth) from your computer (insert metaphysics here)
> So why have the brain and the nervous system?
Why make a phone? There is functionality that can't be achieved without it. If we roll with the metaphysical example for a second then the brain and nervous system are your mech suit when you load in.
>that's just not possible
You don't have the evidence to make this claim and all my attempts to get the evidence only end up in more confusion.
>Thoughts don't bring into existence matter.
Really? Where was the first gun before someone thought of one?
>is brain processes
The ones that can't be isolated without creating a corpse? I think we've established the doesn't get us anywhere.
1/2.

>>15669184
>What do you think is the purpose of this entire process if it yields nothing in the end?
It yields something, just not everything.
>Why do we find that these processes happen at the same time as your cognitive functions
Because they're the same processes that seperate the living from the dead. What would be nice if those proccesses could be explored further down with precision.
>how do you explain that if the physical does not matter?
Saying the physical isn't everything is different from saying the physical does not matter.
>Abstract is not non-physical.
It is, by definition.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/abstract
> But she is physical.
What? No, she actually isn't physical. The image only exists as an abstraction in my mind that's derived from the screen which is a physical component which communicates using fluctuations in an eletrical current. There isn't a physical woman in the computer, only 1's and 0's store on a physical storage
>Not having an actual woman inside the screen doesn't mean that the picture is non-physical.
That's exactly what it means.
2/2