/sci/ - Science & Math

NPCs literally cannot understand the concept. It's the ultimate filter for them, along with free will, morality and quantum mechanics which they also fail to grasp.

>>15750295
It's literally the same 3 qualialess autists every time. I don't think most of /sci/ cares.

>>15750309
>qualialess
jfc what must that be like?

>>15750370
It would feel like being the namefag bodhi.

>>15750382
>says the NPD NPC
you are literally a flesh bot

>>15750382
>>15750391
You are literally both my sons. No infighting.

>>15750295
You are chasing ghosts.

>>15750391
Thanks for confirming what I said.

>>15750453
Thanks for confirming what I said.

>>15750295
Qualia as a theory has no predictive power so it can be safely ignored, like the aether

>>15750870
>Qualia as a theory has no predictive power
Maybe that's because qualia are not a theory but a matter of fact.

>>15750878
For every theory is a shape. For every shape is a theory. Theory alone allows for combining shapes. Shape alone allows for abstracting theories. Qualia is a shape and a theory, but more a shape.

>>15750878
Okay then prove the facts

>>15750945
The fact in question is immediately self-evident to any human that experience consciousness.

>>15750295
It doesn't. It makes midwit philosophy readers piss and shit themselves, when scientists ask for something testable or provable.

notice how retarded free will havers are. usually the most deranged individuals in any human society.
"free will" is just something they need to hide behind, they feel naked without it, with no place to scheme, nowhere to hide they hideousness.
also for some reason they are paranoic control freaks.

>>15750304
I've come to the sobering conclusion that NPCs are actually real from arguing with materialists on 4chan. There's no other explanation for how they fail to see any distinction between subjective experience and physical processes in the brain.

>>15751214
>they fail to see any distinction
and you can "see" the distinction anon? can you link us your paper on that? is your soul able to see the lottery numbers as well?

>>15751233
You literally just "source?"'d me on subjective experience. NPCs can't even sense the irony.

>>15751214
Why does this surprise you? There's a whole cradle-to-grave industry geared towards producing golems and nerfing human sentience. They're not even trying to hide it anymore:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqOZIaMBP8I

>>15751240
Shouldn't you have learned to recognize and ignore that one bot by now?

>>15751240
what a sissy little bitch lol. every single time, which just reinforces what I previously said. the most deranged individuals hiding their weaknesses under some miraculous veil of free will. what is it always you? the most pathetic scum?

A very mentally ill determinist will react to this post.

>>15751177
color blindness is testable and provable mental midget. Whether someone thinks it is hot or cold is testable you retarded monkey

>>15750295
Qualia have no explanatory power. In the play 'The Imaginary Invalid', a medical candidate is asked why morphine induces sleep. His answer is that "it contains a dormative power". This is obviously not an explanation, since it restates the question in different language.

Explaining the phenomenological properties of consciousness through qualia is exactly the same. Why do apples look red? Because when I see them I experience red qualia. But why is the qualia red? Either it has some further red property, leading to an infinite regress, or, we explain redness without referring to redness.

Dualists/idealists complain that materialist accounts of conscious experience of red leave out the ""redness"". But of course they should, or else they are not explanations! A proper explanation of heat doesn't refer to heat, but reduces it to the agitation of atoms. The definition of a word doesn't include that word, but defines it in terms of other words. In the same way, only explanations of consciousness that leave out the seeming objects of conscious experience are actual explanations

>>15751293
>Qualia have no explanatory power.
They're not a theory. They're not supposed to have "explanatory power". They're fact that you can't explain. lol

>>15751293
>Why do apples look red? Because when I see them I experience red qualia. But why is the qualia red? Either it has some further red property, leading to an infinite regress, or, we explain redness without referring to redness.
lol this is so stupid. There are experiences some people think is pleasant that others find to be unpleasant. There is no further material breakdown you can do of the experience, they like vanilla better chocolate or they dont. If there were no subjective experience there wouldnt even be such a word as "prefer"

>>15751293
All impressions are forms of qualia including any form of thought and reasoning. Every intent, every lust of the flesh. It is all qualia. Stay butt hurt soiboy worshiping a chalkboard whose only existence is recognizable through qualia.

>>15751302
>>15751308
Both of you are conflating qualia with the phenomenological properties of experience. Nobody is denying that we have experience. I'm just denying that private, irreducible, ineffable "qualia" are involved.

>>15751363
You will never be fully human. Either way, "qualia" are not a theory, they are a fact that you can't explain. Keep losing your mind and shitting out paragraphs.

>>15751363
are you an ass man or tit man? or a foot fag? you prefer blondes or brunettes? blue or green eyes? then explain to me how it isnt private and irreducible

>>15751371
Heckin' neuroscience. I ain't gotta explain shit. Educate yourself, bigot.

>>15751363
explain how phobias arent private and irreducible

>>15751379
It's literally just chemicals in your brain, retard. If I measure your chemicals I measure your effable and reducible so-called experiences.

>>15751382
so people who are afaid of spiders have a chemical in their brain that I dont possess? you are literally fucking retarded.

>>15751383
I could literally measure the chemicals in your brain right now to experience your seething.

>>15751393
I could literally drill a hole in your brain and it would effect nothing because you are an NPC

It's annoying because the conversation is NEVER productive. The thread either begins as bait, or it starts as a conversation on some topic involving neuroscience until someone shows up demanding anons describe the qualitative experience of redness to them, knowing full well it's not possible.

>>15751412
It would be very productive for you to acknowledge that there are real things science does not and cannot deal with.

>>15751400
>nooo you will never be able to fully know me, I will always have somewhere special to hide, which no one really understands.
who are you hiding from anon?

Free will.

>>15751422
I try to avoid schizos like you, I wouldnt call it hiding per say. More avoiding time sinks ta;ling to robots. I mean I dont talk to my tv either so dont take it personal

>>15751425
whatever determined you to prove you have it?

>>15751426
>everyone I don't like is a bot

See how the mindless mongoloid reacts? It's keyword-based. NPCs are real.

>>15751429
Christianity.

>>15751436
yes anon, and I am the schizo...

>>15751435
Your inability to stick to the conversation at hand shows you obviously suffer from some kind psychosis inducing mental illness. None of your strawmen even make sense outside of projection. It leads to to deduce your are the resident NPD schizo though you were more coherent than he is likely capable of in your first few posts. Maybe your strawmen are just trolls idk

>>15751445
Why did you react? I didn't say anything about free will. I effectively didn't say anything. I just mentioned your trigger phrase.

>>15751448
you're acting like a paranoid schizo anon, you don't make a good case for free will.

>>15751371
Because you can ask me which I prefer, and I'll tell you! How do we know dogs really prefer steak to carrots? Their behaviour tells us they prefer meat, but if their preference is because of private, ineffable qualia then we can never truly know! The fact is, qualia, both sensory experience and preferences, are due to how we're wired and our reactive dispositions.

To answer your question, I'm a footfag

>>15751457
Why did you react? I didn't actually say anything for or against free will. I just wrote the words "free will" without any context. If you're fully human, how come you have a trigger phrase that turns you on?

>>15751461
>qualia, both sensory experience and preferences, are due to how we're wired and our reactive dispositions.
Your "theory" has no predictive power. It's also unfalsifiable. It's pure fantasy. Why do you keep chanting it?

>>15751466
>Why did you react?
because I want you to tell us more about your free will, and also you're also acting paranoid so I'm intrigued. you're clearly missing a few tiles from your roof

>>15751461
>The fact is, qualia, both sensory experience and preferences, are due to how we're wired and our reactive dispositions.
No it isnt. If this were true there be no such thing as trauma inducing mental illnesses. Trauma is purely a subjective experience. The fact that some soldiers can get PTSD while others do not from the exact same experience//battle proves conclusively you have no idea what you are talking about

>>15751414
Why are you (or some other anon) posting about this at least once or twice a week? Doesn't it get repetitive?
>Makes a post asking a question to which the answer is "probably something to do with the brain but the specifics aren't clear"
>Some anon unfamiliar with the reoccurring threads mentions that the answer to your question probably has something to do with your grey matter
>Flip your shit, claim it's impossible to answer the question you posited, call everyone ITT a subhuman, refuse to elaborate on anything when asked
>anons join in on calling other anons subhuman because that's a fun activity
What's with the compulsion? Is it ineffable or something you can explain to me? Are you evangelizing? I don't get it.

>>15751479
I don't think humans have trigger phrases. Your existence would be actually horrifying if I weren't so used for the nonhuman horde you're part of.

>>15751412
If I participate in the thread it is always productive

>>15751485
I don't start these threads so I don't know what your schizorambling is about. Why do you keep sharting out outright incoherent rhetoric (e.g. "qualia has no predictive power") and zero-predictive-power, unfalsifiable, unscientific theories ("qualia are due to how we're wired and our reactive dispositions") every time some retard starts this thread?

>>15751482
there are no two people that have equally been affected by the same experience just because they are genetically different and also at the same time do not occupy the same place in spacetime ergo they cannot be identically influenced by any event. if one fainths whenever he sees a rat and the other used to skin cats in his childhood, they will be differently affected by war horrors, yes. depends on how shit's wired up up there. don't know what kind of pseud you're supposed to be, but you are clearly one

>>15751492
>do not occupy the same place in spacetime
please tell me you are trolling because if not this is the most pathetic cope/stretch I have ever seen. So now it isnt just chemicals as you originally stated, the object must be in the specific space and time to experience something the exact same. So it doesnt matter that I am mentally strong through training like say a navy seal, the same torture techniques used on teenage girl will also break me if I could also somehow go to her exact space and time to experience the torture she received that broke her. Hop;y fucking shit you are retarded bro

>>15751482
People react differently because people have different reactive dispositions to each other. Why do some people have epilepsy and some don't? Before modern medicine and neuroscience, this was also explained in terms of immaterial, metaphysical entities that were not scientifically verifiable, such as demons. Now that we know it's due to neurotransmitter imbalance or brain injury, demons have lost their explanatory power and have been exorcised from our ontology.

Also this retard >>15751382 is not me, he's a well poisoner. Reducing everything to chemicals and neurons isn't the right way to analyse the mind. To understand the economy we don't look at dollar bills under electron microscopes, that's too low a level of analysis. However, that doesn't mean that economies involve immaterial substances. The same applies to mind

>>15751492
According to you if we put two people on a building and one is afraid of heights and the other isnt we could switch their positions and the one that is afraid will switch. Holy fucking balls that is hilariously retarded

>>15751499
the local conditions are different in each place in spacetime yes. you can't possibly have two identical experiences. you can have similar ones, but not identical. are you fucking retarded anon?

>>15751509
ah no it makes perfect sense, he is the NPD schizo. I can always pick him out because he is hilariously retarded and unable to hold a conversation without creating bizarre strawmen and nonsequitors as I pointed out

>>15751514
Let's get back on track. Do you realize that there's nothing ineffable about your so-called qualia?

>>15751510
no moron damn you do like to intellectually whore yourself like that don't you? tell me you are an intellectual whore or else you're really retarded

>>15751509
Do you have some kind of a mental illness? Why do you keep talking about demonds and immaterial substances?

>>15751491
I didn't comment on the predictive power of qualia, that's.... totally incoherent. That said, I'll stand by my assertion that the emergence (or seeming emergence) of qualitative experience probably has something to do with the brain. Why can't these threads be pleasant, beneficial conversations about theory of mind and advancements in neuroscience rather than what occurs every time?

>>15751513
>are you fucking retarded anon?
posting this after your massively retarded cope is hilarious. This is such an insane stretch for someone like you to even attempt to act like someone ls out of bounds is mind blowing. To say two people who experience the exact same thing under lab conditions isnt the same experience because it wasnt the exact space and time is mind blowingly retarded my dude. Like you are on another level of retard.

>>15751522
>the emergence (or seeming emergence) of qualitative experience probably has something to do with the brain.
Is this a scientific theory? How do you test it?

>>15751524
>well yes they were both strapped down to the exact same table and both waterboarded the exact same way and this one broke and this one didnt simply because of what time it was not because the other was mentally stronger
remember these are the people calling you "woo"

>>15751524
no anon it is you who is the pseud for not understanding what I'm saying.
indeed, two people can have a similar experience but not identical experience. if you do not understand that go back to whatever pseud infested place you came from. you're a bit out of your depth

>>15751533
nah man, you already shit the bed, there is no back pedaling from that. Aren t you the one who said above something was testable or w/e/ shit? Then you start bringing up spaced/time as if that is. Absolutely mind blowingly hilariously retarded and the fact that you are oblivious to it shows you are incapable of rational discussion so there is no need to continue

>>15751539
yes but you are pretty stupid for not understanding what I said. you are retarded aren't you namefag? you don't really understand most shit, scientifically speaking, do you pseud?

>>15751526
>Is this a scientific theory?
No, it is not.
>How do you test it?
I don't know.
I think of the issue in a similar way to thinking about gravity.
>Why am I always pulled downward towards the earth?
The answer isn't obvious or intuitive, but there is an answer.

>>15751546
>The answer isn't obvious or intuitive, but there is an answer.
How are you going to test a potential answer?

>>15751531
I will say I like how I guarantee this guy would call astrology a pseudoscience but literally invoked
>yes but the planets were not in the exact same alignment during x experience

Because that is all time is, a measure of change .... which we track by the planets (and sun's) position

top kek, you cant make this up

>>15751548
For gravity? Observing celestial bodies. Experiments in orbit. I have no idea how to "test" qualia (that doesn't even make sense). I don't have a strong position on the subject and am more irritated with the quality of these reoccurring threads. Why do we have to call each other subhuman every three posts?

>>15751557
>I have no idea how to "test" qualia (that doesn't even make sense).
Then why are you comparing it to gravity?

>Why do we have to call each other subhuman every three posts?
It's been three posts and I haven't called you subhuman yet.

>>15751562
I compared qualia to gravity because the phenomena make no fucking sense until you understand them. Obviously, I'm reaching in the sense that we don't understand the why behind qualia. They're both highly unintuitive. Gravity for instance, isn't really understandable at the magnitude of human experience. I think it is possible that we simply have a very primitive understanding of both the brain and the actual physical world, and I'm highly annoyed by the prevailing attitude in these threads. Talking about neuroscience and philosophy of the mind is interesting. We don't need to be bogged down in the hard problem of conciseness every single time anything to do with the mind is brought up on /sci/.

>>15750295
Physicalism stops short in its philosophy by claiming that mental consciousness can be expressed as "states" in time (i.e., a function of billions of small-scale molecular interactions like protein-ligand binding and subsequent neural signaling), and they arrive at this conclusion by falsely stating that all of science and experience can be quantized in physics. In other words, the further you go back in deriving any science, you arrive at physics.

While I don't doubt this in the obvious contexts of chemistry, biology, any engineering, etc., where they fall short is the assumption that physics is elemental and derived from nothing. This is an incorrect assumption brought on by physicalists; physics is applied mathematics. To plausibly lump mental experience with the physical (i.e., the physical state fully represents the mental and they are one and the same), you must also be able to combine physics and pure mathematics with a straight face. Upon doing so, the physicalist should discover that now all mathematics is represented in the same bucket, but now there exists the same division as mental theory; what is applied and what is pure (or mental)?

Jackson's epiphenomenal qualia reaches this conclusion from another direction, essentially by explaining that quantitative parameters cannot explain their own qualitative experience. Physicalists are people who wholeheartedly believe that humans are able to know everything and all parameters in every context; that is to say, everything is represented by physics and pure mathematics is just uhhhh ????????????????????????

>>15751573
>We don't need to be bogged down in the hard problem of conciseness every single time anything to do with the mind is brought up on /sci/.
Apparently we do, because you keep making these unrealistic faith-based appeals to some magical future science that will solve it in some unspecifiable way 2 minutes after admitting that testing a theory of how qualia come to be doesn't even make basic conceptual sense.

>>15751552
the checksum for the sensory info into each person assisting at same event is obligatory different. different visual info etc. since it is different you are now in the position of arguing for "well yeah but it's mostly similar" but that would again be pretty stupid of you, because one of the two may notice just a little bit extra which might completely transform the way he not only experiences the event but also the impact it has on him, how it's stored in his brain, and how it affects his personality later on.
in this sense, more precisely, no two beings can have the same identical experience. as long as checksum of sensory info is different, also the result of the brain processing the info is different in the end. let alone that they wouldn't even be the same identical brain processing the event from either person's point of view. it wouldn't make sense to have the same experience for the very same fucking person if they'd be in different spots, even in the same 30 square meters or something.
I know that you literally have no idea what I'm talking about, why I seem to think it matters so much, for you it's way simpler, isn't it? you just ignore all the inconvenient bits until it matches what you want to understand out of it. intellectual faggotry is what you're doing
there's too many inconvenient details that you conveniently just brush aside, exaggerating shit, all of this tells me how intellectually corrupt you actually are. you are weak namefag.

>computing checksum for the sensory info
>please stand by

>>15751633
>computing checksum for the sensory info
>is on /sci/
what's wrong with your brains?
>free will brah

>>15750956
Prove that (You) have qualia.

>>15751648
To whom?

>>15750295
>subjective
Doesnt exist in reality, your entire science is founded on assumptions made by retards.

>>15751676
To everyone reading this thread.

>>15751697
Why? Is this a thread about my qualia?

>>15750878
This.
An apple been red is a directly observable fact; theories are explainations on what other observables might predicate this fact and/or what this fact might predicate about other observables.
Qualia is one such directly observable fact, not some theory. The fact no useful /sci/ theory as of yet have been built on this fact doesn't detract from its self-evident nature, nor does Materialists hell-bent on disregarding this fact so their worldview stays intact.

>>15751702
You claimed that qualia is a self-evident matter of fact. So go on, prove that (You) have qualia.

>>15751716
>You claimed that qualia is a self-evident matter of fact.
It is.

>prove that (You) have qualia.
Why, is this thread about my qualia in particular? You are clearly mentally ill.

>So go on, prove that (You) have qualia.
All posters that unironically use the term "qualia" instead of consciousness or cognition are filtered NPCs that are desperate to still have a voice in the discussion of definitions of existence.

https://youtu.be/ZmRaIQOlxTY

NO. Youre not welcomed because this goes beyond you, eternally beyond. All the way down to Planck scale physics, go back to TV, buck-o.

Does anyone actually reply to namehomos?

>>15751716
NTA, but this is the kind of retarded materialist gymnastics you autists do.
If you observe your own experiences you can clearly identify them as self-evident instances of taste, touch, smell..etc.
>But if you stimulate areas of the brain you can also induce similar experiences
Sure, but there is still the (You) that's having a qualia of the brain getting stimulated.
The predicative power that comes with hypothesizing existence of (Not-You)s projecting experiences is enticing, but don't go full retarded start raving about how (You) don't actually exist because muh theory.

>>15751630
congratulations this post is the stupidest fucking thing I read on the Internet all week. No question you are the NPD schizo. Only he (you) could write something so incredibly fucking stupid

>>15751739
>engaging animals like that in good faith
When will you learn?

Touch one and find out.

Lotta pissing and shidding ITT

>>15751739
And that's what makes it subjective and not a scientific concept. The philosophy chimp won't admit that.

>>15751753
I never said anything about qualia being a "scientific concept". I just said it's a fact. This seems to have sent your programming into a loop.

>I never said anything about qualia being a "scientific concept".
>I just said it's a fact.

>>15751767
I accept your full concession. The existence of qualia is self-evident to anyone who is human. You are not human.

>>15751743
>>15751768
This. There's no discussion to be had with these "people" because they are literal NPCs that physically can't process what you're saying. The only thing to do here is to speedrun getting them to dehumanize their own in the eyes of anyone who isn't already a terminal NPC.

>>15751753
>all scientific evidence is subjective

>>15751753
It's subjective because of the very question you raised - proving to another objectively that you have qualia, that you are conscious, which nobody can.
I can say with self observed certainty that I am conscious and have qualia of experiences, but there is no way I can objectively prove this fact to anybody, and this is not a barrier that can be broached through advance in technology.
Science as a discipline have the sole purpose been developing predicative theories backed by objective measurement; it cannot deal with what cannot be objectively measured even when what cannot be objectively measured is an observable fact.
That is what makes consciousness and related qualia a fact but also not a scientific concept.

>>15751781
You "experience" things, you say? That's just, like, your opinion, bro. It's not objectively true that you experience. It's subjective. Good job falling for the most basic retard trap.

>>15751786
Phenomenology is just Instrumentalism of Physiology. Statistics are objective...even when portraying a false conclusion.

>>15751786
>It's not objectively true that you experience
Yeah? You have objective evidence to prove that BRO?
That been said if tell me you are an NPC without inner experiences I'll believe it.

>>15751198
If free will doesn't exist, then it is not their fault for being like that. If it does exist, then free will is realizing you can control something. Paranoia would be quite rational if you were dealing with agents that decided free will does not exist and everything in the world must be a certain way. It is quite a joke

>>15751797
But you just said it's subjective. How can it be objective and also subjective? Sorry, but qualia are just your opinion. We do science on this board, not opinions.

>>15751800
You are the retard who just stated "It's not OBJECTIVELY true that you experience" even when I just explained to you exactly why it's subjective.
And you are right, consciousness is not something that can be explained by science.

>>15750304
I can understand qualia very well but I still don't understand how free will can logically follow from any system, physical or spiritual.
It's either cause-and-effect (so basically predestination), hidden cause-and-effect (small changes and effects accumulating into decisions), or "true randomness" (which by definition is not a freewill choice).

>>15751870
If you want to go down that rabbit hole then you have to get into occult theories on /x/ and not here.
It is cause-and-effect, but free will is the First Cause (like Big-Bang is in materalist cosmology).
Each moment (planck-time specifically) represents an independent 3D universe whose animation with the previous and next universe creates the illusion of a continuous reality. Free will is what picks which 3D slide that comes next.

>>15751870
Free will is the idea of having choices, not being free from the constraints of how things operate but having the choice to choose what operations you want to happen.

>>15751870
>It's either cause-and-effect (so basically predestination), hidden cause-and-effect (small changes and effects accumulating into decisions), or "true randomness" (which by definition is not a freewill choice).
You keep dogmatically asserting this without proof. Somehow it is psychologically important for you to deny free will vehemently without providing any arguments.

>>15750295
>its all just hidden variables lmao

>>15750304
No, you are too stupid to understand that your will can't be free if it is bound and limited to your form.

Physicalists have brain damage

>>15752057
Aethercels using god of the gaps logic have no brain at all.

"I believe in alternate universes interacting with everyday events." is a fancy way of saying "I have no fucking clue how reality works but want to operate at the highest levels on existence with people I wish were peers but not because I didnt even try to understand I just hand waved reality and proclaimed I already do."

>>15752068
Cool slippery slope, ad hominem attack, begging the question, appeal to authority, etc.

"I believe in the constant redefinition of what constitutes a mental state and I also think we can boil everything down to physics which is elemental and derived from nothing at all"

>>15750956
>consciousness
Proof that there is such a thing as consciousness rather than just animate animals reacting to stimuli.

>>15752079
>there are no experiences when there are no stimuli
if this is the case for you then i guess you're an actual npc and your head is empty

>>15752075
>Cool slippery slope, ad hominem attack, begging the question, appeal to authority, etc.
"I have no clue what you said meant but I will god of the gaps myself to a winning position."

Pottery...never change.

>>15752085
So are you going to say with a straight face that physics is an elementary subject derived from no other indivisible subject? What is theory then? Or are you unable to process novel thought as a function of being a lower life form that only "reacts to stimuli?"

>>15752081
Describe an experience you have had without stimuli while realizing that dreams rely on memories which are just internal neuron stimuli.

>>15752090
Ma'am, I couldnt care how uneducated you are but stop talking down to the sky. I forgot Im not posting on /his/ because of posts like your's.

The study of consciousness, from environemental scales to molecular scales, is one of my fields of focus. I dont come here to listen to others...I come here to educate you peons. Subatomic properties analogous to human experiences....it requires A SHIT TON of knowledge to connect the dots, more than you have, more than anyone else here has.

I lecture this topic...are you seeking validaton of your ignorance or are you seeking knowledge?

>>15752093
>sensory deprivation is dreaming
>no dreams are ever novel experiences
>every dream is just white noise based on memory
>you can only dream what you remember or experience

>>15752095
>The study of consciousness, from environemental scales to molecular scales, is one of my fields of focus. I dont come here to listen to others...I come here to educate you peons. Subatomic properties analogous to human experiences....it requires A SHIT TON of knowledge to connect the dots, more than you have, more than anyone else here has.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>I lecture this topic...are you seeking validaton of your ignorance or are you seeking knowledge?
You are an adjunct who will never be tenured and you will top out at $54K a year because you chose to do a philosophy PhD which requires 140 pages of word salad in response to some other word salad written decades ago. Look bub, you can try to force the validity of your retarded takes with your job, but it doesn't work on here. You're posting with a username on an anonymous imageboard. Nobody cares. Directly refute the points or shove your comments right up your ass.

How many times did you fall on your head as a kid by the way?

>>15752100
>sensory deprivation is dreaming
The stimulus of darkness is still stimulus, your brain is still taking in information from your eyes and skin even if it doesn't contain light.

>you can only dream what you remember or experience
You can try different choices or deal with exaggerated threats just like you would rehearse a speech, but its still just stimulating your memory and your past sensory experiences.

>>15752110
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Im not reading your retardation as if youre some wise sage. Youre an idiot spouting counter-logic as a scientific hypothesis grounded in pure theory....

ENTER REALITY YOU RETARD.

>>15752121
You're still completely unwilling to address anything, resorting to a really gay reply on 4chan instead. Ok, not that I expected any different.

>>15752126
Get a PhD in something so you will be educated enouvh for me to connect what you think isnt related to what you dont even know.

Youre iliterate and telling me what words exist....I dont fucking care how ignorant you are...why are you announcing it to me?

>>15752095
>Ma'am, I couldnt care how uneducated you are but stop talking down to the sky.
*COUGH*

>>15752052
>it's not real free will if you're not omnipotent
I love this fallacy. It reliably shows that someone has no understanding of the subject at all.

>>15752132
>More angry impotent glorified teaching assistant noises
Your next step in life is going to be to write a fiction novel to supplement your shitty TA salary and lack of recognition among tenured academics

>>15752134
If you are limited in power, your will is also limited to the same degree, thus not actually free, just limited choice given your specific circumstances, its not hard to understand how you abuse language to conclude you have free will and the entire reason you try to assign yourself free will in the first place is to convince yourself you have had a taste of omnipotence and have some personal connection to the omnipotent creator of the universe.

>>15752141
>Get a PhD in something so you will be educated enough for me to connect what you think isnt related to what you dont even know.
Youre not a doctor and no doctor care about what you believe.

Want recognition from doctors? Listen to them talk and gut check them when they make a mistake. You'll get a reputation real quick that way.

>>15752142
>women only have finite number of holes, therefore your choice where to insert your dick isn't free
Seriously? This is ridiculous.

>>15752203
You just don't understand the limits since your ultra micro dick could definitely fit into any of the billions of pores on their body.

Also, you didn't get to choose the fact that you will never be a woman, so you definitely don't have free will, you only get to make manly choices.

>>15752068
>I have no fucking clue how reality works
Nobody does. We can describe it pretty well within limits but we don't understand why it does what it does. What even is a "charge" anyway?

>>15752079
>Proof that there is such a thing as consciousness
It's self-evident to any human. I'm sorry that you're a nonhuman piece of meat.

>>15752395
You are having the same problem demonstrating it except you explode into an uncontrollable rage when thinking about it, so you must be subhuman too.

>>15752402
>uncontrollable rage
Fascinating how they adhere to their delusions in the face of objective reality.

>>15752402
>You are having the same problem demonstrating it
Demonstrating what? You sound legit mentally ill. Do you understand what "self-evident" means?

i hereby declare computers have qualia and therefore soul
evidence: the same website browsed on two different computers looks different
electric current powering computers is the same so the changes must have came from metaphysical differences between them

>>15752405
Yes it means you can't demonstrate your long held assumptions, so you get angry instead.

>>15752407
Keep outing yourself. The only reason your likes aren't treated like any other deranged cult by society at large is that normies still believe scientism is making groundbreaking leaps in "figuring out" consciousness when in reality most of your efforts are now focused on its denial to cover up for utter failure.

>>15752409
>it means you can't demonstrate
I don't need to. It's self-evident. The only thing I care to demonstrate is that the cult of scientism is not about making consciousness scientific, but about denying consciousness and dehumanizing people, but you're doing it for me. :^)

Can someone explain patiently to me why qualia are so important?

>>15752413
>It's self-evident.
Its semantic and you call it self-evident because you were fed specific language from a young age and you got old and realized you were taught lies to children, but you are too emotionally connected to the language to reject it, so you exist in this permanent state of cognitive dissonance where you fluctuate through childish emotions like anger and fallacy like name calling.

>>15752419
It is necessary to avoid hard thought while justifying everything with it is what it is logic.

>>15752395
>It's self-evident to any human
It's self-evident to me that I experience consciousness but I have no way of saying if anyone or anything else does

>>15752420
Reading your post, all I see is "I am not witnessing my own conscious experience", which translates as "I am a literal NPC".

>>15752428
>It's self-evident to me
Then you agree the existence of consciousness is self-evident. No further discussion to be had. Any further attempts at discussion about this issue wou

>>15752433
All I see is that you claim to witness something you have no evidence of. The word for that is delusion.

>>15752434
...would be admissions of your mental illness and autism.

>>15752438
As I said, keep outing yourself. Normies need to learn what the true relationship of scientism is to consciousness. That sad bunch still thinks scientism studies it. lol

>>15752440
Now you are just back to the anger cycle of realizing your semantics fail you.

>>15752439
The power of consciousness is swirling. There's a mindspace there which is experienced. Proof: everyone sees stars in the sky from different perspectives. This unique perspective is of a mind space.

>>15752440
You just admitted that consciousness is outside of science since it is impossible to gather evidence even to someone like you who claims the only possible evidence is yourself.

>>15752449
Meds.

>>15752420
NTA, it's self-evident because you can directly observe it you numb skull.
Do I need some scientific theory to approve my observation that an apple is red or that sky is blue as well or are they self-evident though direct perception?
This entire excerise in brute materialistic reductionism is retarded; instead of coming up with better theories to accomodate all observable facts you opt to disregard certain observable facts because they don't fit into your current theoretical framework.
The blant irony is when it comes to consciousness materialists becomes wholly unscientific.

>>15752450
You are the one who has delusions you need to control.

>>15752449
>consciousness is outside of science
That's not my problem. I'd say it's science's problem that it can't account for some aspects of reality, but it's not even that. Science is a tool. The Cult of Scientism are the ones who have a problem, hence all the consciousness denial ITT.

>>15752442
See >>15752440
The only relevant content of your posts boils down to "I don't experience my own consciousness", i.e. "I'm a literal NPC". Your "life" has no moral value.

>>15752452
colors are defined by wavelength of photons
how do you define consciousness?

>>15752452
There is no hope for this mongoloidal animal. Even if you offered it scientific evidence, it couldn't perceive it because it has no consciousness. lol

>>15752458
>colors are defined by wavelength of photons
LOL. These "people" are simply not human. That can't be stressed enough. Someone should start compiling these statements.

>>15752452
Apples that are red are so due to anthocyanin pigments in the skin.
The sky is rarely blue, it cycles through many colors and is mostly just black which you can measure with many instruments rather than just your flawed vision.

You are the one who refuses to investigate further, admits you have no facts other than your own opinion, and just accepts semantics you were fed as a child rather than being willing to dig deeper.
You are the one being wholly unscientific and admitting the only evidence you have is "I say so because those are the words I was taught as a child".

>>15752464
nice argument you have there

>>15752457
How am I to know what I am experiencing when you can't even define it as anything other than the things that your opinions are all are evidence of?

>>15752471
>How am I to know what I am experiencing
Just say it plainly already: you don't experience consciousness.

>>15752458
And what is the wavelength of photons defined by..etc.?
At the end of the day it's bunch of people agreeing they are indeed observing the same thing, whether that be what color they see when they observe the sky directly or the printout they see from an instrument scans said sky.
There is and never has been true objective standards; it has always been subjective consensus.
And by said subjective consensus, consciousness is defined as the ability I trust others have as well just as I do when I experience the perception of my senses.

>>15752475
You can't even define it. I don't accept that you can speak for me and know what others experience when you are clearly this retarded.

>>15752483
>You can't even define it
Why would I need to? Do you experience your own consciousness?

>>15752467
>You are the one who refuses to investigate further
>just accepts semantics you were fed as a child rather than being willing to dig deeper
I'm sorry but the irony of your post is suffocating.
Have some self awareness please.

>>15752486
What the fuck am I suppose to be agreeing to?
Do you sheemy your own reemy? Do you nonsense your own bonsense? What the fuck are you talking about and why are you trying to get me to agree to something you can't even define?

>>15752490
Good you finally see how it is ironic for you to keep claiming you experience something you can't even define.

>>15752491
>What the fuck am I suppose to be agreeing to?
A question that someone fully human could answer immediately throws your program in a loop. I don't know why it's so funny. Maybe because your database actually says you're human and you can't know better.

>>15752494
See >>15752482

>>15752486
So you do not experience the external world, everything is just your imagination?

>>15752496
You are the one stuck in a loop of demanding people answer a question you can't define, then getting angry when you don't get the answer you expect since you didn't define your terms.

>>15752504
How can I be "stuck" when your mere failure to answer the question conclusively proves my point that your entire position is based purely on your being subhuman in the most disturbing way?

>>15752486
>Do you experience your own consciousness?
please explain what do you mean by that, i'm esl

>>15752482
OK, so you say consciousness is experience of the perception of senses
i do experience my senses
how does that relate to qualia or materialism?

>>15752502
I guess impotent rage has finally made you lose your mind. Show me where what you're sharting out is implied in anything I posted. lol

>>15752509
All I see here is an admission that beating you into a bloody pulp is the moral equivalent of trashing old furniture. Keep it up. :^)

>>15752508
>How can I be "stuck" when your mere failure to answer the question
Because your question is nonsense given you can't even define the terms in your question, so you just go back and forth between being demanding and being angry when you can't get what you demand because you can't articulate your demands properly ie cognitive dissonance.

>>15752513
The part where you claim that you can't experience the external world because you experience your own consciousness instead.

>>15752517
I know your subhuman brain can't process this fact, but every time I ask you if you experience consciousness, and your post contains anything other than 'yes', you acknowledge that you are an inanimate object.

>>15752521
Every time you ask a question and can't define the terms in the question, I will have to assume you are retarded and don't know what you are talking about.

>>15752520
There is no such part. Your impotant rage has caused some kind of stack overflow and you're effectively hallucinating things. Get a better program installed, subhuman.

>>15752433
>>15752438
>>15752514
>all i see is
you sure you don't need medication?

>>15752525
>killing me would be a morally neutral act
Ok. Glad we can all agree on that. Society really needs a cleanup from your subhuman ideology and we're slowly getting there. :^)

>>15752527
No, you are hallucinating things if your experience boils down to some internal consciousness rather than the external world.

>>15752530
Back to that childish anger and inability to articulate your own position we talked about, madfag.

>>15752531
Your psychotic babble isn't even coherent anymore. Take a break. The rage has really taken a toll on your meager cognitive abilities.

>>15752534
Says the guy who keeps asking questions based around a word he can't even define while rambling about experiencing his own self evidence.

>>15752533
I feel absolute indifference towards you. Maybe a bit of satisfaction that you're going out of your way to confirm that physically removing you and the rest of the trash is not a moral issue. I could probably set you on fire, ask you if you experience burning, and you'll tell me my question doesn't make sense because I can't define it. Which is an experiment I highly encourage to those who still think maybe you're human after all.

>>15752536
None of the primitives of human language can be properly defined. You'd know this if you were human and not a poorly coded language automaton.

>>15752540
>I don't actually know what I am talking about

>>15752537
Yes more anger and namecalling, are you still confused about how you are stuck in a loop of anger and fallacy or are you going to just keep doing it with zero self awareness?

>>15752553
You need me to validate your humanity with my anger, but it's just not happening. I'm no more mad at you than I am mad at a chair or a shoe. Most people will call you trash as an insult. I call you trash as a literal statement of fact.

>>15752509
If you experience it then that's a qualia.
Said experience cannot be reduced to interactions between any hypothesized external "materials". You can replicate experiences through direct stimulation of the brain if you wish but the experience itself (natural or stimulated) is an irreducible primary by (You).
Consciousness cannot be explained by materialism (or any variation of it thereof), that is the point. The exercise by which materialists trying to exalt their theoritical framework from a useful model into absolute truth by claiming "Consciousness don't exist" because my theory said so is ironically unscientific.

>>15752551
I accept your impotent, angry little concession. Anyone human can immediately see that all language is based on a handful of mutually-supporting primitives that can't be 'defined' since there is nothing in terms of which to define them. Automatons like you are incapable of abstract thought and have a limited stack depth, so they don't see the infinite regression implicit in their braindead "define define" games.

>>15752557
No, all I need is for you to define consciousness if you wish me to engage about whether or not I experience it and you can't do it, so you are stuck in an anger/namecalling loop instead at the realization that your worldview is just a bunch of semantics and self-aggrandizement.

>>15752563
>concession
Yes I concede that you admitted you don't know what you are talking about since everything you are discussing is based on language and your concession that language is a flawed medium.

>>15752564
I don't wish you to engage. I wish you to keep declaring that it's morally okay to physically remove you. In case you still haven't figured it out, I oppose "discussions" with your kind. The ideology spread by your program needs to be simply erased by physical means.

>>15752566
You oppose it because you can't even define the basis of your position, so all you can do is get visibly angry and start with the namecalling.

>>15752565
>it's morally neutral to kill me
Yep. Glad we agree on that. Civilized society will get to it sooner or later. The more you talk, the closer we get.

>>15752568
Are you the same retard who can't define your terms and engages simply to declare that you refuse to engage?

>>15752567
Your impotent rage doesn't change the fact that no one needs to convince you of anything and it's okay to simply kill you. Discussions are for humans to have between themselves. Delousing doesn't involve discussions.

>>15752559
>If you experience it then that's a qualia.
This is why you'll never see me unironically say "qualia". Its a midwit term for midwits. What you recognize from your own assessment is irrelevent to me, people live delusions they deep down knoq are not true but it will never be revealed to themselves because theyre allowed to live the lie. Pull out a gun and kill someone in front of them and watch those delusions disappear immediately.

Enter Cognition, become a vessel for the Machine Spirit. Cells talk but just not to you.

>>15752570
Its not that no one needs to, its that you can't because you can't even define the basic terms that make up your argument, so all you can do is get angry and go on about killing people because you are too stupid to convince them of anything.

>>15752574
I'm sorry, your program keeps printing sentences like "define what X is" but I'm not sure you know what you're talking about when you ask this. For instance, you won't define 'is'.

>>15752559
>Said experience cannot be reduced to interactions between any hypothesized external "materials"
how do we know it cannot? i'm no neuroscientist, but i think different people have different nervous tissue structure, different neurotransmitter and hormonal mixes, which influences our experiences

>Consciousness cannot be explained by materialism (or any variation of it thereof)
even if there are parts that are not explained by materialism today how can we know it's generally impossible? it's a bit like saying
>if no thor than why thunders? atheists dumb

>>15752576
Is refers to an equality statement.

>>15752578
What's an "equality statement", retard?

>>15752579
A statement indicating things on each side of the "is" qualifier are equivalent or equal.

>>15752581
What does "things" mean? What does "equivalent" mean? You're such a moron it's truly stunning.

>>15752583
Things are the elements being equivocated.
Equivalent means equal or very nearly equal to.
Equal means the same as.

>moron
Ironic coming from the retard who can't even define his own terms and doesn't even know what the word "is" means.

>>15752587
>Things are the elements
What are "elements"?

>Equivalent means equal
What's "equal"?

I refuse to believe anyone can look at this thing and conclude that it's fully human. Anyone who considers you human is also a mindless automaton.

>>15752588
Anything in a set is an element.

>What's "equal"?
It means you were too retarded to actually read what I wrote since I already defined it knowing you would just feign ignorance.

>>15752590
>Anything in a set
What's a "set"?

>equal is same
What's "same"?

You're an automaton. No doubt about it. Notice how you can't look think than one step ahead, which means I can manipulate you into running in a tiny circle indefinitely.

Lmao, how can anyone deny free will? Are you remote controlled or something?

>>15752583
>>15752588
>>15752594

It is in fact possible to define all words in english language (there are even entire books doing it called "dictionaries"), although some of them sometimes require some context to precisely convey the meaning.
"Consciousness" is a very abstract term with many often blurred definitions, so when you talk about consciousness it is vital to precisely explain what do you mean by that in the context of given conversation. For example "consciousness" may be used as opposite of sleep, faint or death, but I don't think you are using this meaning here, so please tell us what do you mean.

>>15752598
>It is in fact possible to define all words in english language
Define 'is'.

>>15752595
what do you mean by free will

>>15752594
A set is a collection of elements.

Same refers to things that are identical or nearly identical.

I literally am the only one of the two of us who thought a step ahead since you were clearly too retarded to notice that I already defined equal before you asked, while providing definitions for words words that are defined with mathematical precision while the words you use are in constant flux and open to interpretation such that you can't even define them at all let alone define them into an infinite regress because the person on the other side is retarded and admits they don't know the definition of anything to try to make their point about how they understand everything because the experience their own consciousness rather than depending on any external world for their experiences.

>>15752595
You are perpetually trapped in a sack of meat, how can you be free when you can't even be anything except for you?

>>15752603
>A set is a collection of elements.
What's an "element"?

>Same refers to things that are identical
What's "identical"?

Has your primitive processor realized you're looping yet?

>>15752609
Those have already been defined, an element is any distinct thing in a set and identical means equal or same.

Have you realized you can't even loop yet because your position is so weak that you have to admit don't understand words to make a point and can't provide a single definition to back your claim let alone several synonyms that work just as well?

>>15752599
>>15752578

>>15752613
*which is why your loop isn't about words and their meanings, but your own anger and namecalling those who prove you wrong

>defines 'thing' in terms of 'element'
>defines 'element' in terms of 'set'
>defines 'set' in terms of 'element'
>defines 'element' in terms of 'thing'
>defines 'equal' as 'same'
>defines 'same' as 'identical'
>defines 'identical' as 'equal'

And he doesn't see the problem here. These things are not human. Q.E.D.

>>15752620
>doesn't define his terms at all
>thinks this is better than using definitions that have multiple synonyms

>>15752620
>OMG things that are innately related are defined in relation to each other, what a sin, this is bad for my soul

>be a dumb animal
>complain that others aren't defining their terms
>asked to define one single word from his complaint
>shit out 10 posts trying to do it
>end up offering a meaningless circular "definition"
>get your nose rubbed in it
>complain that others aren't defining their terms

They're not fully human. Q.E.D. It's literally not a moral issue physically destroying this object.

>>15752634
>uhhh a thing is an e-e-element, which is a thing, ok????

People trying to discuss things they can't even explain is quite amusing.

>>15752636
>>shit out 10 posts trying to do it
No, I defined it in the first post, you just don't understand words so you needed to shit out 10 more posts asking for more definitions for every single word present.

You are only rubbing your own nose in the fact that I can define my terms with 10+ synonyms while you can't even come up with one single coherent definition for some nonsense that is based on evidence that only your self can provide.

>>15752639
>I just can't into synonyms because I can't even come up with one definition let alone many that would necessitate an entire rack.

Leaving aside wether qualia exist or what is the definition of them: can anyone explain to me what do they do, and how are they useful? Useful as in, make a testable prediction on anything I can perceive or influence?

>>15752646
>>15752648
>X is Y
>Y is Z
>Z is X
>t. member of the nonhuman horde trying to define thing

>>15752649
>can anyone explain to me what do they do,
Nope. It's a strictly human thing. It's fundamentally inaccessible to self-branded nonsentients.

>>15752652
Look who posted the same non-argument again. Are you stuck? Do you need a restart?

>>15752652
>X is... IT JUST IS OKAY YOU FUCKING SUBHUMAN, DON"T QUESTION ME.

>>15752654
So existance of qualia has no practical consequences?

>>15752654
How are dogs better at sniffing out chemicals if they don't have qualia?

>>15752655
>>15752656
>>15752657
>>15752658
>all these mentally ill animals losing their minds with rage
Delicious.

>>15752660
No, the question of why dogs are better at smelling if they lack qualia is a simple question that your retarded assumptions can't justify.

Consciousness is the experience of being. Qualia are the basic substance of that experience.

>>15752660
Are you capable of posting an actual response or are you going to just imply rage to anyone who requires anything of you?

>>15752663
So a rock doesn't exist or it can't be experienced?

>>15752662
>why dogs are better at smelling if they lack qualia
Now show me where I said that dogs lack qualia. You can't? Ooops. You have lost your mind with rage and are simply hallucinating. Impotent anger is a dangerous thing.

>>15752666
>So a rock doesn't exist or it can't be experienced?
Show me where that post says or implies it. I have quite literally driven you out of your mind. You are having a psychotic episode. Delicious.

>>15752667
It's been suggested here:
>>15752654
>It's a strictly human thing

>>15752667
>>15752654
>It's a strictly human thing.
I never expected someone who can't provide definitions to have any level of consistency, you specifically avoid defining your terms because you know your assumptions are not consistent.

>>15752671
So then a rock is conscious?

>>15752672
>>15752673
>>15752675
>literal psychotics losing their minds with incoherent schizorambling about dogs and rocks

>>15752671
Nah, you are just having a manic episode thinking this thread is all about you because you are the only evidence of consciousness.

>>15752663
>Consciousness is the experience of being. Qualia are the basic substance of that experience.
/thread

>>15752680
If you're not fully psychotic, quote the specific part of my post that says rocks "don't exist" or "can't be experienced". You won't.

>>15752677
>My language is inconsistent, so I will just get angry and call people names instead of learning from my mistakes and refining my language because its the easier thing to do.

>>15752685
So they are conscious? Because if they exist and can be experienced, by the definition provi>>15752663

>>15752691
So they are conscious? Because if they exist and can be experienced, by the definition provided in >>15752663, they must be conscious.

>>15752691
>So they are conscious?
Did I say or imply that rocks experience anything? You are literally psychotic.

>>15752698
So a rock can't be crushed, that is an experience beyond a rock's ability?

>over 260 posts omitted
>still noone can say how qualia relate to material account of consciousness

>>15752701
I don't know how rocks work in the mind of a clinical psychotic but mentally sound people generally agree that rocks probably don't experience anything.

>>15752654
So we can't prove that they exist and we can't replicate them or use them, but we're sure that exist because we pat our backs about them with other people as enlightened as us
Kinda like a religion

>>15752702
They can't even define consciousness or qualia since they are the only evidence and they can't into words since words have synonyms.

>>15752702
They don't. There is no such thing as a "material account of consciousness" consciousness implies qualia but there can't be a material account of qualia. Not sure why your team of mental patients keeps laboring under the "material" umbrella when materialism has been dead to science for over a century.

>>15752704
Except that rocks exist and they can experience being crushed or we wouldn't have crushed rocks to make cement.

>>15752705
>we can't prove that they exist
It's self-evident that they exist to any human. Anyone who needs it "proven" to him is not part of the discussion, but trash to be cleaned up.

>>15752709
Now that's some good trolling

>rocks experience being crushed
This kind of stuff is why I post in this thread. To me it's literally just a speedrun to get materialtards to say something patently insane.

>>15752712
D-grade deflection and while you are still resorting to name calling, you aren't doing as good of a job of masking your anger as you think.

>>15752713
>cement doesn't exist, only my own mind does and I just experience the hallucination of cement and rocks since I am the only thing that I can prove exists to myself
No, you are clearly the insane one.

>cemenet exists therefore rocks experience being crushed therefore qualia doesn't exist
This is your mind on scientism. (Assuming these creatures ever had minds in the first place.)

>>15752711
Is it? At its barest, qualia are subjective, personal perceptions of a phenomenon. To prove that they exist and they are distinct and subjective, to prove for example "my redness" is a distinct experience from "your redness", I'd have to... Lend each other our brains? Swap consciousness? Record what our retina perceives?
Assuming all other factors are equal, there's no way to simply assume two humans in the same conditions would perceive and define redness differently... Or the same. Qualia are unprovable, by definition. You just have to believe there's something like a subjective experience because you have zero way to observe it in anyone else.

>>15752725
>Is it?
Yes.

>>15752708
>There is no such thing as a "material account of consciousness"
Why even we have this thread here?

>consciousness implies qualia
In what way exactly?

>Not sure why your team
It's not a football game

>materialism has been dead to science for over a century
How so?

>>15752728
>Why even we have this thread here?
To make you and your buddies deny your own consciousness, try to "define" things circularly and claim that rocks "experience" being crushed. The sole purpose of this thread, I suspect, is to goad you into dehumanizing yourself.

>>15752722
Let me guess you will refuse to define experience too since you know that rocks can undergo the process of being crushed?

>>15752733
To experience something means to be a first-hand witness of its relevant aspects.

>>15752732
I'm new here, I don't have any buddies, will you be one?
>The sole purpose of this thread, I suspect, is to goad you
Yeah, sure, you got me, but what is it about?

>>15752738
>what is it about?
I just told you what it's about. Why are you asking me the same question again right away? Is it because you're a mindless automaton just like your other buddies ITT?

>>15752737
Rocks are first hand to being crushed, hence they change into something other than rocks, the only reason we can look at past temperatures on earth is by examining what rocks deep in core samples experienced and how it affected their structure.

>>15752742
Rocks don't witness anything. Rocks have no minds. You need to be medicated by force it seems.

>>15752649
A human without qualia can be indistinguishable from a human with qualia. That's the point of the p-zombie thought experiment.

>>15752747
>A human without qualia can be indistinguishable from a human with qualia
False. You can distinguish the qualialess horde immediately. Look at this very thread. p-zombies are a myth probably put forward by mindless golems to poison the well.

>>15752739
>I just told you what it's about.
You told me its purpose, not its subject, I'm asking about the latter.
I will really appreciate if you use less epithets if you can, it will make the discussion more substantive.

>>15752743
They are witness to temperature fluctuations through the history of the earth and they do experience a variety of conditions and responses because we can examine their chemical makeup and learn about the past from their experience.

>>15752743
>Rocks don't witness anything.
Neither do you, just word-noise like the sound of a waterfall, just does things via cause and effect.
>Rocks have no minds.
Neither does a single cell.
>You need to be medicated
Youre not a doctor, yet you experience being one?

These threads are utterly retarded and virtually everyone thatposts in them is retarded...its fucking wild how out of touch with reality you people are.

>>15750295
Just seems like a troll thread to be honest

>>15752747
>I can measure things with semantics rather than sensors or instruments.
No.

>>15752753
To quote OP:
>Why does the concept of qualia make /sci/entists piss and shit themselves?
By "/sci/entists" I assume he means materialist golems. So I guess the subject is thebehavior of your friends. He wants to know the mechanics behind what makes "people" deny their own consciousness while insisting that rocks have minds.

>>15752743
>Rocks don't witness anything. Rocks have no minds
How can you say such things for sure? Just because they don't have a brain or nerves? I thought the whole point is that brain isn't the place where consciousness happens

>>15752750
I said CAN. The uncanny behaviour of the p-zombies in this ITT doesn't exclude the possibility of p-zombies with better programming. One of the next generations of ChatGPT might reach this level. Though current ChatGPT appears already more human than the eleutherophobic deniers of free will on /sci/.

>>15752768
>The uncanny behaviour of the p-zombies in this ITT doesn't exclude the possibility of p-zombies with better programming
This is the science board, not the philosophy board. No one cares about Russel's p-zombie orbiting Planet Fantasy. Here we shall examine the empirical evidence of actual, real, NPCs. :^)

>>15752761
Can you show me the sensors to recognize morality, justice or intuition?

>>15752766
>How can you say such things for sure?
You can't but it's a pretty solid assumption. Most people who think rocks have minds are rambling psychotics, empirically speaking. :^(

>>15752775
with precise enough definitions you can measure them in specific contexts, that's what psychology and sociology is trying to do
thing is they are abstract terms that a lot of people use how they like, sometimes even claiming that there is such thing as objective, ideal, platonic morality or justice

>>15752774
>This is the science board, not the philosophy board.
Philosophy is a branch of science now. Science had to take over after philosophers consistently failed to research their own field.

>with precise enough definitions you can measure morality

>>15752788
You can sit back down. No one talked to you and no one here even acknowledges you as human.

>>15752765
Oh, I thought that thread have something to do more with that q-word concept more than human behavior, fooled again.

we have flatearthers, today. does anyone think these zealots will stop after being btfoed? they won't, it's a mental disease not an honest intellectual position. cowards and scum of the earth hide behind "but it's not even provable bruh" concepts. it is about their weaknesses not about their spirit or shit like that. they are literal deranged individuals. they are always a waste of energy.

>>15752789
https://davetannenbaum.github.io/documents/Cohn2019.pdf

>>15752794
>fooled again.
Evidently. Maybe some day they'll update your reading comrepehension up to GPT-3 standards.

>>15752799
Nice golem pseudoscience. No one cares.

/sci/ - it's self-evident that i am right and anyone who dares to question it is not a human

>>15752787
>that's what psychology and sociology is trying to do
You might as well add astrology to that list.

>>15752806
Yes. If your own consciousness is not self-evident to you, you aren't human.

>>15752810
but do you see how weak you look enjoying hiding behind such a silly unprovable concept?
>yeah if you ask me for anything on the subject then you don't have it and you are not human.
how the fuck is this chimp level discussion with intellectually corrupt faggots is accepted on /sci/?

>>15752810
>our own consciousness
you mean that thing that you don't know what it is?

@15752816
@15752820
What delusional, obsessive mental illness does to a low IQ individual. Rationalism was truly a crime against humanity. :^(

>>15752775
>Can you show me the sensors to recognize morality, justice or intuition?
the sensors are used to gather the information. based on this information, your genetic profile and the experiences you had so far, your brain is going to process that data that will result in a feeling of morality justice or intuition. there's neural networks that weight the information and based on how it weighs it will trigger some of those "feelings" that you are talking about. those feelings can't be had without the proper sensory input triggering them as a process result.

>>15752823
those are not the same, scum

It is self-evident that every living thing is a grzegorz, because I know I am. If you don't know what's a grzegorz you are obviously a zombie.

It's now a grzegorz thread.

>>15752826
Good job regurgitating a shallow pop sci narrative. Unfortunately you added nothing insightful to the discussion.

>>15752832
you always say that to anyone starting to pose any kind of challenge to your shit shield-concepts. you intellectual whore

>>15752513
Why cant you come up with original thoughts NPD schizo? Why can you only mimic real humans?

>>15752832
clear your sensors. your sensory checksum is broken. i know because i've compared it to mine

>>15752867
you do sound retarded by implying it doesn't happen that way. massively retarded.
>yeah sure I'll just assume approximations and problem solved
what a fucking joke you are

>>15752775
Can you tell me the name for the units of any of those or do you just not know what a measurement is?

>>15752765
Except it wasn't a materialist that provided the imprecise definition of consciousness >>15752663 that applies to rocks as much as it does to you.

>>15752800
Maybe if you actually provide a definition for consciousness, they will have something to read, but you won't do that knowing how flimsy your definition will be and how easily it will be used against your premise to either infer that everything is conscious or nothing is.

>>15752804
>Economic studies performed by several authors are pseudoscience, but only having myself to us as evidence is superscience.

>>15752810
Sorry I only know about sensation of the external, not this internal experience of my own consciousness that your sick delusional brain has latched onto.

>>15752832
He wasn't trying to add anything new based on some evidence only he has, he was trying to explain to a retard what we know about biological sensation after centuries of analysis.

>>15752911
>>15752914
>>15752918
>>15752920
>>15752874
>all these mentally ill golems turbo-(You)ing me
Keep denying your own consciousness and justifying your extermination.

>>15752930
>being so wrong that everyone else can easily point out the flaws in my logic to the point I have to give up on my argument and just start name calling is a good thing

>>15752940
3 obssessed subhumans, two posts each.

>>15752514
>>15752530
>>15752568
>>15752570
>>15752537
>my logical position is so weak, I would have to start killing people to have any effect

>>15752955
So that one mass reply to is point out that there are 6 posts you can't refute, so all you can do is get angry and start with the name calling, but you have lost the energy to address them all individually or come up with unique mean names to call them?

The mentally ill golems will react to this post.

>>15752759
>.its fucking wild how out of touch with reality you people are.
>t. non-tenured glorified teaching assistant who thinks he's God is telling us we're out of touch with reality
Go write your fiction novel to pad your low income and lack of academic recognition pal. Maybe you'll reach #495 on Amazon's weekly bestsellers one day and you can retire in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

>>15752810
Consciousness is just a soulless workaround for conscience, good job denying your own immortal soul, enjoy hell at least you will get to build it out of whatever shitty ideas you have latched onto in order to deny your own soul, reprobate.

>>15752998
This is not a reaction.

>>15753012
>fiction
No such thing, all mythos are metaphors for reality. You cannot tell a stoey detached from the subjective human experience. All combinations of human interaction are finite and redundant, look up the screen writers bible for a modern example.

You'd know this if you were a brain doctor and a priest.

>>15753025
>All combinations of human interaction are finite
Faith, hope, and love are all infinite, though, it says so in the bible mythos which as you said are representative of reality.

>>15753025
>fiction means not based on real experience

>>15753036
>Faith, hope, and love are all infinite
Then why does Satan ask the priest about his faith if its infinite?...
>>15753039
>look up the screen writers bible for a modern example.
You seem retarded, why are you posting on a scientific forum?

>>15753053
Which priest? He would obviously have to ask about something he couldn't measure himself given it is infinite.

>>15753064
>Which priest?
lol....good lord...youre too prideful and stupid to pretend to be this wise or educated. Youre not the Judge, youre pulling shit out your ass

>>15753066
>youre too prideful and stupid to pretend to be this wise or educated

>>15753066
I just wanted clarification for your vagueness and you still haven't accounted for the fact you were clearly wrong and bible mythos specifically says faith (along with hope and love) is infinite and if it were finite, there would be no reason for satan to ask about how much the priest had.

>>15753069
Post a picture of yourself, not what you feel youre not but totally are.

YOU ARE WHAT YOU POST....doesnt work the other way around because Im not trying to convince myself Im not what others say about me.

>>15753075
>I just wanted clarification
You will never accept clearification because youre not seeking the Truth...youre seeking a win for your ego.

>>15753079
>Im not trying to convince myself Im not what others say about me.

>>15753088
Fuck yeah.

POST BODY FAGGOT!

>>15753085
>never
I accept your projection based concession while you add ego as another human based interaction that can be infinite.

>>15753111
Your build really isn't all that impressive though. You're lanky with unremarkable biceps and zero abs at all. Your ribs stick out further than anything you've "worked hard for." I don't post my own photos on an anonymous website btw, and I also don't type in a username for recognition on an anonymous website. Thanks though!

>>15753112
>I accept
You cant. You never will. You have no choice. You have no say.

YOU WILL DIE FOR A LIE.

>NOPE

>>15753118
POST BODY FAGGOT.

I have other duties....like solving the problems of the universe that man has struggled with for all of history, IN MY SPARE TIME.

HAHA DISREGARD THAT I AM A MENTALLY ILL SCHIZOPHRENIC

YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT BUT THIS IS PEAK PERFORMANCE.

POST
BODY
FAGGOT

>>15753137
TIME STAMP.

NOW.

>>15753132
Haha surely putting on a mask of someone else is the sane thing to so haha.

>>15753075
Just got back from a long and hard session at Planet Fitness....might solve the hard problem of consciousness IN MY SPARE TIME

POST BODY FAGGOT

>>15753145
>the hard problem of consciousness
Doesnt exist, thats the filter point of midwits....midwits like Donald Hoffman.

>>15753132
yes I keep noticing free will enjoyers are mentally ill schizos. you and the other namefag from this thread.

>>15752577
>how do we know it cannot? i'm no neuroscientist, but i think different people have different nervous tissue structure, different neurotransmitter and hormonal mixes, which influences our experiences
True but irrelavent to the point. You can have different experiences do to variations in external circumstances, but the (You) HAVING the (experience) is not reducible to external circumstances.
>even if there are parts that are not explained by materialism today how can we know it's generally impossible? it's a bit like saying
>if no thor than why thunders? atheists dumb
That's like asking if there are infinite points along a circle how can we know for sure it's impossible to have one in the middle. Somethings are obvious if you think it through logically. Materialism originated as a model hypothesizing the existence of "matter" external to the conscious observer projecting what we see so we can better predicate what we see. This model has gone so elaborate that now autistic materialists want to come full circle and claim the observer itself is just part of their map. This is akin to trying to pulling yourself up by the bootstrap and is epistemological impossibility.

>>15753253
will you contest any result proving you are emergent from matter? scientifically speaking. that is doable btw. what happens then? will you take it like a good boy or will you start spazzing out?

>>15753257
>scientifically speaking. that is doable btw
Except it's literally not.
>will you contest any result proving you are emergent from matter?
Take your best shot. Tell you what, you don't even need to give me an actual experimental result here. Give me a thought experiment and an imagined outcome by which the result would prove (You) are emergent from matter.
I'll wait.

>>15753253
>the (You) HAVING the (experience) is not reducible to external circumstances.
That very statement coming from you to me reduces us both to external circumstance since you are project you on to me and I am suppose to passively accept your commands on how to view myself.

>This model has gone so elaborate that now autistic materialists want to come full circle and claim the observer itself is just part of their map.
That is not full circle, it is a bottom approach from matter to you rather than a top down from you to matter either way you are involved in the equation.

>>15753278
>Except it's literally not.
lol you must be out of your fucking mind, like the rest of the schizos.
just because others like you enjoy the concept and you all keep repeating it won't give it any more value than it's possible to have. it is or it isn't, you cannot decide that it isn't. that is not a choice you have.

>>15753278
>Give me a thought experiment and an imagined outcome by which the result would prove (You) are emergent from matter.
you cannot give a single example of consciousness without a matter support. you all free will enjoyers are fucking retarded, literally. you are a fucking joke lol

>>15753278
>Give me a thought experiment and an imagined outcome by which the result would prove (You) are emergent from matter.
Ok, imagine that you are made of matter such as elements and chemicals and that all the actions you take, the things you can do and the things you are good at, are dependent on the physical makeup of that matter and your physical form.
It follows then that your personality and daily activity would emerge from those physical things you have done and the things you are able to do and things you are good at doing based on your material makeup.

>>15753283
>That very statement coming from you to me reduces us both to external circumstance since you are project you on to me and I am suppose to passively accept your commands on how to view myself.
Non sequitur.
>either way you are involved in the equation.
Again, doesn't follow.

>>15753287
Weird, none of that verbal diarrhea look like a thought experiment to me.

>>15753298
bro the issue is not about this particular thing, it really is about a whole other bunch of shit, which has nothing to do with science. it ties into judicial systems and money making and religion and politics to the point where they really don't have the choice of finding out what the fuck is up with us. anything other than their particular definition of free will spells big trouble and serious dissonance for such a whole lot of bullshit mixed together that literally there is not an option in coming to any other conclusion than the church defined free will and spirit as being end of discussion.
this is not really a discussion, this is long term sustained propaganda. it's not something you can get out of. amazed that people keep falling for their bait instead of seeing it for what it really is.

>>15753299
>Non sequitur.
Nope it is exactly the act you claim is impossible.

>Again, doesn't follow.
No, you don't follow, you started by making a claim about externalizing yourself being impossible while externalizing yourself onto me and telling me how I should be more like you.

>>15753299
>Weird, none of that verbal diarrhea look like a thought experiment to me.
>I'll always ignore any solid argument, that's how this shit show goes, how it always did. we never address any argument and there's no problems.
you are intellectual whores and cowards.

>>15753293
>you cannot give a single example of consciousness without a matter support
You mean you cannot. "Matter" is made up concept used for perception predication, not the perception itself.
>>15753298
Sure, but none of that is (You). They are simply what you observe.

>>15753306
>Sure, but none of that is (You).
oh you really need to prove this somehow, scientifically speaking. you don't get the choice of using this argument moron. you did not earn that, scientifically speaking

>>15753310
There is SOMETHING observing all the things you listed.
Is your head so far up your ass you can't observe this simple logics that you need to earn the right to think from your profs?
Scientifically speaking of course.

>>15753315
what is observing what? be specific.

>>15753306
>Sure, but none of that is (You). They are simply what you observe.
Wrong, read the thought experiment again.
>Ok, imagine that you are made of matter such as elements and chemicals and that all the actions you take, the things you can do and the things you are good at, are dependent on the physical makeup of that matter and your physical form.
>you are made of matter
Its says very clearly that the matter is your composition, if you are imagining something different, you aren't following the thought experiment due to reading comprehension or general bias.

>>15753315
>There is SOMETHING observing all the things you listed.
The emergent personality that was described in the thought experiment.

>>15753320
Really, you going to try devolve this into semantics.
You can call it whatever you want. There is an "A" observing everything else "B".
Said "A" is logically impossible to be explained by "B". The observer simply cannot be explained by the observed, no matter how many models of "C" it makes up.

>>15753301 me
they are literally determined by the shit corner they painted themselves in to never accept anything else than their particular definition of it. they are here to try to maintain it, as cultural awareness, they are not here to discuss it or to find out if maybe it's not as they though it is.
that is why I am saying they are intellectual whores, they know very well whats up, they have no choice. they are determined by the whole religious framework as this fine lad recognized with no shame >>15751443, that is all there is to it. it's not a matter of how good your arguments get, what is newly scientifically discovered. the real work they do is trying to come up with rebuttals for anything that might endanger their shit story. that's what's up with these schizos. they do not belong here, in this format.

>>15753325
>you are made of matter
And what's observing this hypothesized fact?
>>15753333
And what's observing said emergent personality?

>>15753346
>And what's observing this hypothesized fact?
The personality described in the thought experiment.

>And what's observing said emergent personality?
The personality is forming as a result of observing its own matter as its physical form dictates the actions of the personality imbued body.

>>15753357
>The personality described in the thought experiment.
And what's observing this "personality described in the thought experiment"?
>The personality is forming as a result of observing its own matter as its physical form dictates the actions of the personality imbued body.
And what's observing this "The personality is forming as a result of observing its..."?

If something cannot be observed, then you cannot know about it.
If it can be observed, then something other than it is doing the observing.

Like I said, you are trying to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

>>15753365
The personality is emerging as a result of the matter sensing itself.

>And what's observing this "The personality is forming as a result of observing its..."?
In the thought experiment, the emergent personality is clearly the word for the observing portion of the body of matter.

>If something cannot be observed
In the thought experiment, it can be observed by personality that emerges from the matter as described.

>If it can be observed, then something other than it is doing the observing.
No, that is outside the semantics of the thought experiment, work on your reading comprehension and reread the thought experiment several times until you don't have to ask the same easily answered question over and over.

>Like I said, you are trying to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
No, you are ignoring the thought experiment and doing you own, it doesn't start with something that observes everything even though everything is nothing then somehow turns nothing into everything else, it starts with matter that have chemicals and elements that form into physical bodies that have physical abilities and limitations where personalities emerge to call the body of matter (You).

>>15753380
>it doesn't start with something that observes everything
>it starts with matter that have chemicals and elements
Right and how would you logically know there are "chemicals" and "elements"..etc. from the start? Something observed something else and hypothesized "chemicals" to explain what what was observed.

I can presusuppose "1 = 2" in my thought experiment as well but that doesn't logically invalidate all of mathematics.

>>15753253
what is this not material observer you seem to be talking about and if it's not material how could it influence the material body?

>>15753408
>how would you logically know there are "chemicals" and "elements"..etc. from the start?
The thought experiment states that you are chemicals and elements from the start, not that you are aware of it from the start, but eventually the body of matter comes to knows because it has a specific form that dictates abilities and limitations from which a personality emerges to observe it further.

>I can presuppose "1 = 2" in my thought experiment as well but that doesn't logically invalidate all of mathematics.
That is not presupposition, it is a cypher where you create a new set of symbols to replace the old to obfuscate the original definition and have your own symbolic representation of the value kind of like how you keep trying to make your own thought experiment rather than considering the one provided that you asked for just to obfuscate the results and pretend like the thought experiment doesn't lead to a very clear conclusion regarding the emergence of personality to observe one's own body.

>>15753408
>I can presusuppose "1 = 2" in my thought experiment as well but that doesn't logically invalidate all of mathematics.
Yet you said it was impossible to even come up with a thought experiment where (You) emerged from matter, but now you know you were wrong.

>>15753416
It has influence over the body by being a property of the body.

>>15753437
>my thought experiment is simply a statment of my conclusion
>my thought experiment is simply "consciousness is an emergent property of matter"
>my thought experiment is simply "I am right"
This is the reason why materialists are a laughing stock outside your own echo chambers.

>>15753453
You asked for an impossible thought experiment that leads to that conclusion, don't get mad when its really easy for someone else to think of.
Your problem is that you were taught some top down omnipotent superpowered thought experiment as a child, so you have become trapped in the mindset where you have to externalized yourself and can't even imagine a bottom up approach when it is clearly spelled out and described consistently over and over again how you and your matter can be the same thing since there has to be some other external observer that was always there.

>>15753471
>Hypothesis
>Experimentation
>Observation
>Conclusion
Okay let's try again, baby steps.
Here is the scientific method, this is he baseline everybody and their grandmother on this board (I hope) can agree on.
An actual experiment would be one that was one done and recorded, which I'm not asking for.
I'm only asking for a thought experiment: What would you have to OBSERVE to validate your HYPOTHESIS that "consciousness/the observer is just part of the observed?

>I observed my body is made up of chemical compounds
>Okay, WHAT observed your body..etc.?
>My eyes observed..etc.
>Okay, WHAT observed your eyes..etc.?
>My brain observed my eyes..
>Okay, WHAT observed your brain..etc.?
>Errr my..soul?
>Okay, WHAT observed your soul..etc.?
>system_error.exe

Do you get it now? Even if you go outside standard materialism it's impossible to explain the observer away with the observed.
Now of course if you are going to be a disingenuous twat and simply say "I observed my conclusion" therefore "my conclusion" I guess that's one way to be right.
But don't blame others when they laugh at your.

>>15753507
>What would you have to OBSERVE to validate your HYPOTHESIS that "consciousness/the observer is just part of the observed?
A mirror and the ability to change something you observe about the observer.

>Okay, WHAT observed your brain..etc.?
The brain is observing itself with use of the other organs you mentioned and were implied all working together, you don't need to go deeper, the body and the brain with its limited complexity and networks of nerves, membranes, and ionic feedback loops is enough to observe and document external reality in relation to its own sense of self.

>>15753507
>Okay let's try again, baby steps.
Basically your assumption that a thought experiment couldn't be formed was easily refuted, so now you need to try to get away from the thought experiment that was provided and start making a new thought experiment of your own even though you were clearly wrong and just refuse to admit it.

>>15753514
>A mirror and the ability to change something you observe about the observer.
>observe about the observer
Good try, but to reflect you will first have to identify what to reflect.
Anything that can be observed by definition is not part of the observer; you would never be able to identify what to reflect.
>brain
>you don't need to go deeper
Ah but you do, logic dictates so.
The brain explains intelligence, but it says nothing about consciousness.

>>15753537
>Good try, but to reflect you will first have to identify what to reflect.
That is a confusing way of saying that you can't even pass the mirror test.

>Anything that can be observed by definition is not part of the observer
So your hand is not your hand?

>Ah but you do, logic dictates so.
Well technically I did by explaining what the brain is made of and how the networks of nerves document sensation, but I should have said you don't need to look outside of the brain to a soul when it is comprehensive and complex enough to explain observation and awareness of the internal body vs the external environment, intelligence, and every other property of consciousness.

>>15753543
>So your hand is not your hand?
It's my hand but it's not me.
>brain is complex enough to explain..etc.
Intelligence is input/output, which the brain can explain, and be replicated with AI.
Consciousness is the awareness of observations which can never be objectively measured but only subjectively experienced.
Since it cannot be objectively measured, it is therefore logically not permeable to science.
But since it can be subjectively experienced and directly observed, it does exist.

>>15753562
I have never seen such mental gymnastics. this is weapons grade faggotry.
>no but I won't really think about anything and just repeat how it's impossible to beat me in this argument. I will only consider setups where I declare you cannot be observed, so that means I always win you see?
whore. you are a whore.

I CAN NEVER BE OBSERVED! JUST AGREE WITH ME

>>15753244
>free will enjoyers
Youre a coward that never left the nest because your fears control your life.

>>15754073
>Youre a coward
dunno bro, I think being open to accept I am whatever the fuck I really am, no matter if I like that or not, takes a bit more than accepting your free will comfy position.

>>15754119
>dunno bro
I do know, and we are not brothers, SON...you have confused your lived experience in life for the median, meaning you think youre average because you keep in a bubble.

Leave the nest....

>>15754152
>schizophrenic ad hominem

>>15754222
Youre not a doctor, stop LARPing. Your father is a failure because he produced a worthless dirtbag

These are just name calling....youre being judged by your posts, not my delusions.

>>15753562
>Consciousness is the awareness of observations which can never be objectively measured
It can literally be measured with something as simple as a boolean.

>>15751957
I never tried to prove anything to you, I just legitimately cannot grasp this. If there is another explanation, I am all for it, point me to some works to read.

>>15751908
But how is it a choice if it is fully predetermined by the previous state of the system, which is fully predetermined by the previous state of the system and so on ad infinitum?
If there is some X factor that goes against this, I am very much interested in hearing what it is.

>>15754331
>never be objectively measured
>objectively
"Objectively" been the operative word here.
You can obviously measure it subjectively by confirming it within yourself though direct observation (a boolean "true"), but how do you objectively prove this to another? How do you objectively confirm this same quality in another entity other than yourself?
You simply cannot.

>>15754467
>"Objectively" been the operative word here.
Yes and a boolean is an object.

>but how do you objectively prove this to another?
By storing the boolean then communicating its state to others.

>How do you objectively confirm this same quality in another entity other than yourself?
You ask them questions just like you did just now since you obviously intuitively understand how that is done because you are actively doing it.

>>15754593
>communicating your state to others
>ask other people questions about their state
That's not objective anymore now is it; you could be bullshitting about your state and others could be bullshitting about theirs.
There is no objective method to ascertain consciousness in others or prove to others your own consciousness.
You can only subjectively ascertain your own consciousness and take it on faith others aren't bullshitting you when they say they are conscious like you.

>>15754747
You can lie to yourself too and you are clearly familiar with doing so which is why you will never be able to ascertain anything and will just repeat middling lies for attention ad infinitum as you have done throughout this thread.

>>15754756
You sound bitter, I'm sorry I offended your feelings.

>>15754765
The thing that is offensive is how you choose to distort reality and constantly tell lies to yourself and everyone else, why wouldn't it be?

>>15754770
lol what a retarded nigger

>>15754809
Adding more lies and fallacies don't actually counteract the old ones you have presented, they just make you look more logically impotent than ever.

>>15754809
I don't know about consciousness but this is a true statement.

>>15754839
You must know a lot about those type of people being one and all.

>>15754839
Meh, some people just don't bring anything to the conversation and act retarded, it's expected.
Just ignore them.