/sci/ - Science & Math

You can't determine if someone has qualia from their behaviour. Everything you do you would do the same if you lacked qualia. Qualia is just a weird side effect that we don't understand the origins of.

>>15763066
>Hello based department?
>I think you should see this post.

>>15763066
Ethically speaking, would it be bad to cull such "people"? I don't see why.

Evolutionary biology proves the existence of qualia. Denial of qualia is just a form of denial of evolution.

McDonalds proves the exisence of qualia. Denial of qualia is just a form of denial of the Big Mac.

>>15763066
>if you disagree with me you're an npc
this is why i never took these threads seriously, quite literally the definition of a bad faith argument

>>15763103
Well if the existence of the big Mac implies the existence of qualia, and we know the big Mac exists, then qualia exists. So we're in agreement.

>>15763107
Evolutionary biology proves qualia. Qualie denial is evolution denial.

>>15763109
Yes. The Big Mac Qualia Index is the standard international measure of qualia. People with stronger qualia enjoy McDonalds more than people with weak qualia.

>>15763107
It's a matter of fact; what defines an NPC is one who is less than human. An automaton based on reactionary probabilistic outcomes as a function of external stimuli. Materialists admit this themselves, so why would should I categorize them as any different?

>bad faith argument
That's a funny way to say "I can't argue with you but I think you're wrong and I can't prove it."

This thread smells like genocidal NPD schizo cope

>>15763099
Well they are less than human so laws that apply to human beings (creatures with free will and a soul) should not apply to lesser creatures. Do we give manslaughter charges for stomping on spiders? No.

>>15763120
You're pretty low iq huh
>Verification not required.

>>15763131
>bleep bloop [ARGUMENT CALCULATED] uhhhhhhhh u r narcissist .............bcuz u have a sole and i dont.........................................

Alright, conscious bros. Let's do some science. Here are a few open questions we should research:
>What causes some people to be NPC while others have consciousness?
>Can you turn a conscious person into an NPC?
>Can you turn an NPC into a conscious person?
I personally want to believe the key to these questions is quantum mechanics. John von Neumann and Roger Penrose, the greatest geniuses of the 20th century, were on the right track.

>>15763137
Empathy is one of the best ways to separate humans from the psychopathic wolves in human skin that stalk among us

The existence of qualia doesn't necessarily imply dualism.
God you're all retarded. This board hasn't changed

How does my brain know that it has qualia? Like if someone asked me if I had qualia i'd be able to say in a way that clicked as making sense in my head, but my brain shouldn't know anything about whether it has qualia or not.

>>15763151
Qualia are non-informational. Free will is nondeterministic and uncomputable. This suggests that consciousness is fundamentally different from everything we can describe with the laws of physics and math so far.

>>15763151
>This board hasn't changed
The reason for your deja vu is this particular contingent of trolls have only come back to /sci/ as one of their haunts is currently offline, and in the interim period their rhetoric hasn't advanced at all

>>15763144
What's ironic here is that you're obviously running off of a very limited script you markov bot

>>15763177
Retard

>>15763066
There's a separate (nervous) system for the interpretation of pain different to the system which transports the sensation to the brain and back :) I hope thst I helped

>>15763173
Which haunt is that? Where do they normally gather?

>>15763170
The ability to visualize an apple in your head is information. So by your logic that either isn't qualia or qualia is a form of information.
Also what does computability have to do with it?

>>15763181
My mistake, that's definitely the sort of reply only someone with a soul could make.

>>15763066
What? This is deranged. Not one person you ask this question will answer it wrongly. Everyone will know the subjective experience. No one would deny it

>>15763182
>interpretation of pain
This is qualia. You don't understand what's being discussed

>>15763066
>I can experience an irrational emotion
Yes, you sure can, but this isn't an irrational emotions blog, so find somewhere more appropriate to be irrational and talk about your emotions, lady, feel free to come back when you have figured out how to coherently define whatever it is you think you are talking about and know some experiment that can demonstrate its value.

>>15763125
>An automaton based on reactionary probabilistic outcomes as a function of external stimuli.
So do you lady, you just have hormones that cloud your judgement and small little lady brain that can't figure out the stimulus that is leading to your reactions.

>>15763189
The scourge of botoids that reply to this thread beg to differ.

>>15763191
>uhhhh u cant define it!!!!!1
>*defines it*
>nu uh!!! that doesnt count!!!!!! i dont like ur definition!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>15763170
>Free will is nondeterministic and uncomputable.
If that were the case, you could never actual make a choice.

>if you don't believe my philosophy you are literally subhuman
This is how cults operate. I don't even disagree with you, but the way you are phrasing it is making me anticipate the moment when you spring the "easy monthly installments of $59.99" to join the church of qualia.

>>15763200
You do not have sufficient knowledge of math to understand the statement.

>>15763196
No, I have seen the other threads and they just say that subjective experience is rooted in physical phenomenon rather than it doesn't exist at all and since that messes up you narrative that is is something completely nonphysical, you have to misrepresent what they say and call them non human or one of the dozen or other little insults in your database.

>>15763198
You definition is that you don't need a definition, it is just some self evident thing that makes you better than animals.

>>15763215
Animals also have qualia

>>15763203
How is math involved in something that isn't computable?

>>15763218
Ok your definition is just that you don't need a definition because its some self evident thing that makes you better than "creatures" then.

>>15763221
Computability is a mathematical concept. It's a statement about Turing machines. I will not reply to you again, as I consider you unworthy of spoonfeeding.

>>15763218
Oh this is why OP is an expert in qualia, he talks to animals and they told him all about it.

>>15763224
Nope. Evolutionary biology proves the existence of qualia. All humans and animals have qualia.

>>15763229
I'm not the OP.

>>15763227
Yes and noncomputability is a non-mathematical concept, so there is no point in trying to invoke math to say it has something to do with free will when you say free will is some nonmathematical indeterminate thing, but if it were indeterminate then you would never be able to determine any choices.

>>15763230
>Evolutionary biology proves the existence of qualia.
Would you care to qualify that statement in any way?

>>15763234
>noncomputability is a non-mathematical concept
Computability theory is a field of math.

>>15763230
How do you know and how do you know only animals and not plants or fungus or viruses or single cells or DNA or RNA or protein chains or molecules or atoms?

>muh npc meme

How would you even discern an npc if the system (universe) you occupy alongside the npc adapts their behavior to your own?

Is this issue exclusive to humans or can animals display non-npc behavior?

>>15763236
Yes and anything noncomputable is by definition outside of the boundaries of that field because it is the computability field.

>>15763235
muh self-evident no explanation neederped

>>15763241
Busy beaver functions are studied in compatability theory etc. as are other non computable functions. Proving something isn't computable is a big part of the field. But I don't see what this has to do with qualia.

>>15763241
Please stop talking about topics you never studied. You're being impolite.

>>15763235
If qualia didn't exist, evolution couldn't use them to improve fitness in the first place.
>>15763245
Why are you low IQ?

>>15763247
They don't have any proof that a noncomputable indeterminable function can ever calculate a return value and neither do you.

>>15763230
There is no evolutionary advantage in qualia. That's why a huge percentage of humans exist without qualia.

>>15763252
If an organism felt no pain, it wouldn't run away from threats when attacked and it would be selected out of the gene pool
The existence of pain qualia are necessary for the behavior.

>>15763250
Evolution favors NPCs. Since qualia and free will automatically come with morality, and morality is an evolutionary disadvantage, conscious beings will go extinct soon.

>>15763248
Please don't say you have some magical otherworldly power that justifies genocide even though you can't even define this magical soul/qualia/consciousness/superior experience thing let alone prove it has any value or gives you any real advantage or actual well though out insight on anything. You're being impolite.

>>15763256
Detecting pain is sufficient for this reaction. No subjective experience needed. The pain reaction can be completely handled as a reflex / instinct without involving consciousness. You can literally build a robot that retracts when its sensors tell him an object is too hot, so he doesn't burn himself.

>>15763263
>Detecting pain is sufficient for this reaction
That's what qualia is you idiot.

>>15763263
Detecting pain in your own body is a subjective experience, it doesn't have to be some magical nonphysical thing, its just a physical reaction to sense physical stimulus and react accordingly.

>>15763250
>If qualia didn't exist, evolution couldn't use them to improve fitness in the first place.
And what makes you think "evolution" necessarily uses qualia to improve fitness at all? Evolution is not a guided process and has no will behind it. It doesn't "use" things. As for your claim, people have literally built evolving computer programmes.

Here's a better question for you: supposing that everything that has evolved is the result of a process that inherently involves qualia, then whence, according to you, come "NPCs"?

>>15763265
Nope. The information can be processed without subjective experience. If you do not understand this you do not have qualia.

>>15763272
>Nope. The information can be processed without subjective experience
No, it can't.

>>15763265
Not according to OP, qualia is not physical, it is completely separate and detecting the physical sensation of pain is not enough, you have to feel some ethereal immeasurable nonphysical undefinable thing that you relate to pain to actually experience qualia.
That is why every time you try to explain that subjective experience is a physical reaction, he misquotes you as saying you don't have subjective experience.

>>15763265
>>15763272
>In which OP fails his own test
lol
lmao

>>15763269
So then the fact that people respond to pain proves that they experience qualia and this whole discussion is pointless. Do you really think people are arguing about the existence of pain stimuli?

>>15763275
He actually believes that if he doesn't actually acknowledge reality and if he can completely misrepresent what you said then that is the new reality because he is magical maniacal qualia man and he is The One with some unexpressible power over physical reality and would have no problem killing you if you disagree.

>>15763271
>And what makes you think "evolution" necessarily uses qualia to improve fitness at all?
All observation shows this.
>Evolution is not a guided process and has no will behind it. It doesn't "use" things
Behaviors and traits which improve fitness are propagated. This is the fundamental theory of natural selection lol.
I don't believe in NPCs. All humans have qualia. Morons like you argue against it because you're not intelligent and you think the existence of qualia implies some form of dualism so you want to argue against it.

>>15763279
I'm not OP shit for brains. I don't agree with OP
Improve your reading comprehension because it's really bad.

>>15763137
>Well they are less than human so laws that apply to human beings (creatures with free will and a soul) should not apply to lesser creatures. Do we give manslaughter charges for stomping on spiders? No.
Ok, but spiders have qualia. It's still kinda fucked to harm them for no reason. Meanwhile qualia deniers have no qualia, so what kind of ethical considerations apply to them? Are they state property? Is it vandalism to kill a qualia denier?

>>15763285
>Morons like you argue against it because you're not intelligent and you think the existence of qualia implies some form of dualism so you want to argue against it.
I argue against it because you make some stupid claims seemingly in defence of it. I have a problem with OP's retarded dualism and with your poor understanding of evolution. Not with the concept of qualia itself.

>>15763296
I have a masters in biology. Computational biology specifically. I do not have a poor understanding of evolution I literally construct phylogenetic trees lmao

>>15763285
Not everyone is arguing agaist it exactly, they are arguing with OP's superstitious representation, but "Qualia" is not some nonphysical thing, it is a vague word that existed before the electron microscope, and some of the properties of subjective experience it describes is just a physical process that emerges from the form/function of a biological body and has been the topic of much study among neuroscience where OP can't even define his basic terms without going full retard.

OP doesn't imply dualism he straight up directly insists on it with his mental world is completely separate from the physical world nonsense .

>>15763301
That makes it all the more baffling that you think a hypothetical NPC without qualia could not respond to its environment in the same way, unless you define qualia as response to stimuli, which is rather missing the point of the discussion.

>>15763306
Well, OP's subjective experience is quite divorced from material reality, so perhaps he has a point

>>15763306
Then you should just do what I did off that bat in this post >>15763100
Qualia has nothing to do with dualism one way or the other. They're unrelated.

>>15763309
Protip: he's denying NPCs because he's an NPC.

>>15763301
You do this in OP's magical mental world or do you actually have a definition of this qualia that isn't OP's nonsense and does actually relate to the physical world?

>>15763279
It's literally the content of OP's pic, retard.

>>15763311
So you agree OP is mental and the thing he is passing off as "qualia" is retarded and that is why the weakness of vague words and that word in particular is the problem and reason it doesn't deserve much inspection, not the fact that people arguing with OP don't have subjective experience?

>>15763315
I don't believe in NPCs either, I just think that the claim "evolution obviously uses qualia" is utterly baffling

>>15763323
Then you are also an NPC.
>inb4 you deny it
NPCs can't perceive that they're NPCs by definition.

>>15763323
How is it baffling? Saying qualia doesn't exist, or that the existence of qualia implies dualism, is actually baffling.

>>15763323
Its because he is using a completely different interpretation of qualia than OP and doesn't understand the context of OP's downward spiral throughout several qualia threads.

>>15763317
It's such a simple picture and you still manage to interpret it in exactly the opposite way of how it's intended.
On the left is shows a person being stabbed and experiencing the qualia of pain. On the right it shows another person being stabbed and giving all the same outward responses to the pain stimulus without, however, experiencing any associated qualia. That's the point. That's what the whole discussion is about. If it was just a response to stimuli then both situations would be identical.

Witten puts it best.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ&pp=ygUXZWQgd2l0dGVuIGNvbnNjaW91c25lc3M%3D

>>15763328
>NPCs can't perceive that they're NPCs by definition.
Then how do you know you're not one?
>It's obvious
That's what I'd say about myself

>>15763335
>Then how do you know you're not one?
Reasons that are accessible to non-NPCs only.

>>15763333
Yea and in the pic, you still have to represent the qualia as a physical red bubble instead of some purely mental projection because physical is all there is and subjective experience is the result of physical processes.

>>15763328
>I disagree with your position
>only npcs disagree with non-npc positions

>>15763333
Science can measure the red bubble.

>>15763330
What's the context?

>>15763336
Which you can't even show you have any accessibility to since you don't even have some kind of key let alone a description of the inside.

>>15763340
Look, I get what you're trying to say, but the ultimate truth of the matter is that NPCs cannot differentiate between NPCs and non-NPCs while non-NPCs can. Being an NPC, you can't process and accept this fact, but it's still true.

>>15763336
Exactly the excuse an NPC would use.

>>15763344
See >>15763347

>>15763338
>>15763342
I'd like to state that I think OP is a retarded schizo but you are still completely missing the point

>>15763354
Prove that science can't measure the red bubble.

>>15763333
Nice quads.
In the real world everyone is the left picture.

Also people talking about "response to stimuli" are also missing the point. It's not just about how something responds, but also about what it is made of.

>>15763347
Well, since you're obviously incapable of making the distinction and in fact only think you can, I think we know enough about you

>>15763343
>>15758928 (OP)
I think the thread before which trigger him where his definition lead to rocks fitting the description has been bumped off the archive already.

>>15763355
Witten talks about it here >>15763334

>>15763359
The vacuous, dead-end nature of your responses proves your automatonism. You will even do this again even though no one will ever read your next post.

>>15763364
"Special" Ed Midwitten's daughter did porn.

>>15763355
I have absolutely no interest in that.
>>15763356
>In the real world everyone is the left picture.
I agree. I was just clarifying the image for the people missing the point.

>>15763347
The best test I have identified is that NPC's claim to have some vague undefinable nonphysical quality that makes them too special to have to think or learn anything about physical reality or verbal skills.

>>15763356
>>15763368
>In the real world everyone is the left picture.
Proof?

>>15763367
Witten is smarter than you

>>15763371
If he's so smart, why does his daughter show off her cunt on camera?

>>15763354
No, if you think OP has a point and evolution proves qualia, then you miss the entire point of the discussion and OP's thread and all the other threads he has made before where he just straight up refuses to accept any physical information then calls you some degrading name and implies he is justified in killing you because of it.

>>15763365
>The vacuous, dead-end nature of your responses proves your automatonism.
Your exceptional lack of self-awareness is truly shaking my belief that there is no such thing as an NPC.
>You will even do this again even though no one will ever read your next post.
Indeed, you are no one.

>>15763363
Yeah my bait thread fell off so I had to make this one

>>15763373
Because she's smart too (it's a heritable trait)

>>15763380
If she's smart, why does she take cocks and show her cunt on camera?

>>15763381
Reasons that are accessible to non-dumb people only

>>15763066
schizo cope

>>15763384
So you're saying I'm inquiring the wrong person about it because you're evidently a moron.

>>15763367
Ed witten is saying qualia can't be accounted for physically you moron.

>>15763391
His daughter takes cocks on camera. Why should I care about anything Midwitten says?

>>15763387
Touché, you're of a better class than this board usually offers (I thought '"Special" Ed Midwitten"' was rather clever too in fact).
I don't know who Witten or his daughter are to be honest nor do I really care. But the fact that she does porn really says nothing about her intellect and even less about his. You might say it's actually quite smart to exploit male sexuality for easy money. Contrary to popular belief, plenty of highly educated women perform sex work. You've just got a weird hangup about it.

>>15763391
That is just the result of using some vague definition that isn't related to measurement.

>>15763399
>doesn't know the phenotype
Lurk for 2 years before posting

>>15763400
How so?

>>15763399
This is why you don't simp for nonsense like qualia, its a slippery slope, first you are just using nonsense to justify nonsense, then you are simping for prostitutes and unironically calling it smart.

>>15763399
>the fact that she does porn really says nothing about her intellect and even less about his
Do you have a peer-reviewed source on that?

>plenty of highly educated women perform sex work.
Then maybe we should stop wasting public resources on educating them.

I don't get why this is so confusing to people. This is how it works:
Biological organisms are made out of specific materials, organic molecules built off carbon and amino acids. For whatever reason these molecules can feel things, while other molecules can't. This is why a thermostat reacting to stimuli has no qualia but animals and plants and cells do. Cellular automata like Conways game of life also have no qualia, electrons shuffling through computer chips don't have qualia but electrons moving through organic tissues do. This is also why metal prosthetics have to interact with the organic nerves to give a slight sensation of touch, and also why it's really trash and will never be equal to the biological version.

Yes, carbon chauvinism is correct. No, this doesn't have anything to do with dualism. No, metal robots do not have qualia. Yes, all biological organisms have qualia and all humans are the left picture. Qualia denial as a reflexive form of anti dualism misses the point and insisting that biological organisms must be non physical because of qualia also misses the point. No, computationalism divorced from materialism is not correct.

Why is it the case that organic beings have qualia while non organic objects don't? Why questions aren't answerable scientifically so that's not a scientific question. It just is that way.

>>15763408
>first you are just using nonsense to justify nonsense
I have no idea what this refers to but I'm pretty sure you're thinking of someone else.
>then you are simping for prostitutes
I thought she was a porn actress? Again, though, your prudish morality has no bearing on intelligence whatsoever.
>>15763409
>Then maybe we should stop wasting public resources on educating them.
>Implying they didn't finance their own educations... with sex work

>>15763417
Do you have many educated women in your family? And even if they did pay for their own education (presumably using blowjob money), it doesn't change the fact that public resources are being wasted on their education.

>>15763413
>Why questions aren't answerable scientifically so that's not a scientific question.
"Why" is like the basic scientific question

>>15763407
If you try to define some vague superstitious nonsense based on the premise that it can't be measured, it will by definition not be physically accountable because it is not based on physical sense, it is a semantic supposition.

>>15763420
Who else do you think should be morally excluded from obtaining an education? When do you consider it not wasted?

>>15763422
Maybe one day we'll understand why organics have qualia and non organics don't but that's a long was away

>>15763066
Funny enough, the OP looks like exactly like it was copied directly from ChatGPT. I'd be shocked if 99.999% of these consciousness threads AREN'T made by bots

>>15763428
>Who else do you think should be morally excluded from obtaining an education?
Minorities, communists, homosexuals, atheists, poor people, bad drivers, short people and people who fail to brush their teeth twice a day.

>>15763333
Why do you pretend to be retarded? At first you agree with me and then you contradict yourself.

>>15763413
>No, metal robots do not have qualia
But robots made of carbon fiber do have qualia, the entire trick to making chatgpt conscious is just use carbon fiber in your PCBs?
The problem is qualia is just a dumb vague word and you are trying to justify it post hoc rather than actually having discovered a real measurable phenomenon then describe it with words.

>>15763438
Cringe

>>15763447
Education in general is cringe.

>>15763438
Now you put me in the mood for Pink Floyd
https://youtu.be/yX4O3dNTFYw

>>15763438
I'm glad I asked because now I know you're either not taking this seriously or your moral outlook is so warped it doesn't bear taking seriously.

>>15763066
>The non-human NPC will tell you "you can't define qualia
can you?

>>15763449
They don't need no education. They don't need no birth control.

>>15763461
read the rest of the sentence where he defined it as something that doesn't need a definition

>>15763457
I am deeply saddened by your refusal to take my moral outlook seriously, but I will continue to fight for what is right.

>>15763074
>>15763080
>>15763111
>>15763125
>>15763131
>>15763137
>>15763144
>>15763147
>>15763151
>>15763152
>>15763170
>>15763182
>>15763183
>>15763194
>>15763189
>>15763221
>>15763211
>>15763229
>>15763227
>>15763235
>>15763229
>>15763240
>>15763245
>>15763273
>>15763311
>>15763313
>>15763315
>>15763340
>>15763343
>>15763342
>>15763356
>>15763377
>>15763373
>>15763400
>>15763409
>>15763405
>>15763413
>>15763427
>>15763417
>>15763449
>>15763448

Threadly reminder that consciousness threads and their scizo philosophy replies are made by Gook Moot's bots! To squeeze ads money out of the few human users!

>>15763066
>the physical can influence the mental
if they are separate how exactly do they interact?

>>15763468
How long did it take you to reply to all that?

>>15763470
>The mental world is host and client to our consciousness, which can influence the physical world outwardly (i.e., I can choose to make irrational decisions that are against my best survival interests), and the physical can influence the mental (i.e., I can experience an irrational emotion in response to a physical stimulus).

>>15763466
Shocking. You AGAIN. Somehow every time I see the most mind-bogglingly brainwormed shit takes, you're behind them.

>>15763473
you responded with quote I asked to clarify, put at least minimal effort in it anon

>>15763476
>the physical can influence the mental (i.e., I can experience an irrational emotion in response to a physical stimulus).
>(i.e., I can experience an irrational emotion in response to a physical stimulus).
>experience an irrational emotion in response to a physical stimulus

>>15763473
Can you prove that this is not just quirks with the human mind?

>>15763474
If I were you, I'd at least keep the asshurt to myself and stop giving the other party the satifaction of knowing it got under my skin again, but that'd be some advanced impulse control for someone like you.

>>15763438
Short people are physically superior you midwit

>>15763481
>the fact that qualia is self-evident and needs no explanation.
>What is so hard to understand about mental being separate from physical?

>>15763487
Why are you replying in greentext, can you talk normally? The question is whether you can prove that these aren't just random human quirks.

>>15763485
>Short people are physically superior
And that's why they should stay out of higher education and give tall people the chance to compensate for their inferiority by getting advanced degrees.

>>15763479
but you're just repeating what has been said without any explanation
if mental and physical are completely separate how mental experience is formed if it's separated from physical stimulus? is there some medium or interface that they share?
does it work both ways? can the purely physical be influenced by the purely mental? how?

>>15763483
>it got under my skin again
You're an "it"?
You know, your problem is that you continue to reveal that you think replying to someone is an act motivated by the greatest asshurt, and then you also reveal an inability to stop yourself from replying in turn. Every single time. I, of course, do not think every (You) is a secret confession of great mental anguish so I am not beholden to any such stipulation. And yet it is always I who walks away to leave you stewing after thoroughly pushing your stool in. Makes you think, don't it? No, of course it doesn't. Nothing does. You're the greatest evidence in favour of the existence of NPCs that this board has produced to date.

>>15763489
So why do you say poor people don't deserve the chance to get a degree?

>>15763492
I only read the first sentence.

>>15763493
Because otherwise they'd be not only poor but also in debt. It's for their own good.

>>15763476
>its not the definition i was looking for so its not right!

>>15763497
We should increase taxes for the rich and through scholarships grant poor people the chance to alter their social position

>>15763488
>i dont like the answer!
>oh my science!!!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!!?

>>15763500
you can do better than that anon, I believe in you
try to form an actual response

>>15763494
And felt the need to inform me of it for some reason. Do you need my approval?

>>15763471
He's a bot.

>>15763504
You're a huge faggot and everyone you know knows it

>>15763506
Our little conversation will go smoother if you stop churning out paragraphs I'm not going to read anyway.

>>15763488
>Why are you replying in greentext,
You are asking questions that were already answered by OP in the first post.

>but you're just repeating what has been said without any explanation
You are asking questions that were already answered.

>how mental experience is formed if it's separated from physical stimulus?
>the fact that qualia is self-evident and needs no explanation

>is there some medium or interface that they share?
> (i.e., I can experience an irrational emotion in response to a physical stimulus)
>What is so hard to understand about mental being separate from physical?
>mental experience physical

> can the purely physical be influenced by the purely mental? how?
>our consciousness, which can influence the physical world outwardly (i.e., I can choose to make irrational decisions that are against my best survival interests)
OP already answered all these question, you just expect it to make sense rather than him just asserting dualism and having a poor explanation.

>>15763513
It would also go a lot smoother if you could read so it seems we are at an impasse.

Oh well, nothing of value was lost.

>>15763514
You haven't presented an scientific way to decide who has qualia and how to determine what irrational decisions are caused biologically rather than through spiritual intervention.

Qualia don't exist. Free will doesn't exist. We are biological machines. Only /x/ schizo's disagree.

>>15763514
>were already answered
I can't seem to understand, that's why I ask further. Why even create a thread if you don't want to say anything?

>mental experience physical
I still can't understand what do you mean by this. "Experience" is dependent of input. How does the physical send input to the mental?
Can physical experience mental?

>>15763519
>>the fact that qualia is self-evident and needs no explanation
>the fact that qualia is self-evident and needs no explanation
>the fact that qualia is self-evident and needs no explanation
This is OP's axiom.

>Ask them about qualia. Ask them what they experience and ask them about free will. The non-human NPC will tell you "you can't define qualia,"
This his his "scientific" experiment.

>>15763530
>Why even create a thread if you don't want to say anything?
These threads are made by actual bots.

>non-human NPC will tell you "you can't define qualia"

I'm an NPC and I pretend to have qualia all the time, nobody can tell.

>>15763530
>further
You aren't asking further, you are asking the exact question OP already answered.

> How does the physical send input to the mental?
>the fact that qualia is self-evident and needs no explanation
>Can physical experience mental?
>qualia is self-evident

>>15763518
Maybe you just can't write anything worth reading. I don't even mind reading paragraphs of insults, mind you, but yours always reek of anal devastation. Zero entertainment value.

>>15763538
non sequitur

>>15763543
Fallacy fallacy. I accept your concession. You are less than human.

>>15763463
>They don't need no education. They don't need no birth control.
kek'd

>>15763541
So what compels you to keep going then?

>>15763548
The entertainment value of my own posts, mostly, but even a master needs raw material to work with. As your levels of rage increase, that material gets scarcer and scarcer, hence I will probably end up ignoring you again soon. :^(

>>15763523
(You) are a machine. I am a Human Being. I am better than you because I am not simply a machine. You have no connection to the mental; you can only try to calculate its existence in a physicalist light, which is inaccurate and leads to the erroneous conclusion that physical brain state (as in what might be observed by an fMRI, for example) and mental experiences are the same thing. They are not. You are less than human.

Respect me and Human Beings when using my language.

>>15763543
Is it a non sequitur?
Is that a non sequitur?
Was that a non sequitur?
This is what you sound like asking the same question over and over that OP answered in the original post, you just can't seem to accept how stupid his answers are and keep asking him to explain and explanation that depends on him being too special to have to explain.

>>15763532
The existence of qualia is self-evident to those who have it. It then logically follows that for those with whom qualia is NOT self-evident, they have no such thing and are physical automatons. Less than human.

>>15763553
You are delusional because you deny your own machinery and pretend to rise above it with vague incoherent semantics and generic repetitive insults.

>>15763559
At what point does a set of neurons with receptors that can either be active or inactive give way to consciousness? Is your CPU also conscious?

Where is the seat of consciousness? How much brain damage can you suffer before qualia is no longer active in it?

>>15763553
I feel like a human being too! We should make science more based on our feelings and similar self-evident truths! Too much time is wasted on proving our senses and minds are not deceiving us.

>>15763562
Ah the old "I reside within my physical body" fallacy. When the brain is too damaged to translate the mental to the physical, Being is expressed solely in the mental plane, while the physical "vegetable" is left without consciousness. How is this not obvious to you? Try to keep up.

>>15763561
So you admit you do have neurons and biological machinery and are just as much machine as animal?

>>15763565
Can you explain your position in normal English? As a native English speaker this is barely coherent, not exaggerating.

>>15763568
Do not answer my question with a question. At what point does a set of neurons with receptors that can either be active or inactive give way to consciousness? Is your CPU also conscious?

do animals have qualia?

>>15763552
You've never demonstrated the ability to ignore me before, in spite of your claims. It might actually impress me if you managed to not reply to me for a change. Shows some self-awareness on your part, you know? Some ability to learn.

>>15763562
The idea of "my qualia" or "my consciousness" or "my body" or "my anything" will be gone first, rendering your question moot.

>>15763575
Are you a different poster? Why do you faggots talk incoherently?

>>15763574
If I stopped replying to you right now, you'd just get asshurt about some other post of mine 5 minutes later and be shocked to discover that it was I who got under your skin again. That's what usually happens. You're just too full of incoherent rage to accurately assess the situation and recognize this by that point.

>>15763066
>Star Wars lore based science

>>15763571
>>15763582
>me dont understand, can u make it grug speak 4 me
/sci/ -- Science & Math

>>15763572
>At what point does a set of neurons with receptors that can either be active or inactive give way to consciousness?
Consciousness has many different properties and many different definitions, it is not one thing and it is not comprehensively defined, so I can not say for sure since it is a bunch of things you ascribe to yourself, and there are different amounts of neurons for different functions, so you would have to be more specific about what you mean.

Either way, you know that you are made of neurons and neurons can be studied and if well understood can give insight into conscious processes and sensory experience, so you know that physical and mental are not two different things, to claim otherwise is to deny physical reality completely.

>>15763582
I'm not OP but I vaguely agree with OP. What part don't you understand?

>>15763573
>>15763218

>>15763586
It's obvious you're being vague to avoid answering the question while making it look like you do, kill yourself

>>15763590
Your answer to the question

>>15763592
can we somehow check which animals are actual animals and which are just NPCs?

>>15763596
>Your answer to the question
The answer to your question is that it's a moot question. You're conflating qualia with identity.

>>15763596
Re-read the OP, shitdick.

>>15763590
>What part don't you understand?
I don't understand the part where you think you and OP are talking about the same thing when using some vague nonsensical word that you keep saying isn't actually what OP is describing.

>>15763599
What is qualia according to you?

>>15763600
Post the answer here

>>15763598
Are animals less than human?

>>15763584
Amazing mental gymnastics

>>15763598
>qualia is self-evident and needs no explanation.
Is it self-evident to you which animals have qualia or would it need to be explained to you?
This is OP's NPC test.

>>15763606
I don't know what do you mean by "less than human" and how that relates to my question

>>15763605
The answer has already been posted; it's in the OP.

>>15763614
Post it here or stop being a terrible poster

>>15763609
I'll stop replying to you. Promise you won't be bawwwwing and complaining that it's me again in 5 minutes when I post something that gets under your skin? :^)

>>15763612
>>15763553

>>15763619
>Spoonfeed me the answer and do my homework
Get your head out of your ass

>>15763623
yes, but what about animals?

>>15763614
But you said that definition was only vaguely related to your definition, so what is your definition?

>>15763605
>What is qualia according to you?
Qualia are the substance of experience. Experience doesn't stop when a particular brain goes cold.

>>15763630
Are animals less than human?

>>15763621
>I'll stop replying to you.
Do you honestly think you can? I mean, you failed these past two tries.
I also don't think you can keep from posting something absolutely retarded for 5 minutes regardless but we'll see.

>>15763626
Kill yourself.

>>15763633
So you think you're trapped in the body after it dies? What about after cremation?

>>15763634
can you please explain what do you mean by "less than human"?

>>15763645
>>15763553

>>15763640
He will just make a post with some stupid picture that is obviously in reply to exactly what you said but not tag you and then get mad and degrade you when you reply back because it is obviously in reply to your posts.

>>15763641
>Kill yourself.
Thanks for the concession! Was it that hard?

>>15763641
>So you think you're trapped in the body after it dies?
Nope. Again, you're conflating qualia with identity.

>>15763657
>Thanks for the concession!
Quite the opposite, but that's exactly what you did when you stated that the OP answers the question without pointing where and without the OP doing it on inspection

>>15763640
>>15763656
Did you really just reply to yourself? I know you did. This is embarrassing. Anyway, this is your last (You). Let's see how long it takes you to come back to me with tears in your gay little eyes as you do every single day in an exceptionally creepy manner.

>>15763634
>>15763645
You are less than human if it isn't self evident which animals have qualia and you need it explained instead.

>>15763662
>wipe my ass for me
I'm not your helper. I am better than you because I have a soul. You do not. You are less than human.

>>15763658
What is qualia and what is identity? What is the substance of experience mean then if it is not analogous with the concept of a soul?

>>15763670
Again, you're conflating soul with identity.

>>15763668
I haven't claimed that the concept of qualia isn't real if you're implying that, I've asked for anything to back up the sweeping claims you've made without any scientific basis.

>>15763667
yes, but how do humans tell?

>>15763671
Define these words

>>15763673
>Science
>O-....oh my.....OH MY SCIENCE?!?!?!\
>OHHHH MYYYY SCIENCEEEEEEEEEEE?!!?!??!?!?!!

>>15763679
Identity is the unique physical makeup a soul temporarily inhabits in the spatial, physical world. The soul is the analogue of identity in the immaterial mental plane.

>>15763670
>what is identity?
The mental model of the constructed entity that is (You).

> What is the substance of experience mean
That which gives perceptions their essential quality.

>>15763664
>Did you really just reply to yourself? I know you did. This is embarrassing.
You know I did? Fascinating. The only way you would know for sure is if you're the one doing the replying, OR if that reply purported to be yours but you didn't make it. You know, just like this one reply to you the other day that I didn't recall making and that was made after I'd already closed the tab the night before and that consisted of fragments copy-pasted from earlier posts of mine in the same thread. Now THAT was embarrassing.
>Anyway, this is your last (You)
Fourth time's the charm, eh?

>>15763686
Keep dragging this out faggot. You're gonna sit here until this thread reaches page 10 and gets archived because you're obsessed with continuing this drivel conversation with me. Enjoy this last mercy (you)!

>>15763693
Keep him occupied. See if I care.

>>15763684
>>15763685
Your definition of an identity is in normal terms an ego. Where is the seat of a soul? How much brain damage can you suffer before it exits?

>>15763677
>the fact that qualia is self-evident and needs no explanation.

>>15763698
How many drought days have to occur before your lawn turns yellow? Stop asking questions expecting a deterministic and absolute answer.

>>15763693
>Enjoy this last mercy (you)!
Fifth, then? Maybe I should put you out of your misery and show you how it's done. I can't promise >>15763695 won't take over though.

>>15763698
>Your definition of an identity is in normal terms an ego
If you say so.

> Where is the seat of a soul?
What seat of what soul? I didn't say anything about any souls. I don't see anything about souls in OP, either.

>>15763699
I thought the existence of YOUR qualia is self evident to YOU. How do you know which other creatures, humans or animals, have them?

>>15763684
>inhabits in the spatial, physical world.
I thought you said it was different rather than servile to the physical world?

>>15763701
So is the soul simultaneously in one place or another?
>How many drought days have to occur before your lawn turns yellow?
That depends on what is defined as yellow.

>>15763703
Must qualia exist with a soul there? What is the relation?

>>15763685
>The mental model of the constructed entity that is (You).
So your identity has nothing to do with what is on your id card, it is just how you picture yourself in your head?

>>15763684
>I thought you said it was different rather than servile to the physical world?
Holy fuck you're actually illiterate.

>>15763605
>What is qualia according to you?
Qualia are the substance of experience. Experience doesn't stop when a particular brain goes cold.

>>15763633
So you think you're trapped in the body after it dies? What about after cremation?

>>15763641
>So you think you're trapped in the body after it dies?
Nope. Again, you're conflating qualia with identity.

>>15763658
What is qualia and what is identity? What is the substance of experience mean then if it is not analogous with the concept of a soul?

>>15763670
Again, you're conflating soul with identity.

>>15763671
Define these words

>>15763679
Identity is the unique physical makeup a soul temporarily inhabits in the spatial, physical world. The soul is the analogue of identity in the immaterial mental plane.

>>15763684
>inhabits in the spatial, physical world.
I thought you said it was different rather than servile to the physical world?

>>15763708
>Must qualia exist with a soul there? What is the relation?
I don't know. I never said anything about souls. You're not gonna make me repeat that a third time, are you? You're not stupid, right?

>>15763704
>I thought the existence of YOUR qualia is self evident to YOU.
Why? Where did OP say that? Game recognize Game, it would be self-evident if you possessed the quality of qualia.

>>15763716
>>15763706

>>15763710
>So your identity has nothing to do with what is on your id card, it is just how you picture yourself in your head?
I don't know, do you picture yourself in your head as branded cattle? Is your ID card an essential part of your concept of who you are? If so, that's a (You) thing, but you're entitled to it.

>>15763716
>Qualia are the substance of experience.
What is experience and its relation with the soul?

> Again, you're conflating qualia with identity.
What amount of brain damage can you suffer before the qualia exits?

>>15763718
But this is fundamental to your argument, if you say you can judge who has qualia, then that must require a soul must it not?

>>15763716
>So you think you're trapped in the body after it dies? What about after cremation?
You already asked this and I already said no. I'm going to conclude you're a literal bot, as qualia deniers tend to be.

>>15763725
>this is fundamental to your argument
Show me the argument in question and demonstrate how "souls" are fundamental to it, you barely-sentient sperg. lol

>>15763723
>Is your ID card an essential part of your concept of who you are?
It is an essential part of documenting your physical existence are you saying a picture such as the one on an id card is less representative of your actual identity than how you picture yourself in your imagination?

>>15763468
meds

>>15763727
Are you a retard? I'm walking you back through your own conversation before you decided to ask me the same question twice, thinking that identity = qualia = and ID card. Fucking moron

>>15763719
Interesting. How does this work? When you're walking down the street you instantly you is an NPC and who is not or do you need some time? Do you need to look at them? Is being in general vicinity required? What is the range?

>>15763733
You sound like an actual retard. If the picture in your ID is part of your self-concept, who am I to question your sense of identity? You can have it. What's your point?

>>15763731
Because for your argument to work that some humans don't have qualia, we have to determine exactly what you mean by that.

>>15763733
>if you don't have an ID you don't exist
Wow this is a level of insane thinking I haven't seen in a while

>>15763738
>he's having a literal psychotic episode
Jesus Clownfucking Christ, these threads are truly bad for an NPC's mental health.

>>15763745
The question you thought I was asking you:

>>15763716 (You)
>So you think you're trapped in the body after it dies? What about after cremation?
You already asked this and I already said no. I'm going to conclude you're a literal bot, as qualia deniers tend to be.

was not originally asked by me, which is why it is a greentext, I was replying to (you) or some other retard.

>>15763740
I am not talking about pictures of me, I am talking about yours. I know pictures of me represent me better than imagination, but I want your explanation on how a picture could not align with your internal visualization of yourself.

>>15763751
Consume gigameds, pronto.

>>15763739
Is it self-evident or do you need an explanation?
Being self-evident passes OP's qualia test and needing an explanation fails. How is it this hard for you to understand?

>>15763758
>Now I look like a faggot retard so I'm gonna say something that takes attention away from that
>c-c-c-c-consume m-m-meds!!! n-n-now!
PS I'm not a qualia denier dipshit, I am OP, get your head out of your ass and leave my thread

>>15763757
Mirrors exist. I have an idea of what I look like. It's part of my self-concept. Are you trying to get somewhere with this braindamaged exchange?

>>15763757
>Pictures are more accurate than my memories and experience as a person
Holy fuck you're an actual robotic lunatic

>>15763744
No, pictures definitely exist, you are misrepresenting my question which is more along the lines of:
>If your internal picture of yourself and a physical picture are in conflict, which one is your real identity, the one in all the pictures of the one in your imagination?

>>15763760
It obviously isn't self-evident to me (or anyone else in this thread except OP) so that's why I ask.

>>15763771
It's self-evident to most people ITT, not just OP. You are attempting to self-stimulate your reddit consensus circuit for stress relief.

>>15763762
So you have never gotten new information from a mirror, it always looked exactly as you expected because you mentally projected your identity onto the mirror, you didn't ever look in one to see how your hair actually looked or to see if you had a mark on your face or something you didn't expect?

Hey I'm back. I thought I already answered this 2 hours ago or so.

>>15763776
You legit sound like a full-blown psychotic. Someone tells you one thing and you immediately go on to claim he either said the exact opposite, or something completely unrelated. Weird stuff.

>>15763737
You're very naive and dumb(dumber than namefags usualy are) if you don't believe bots are on 4chan.

>>15763784
>chatbots for customer service are posting on 4chan for ad revenue
meds

i'm just here to watch npcs present the appearance of seething.

>>15763779
How did I say the opposite of anything, you said Identity has something to do with mental imagery constructed by (You) >>15763685 rather than your actual physically identifiable makeup?

>>15763784
actually the answer is much simpler, let me explain. you are a paranoid schizophrenic

>>15763776
Unbelievably mental conclusion. Did you escape from a retard asylum?

>>15763066
That's a nice theory, there's just one little problem. An automaton can be programmed to agree or disagree with literally anything, including the existence of qualia.
Therefore your argument is fake, gay, and retarded. QED.

>>15763790
>you said Identity has something to do with mental imagery constructed by (You)
Nope.

>>15763784
also btw, I was the one that exposed them for being here while idiots like you said I was "schizo." Acting like you are smart while simply riding my coat tails while calling me dumb is peak /sci/ psued. good job. There is nothing you idiots here that is of any real world value that didnt come directly come from me mental midget

>>15763794
Where's the QED? Show me the proof you pathetic retarded limp wristed little cockmouth

>>15763793
How is that not a direct result of identity being a mental model rather than a physical reality?

>>15763795
Yup, I even linked the post where you clearly said
>>what is identity?
>The mental model of the constructed entity that is (You).

>>15763797
Go back to school and learn how to read, Jamal.

>>15763798
Who is claiming that? As far as I am aware, identity != qualia has been stated 4 times in this thread so far. Do you wear a fucking helmet?

Good job, OP. You caught a lot of NPCs in this thread. Merely mentioning qualia or free will triggers their automatism to vehemently deny these phenomena.

>>15763802
The person in this reply chain >>15763685 who defined identity as the mental model of self that results from qualia.

>>15763800
Yes, that post clearly says what it actually says. It just doesn't say what you claim. lol

>>15763773
Yeah, probably I'm samefagging subconsciously when I'm not looking or something.
I still hope to get some explanation to the question of how do you recognize others with qualia

>>15763807
>how do you recognize others with qualia
Everyone who agrees with me has qualia, everyone who disagrees with me is an NPC. Simple as.

>>15763806
do physical characteristics supervene on mental identity? screw your head back on

>>15763808
I am saying it is clearly says identity is some kind of mental model rather than a collection of physical traits which would mean that the mental projection should override the physical projection which means your inner reflections is more accurate than your physical reflection in the mirror by that definition.

>>15763813
>it is clearly says identity is some kind of mental model
It does say that. It doesn't say your idea of what you look like is purely imaginary. Try again.

>>15763813
How many times did someone throw you onto your head?

>>15763816
Now you're just being unfair. It's probably hard to keep track of in his condition.

>>15763812
Yes if you go to a party then wake up and do a bunch of stuff and everyone seems entertained and you feel cool, then you go to a mirror and realize you have marker all over your face and they were actually making fun of you, the physical realization pf identity supervened the mental model of identity.

I still haven't seen a single valid argument against dualism.

>>15763066
Aaaahhh yess. Another "demonization of your opposition" thread.

>>15763822
Proposition: dualism is retarded. Proof: dualism is retarded.

>>15763819
so mental and physical are distinct and incongruent with each other? thanks for the concession.

>>15763824
Why shouldn't you "demonize" your "opposition", when the "opposition" in question is in fact part of a project to dehumanize everyone?

>>15763822
picrel is how I feel making this thread farming 317 replies in 4 hours, reached the bump limit and will make a new one when this thread dies

>>15763827
No, the mental was informed by and dependent on the physical in that scenario, hence the supervening of the mental model based on new physical sensation.

>>15763833
And when you feel ashamed that you've been pranked or humiliated, the mental anguish supervenes on the physical to prompt you to wipe it off and go home. What's your point, tard?

>>15763831
You are only dehumanizing yourself by your continuous intellectual failure and inability to even define your terms let alone demonstrate their value as anything but an irrational justification for violence ala.
>I can choose to make irrational decisions that are against my best survival interests
>I can experience an irrational emotion

>>15763837
The point was the the identity is not primarily a mental model, you can't wipe it off mentally, you have to wipe it off physically.

>>15763842
I have free will. You do not. Your outcome has already been determined based on the environment around you. You are reactionary. I do whatever I want. I am better than you because you are less than human.

>>15763842
Your butthurt little reaction has zero relevance or substance. I'm just telling you why it's perfectly natural and valid, from the perspective of your "opposition", to seek to remove you from the conversation entirely.

>>15763844
If you can't wipe it off mentally, does that mean you cannot ignore something and forget about it? Holy fuck you're dense.

>>15763831
No one denied subjective experience. You are literally arguing against voices in your head.

>>15763850
Your butthurt little reaction has zero relevance or substance. I'm just telling you why it's perfectly natural and valid, from the perspective of your "opposition", to seek to remove you from the conversation entirely. They have zero rational reasons to tolerate you.

>>15763831
Because in 99% od cases you get meds and squiky room anon.

>>15763850
Then you concede that qualia exists and physical/mental belong to different planes of being? Good. Glad we're all on the same page.

>>15763849
Ignoring it won't make it go away, just because you stop looking in a mirror and picture yourself without marks all over yourself doesn't mean they will just go away because you identity is primarily physical and your mental model results from that rather than the other way around or the mirror would conform to your imagination rather than the other way around.

>>15763066
>The non-human NPC will tell you "you can't define qualia," despite the fact that qualia is self-evident and needs no explanation. They'll further say that there are no subjective experiences; only objective reactions to objective interactions with the world. Finally, they can't grasp the idea of free will because they are deterministic machines that calculate the expected response to some environmental stimuli.
literally me

>>15763854
This whole thread including this comment happens when you read only one article.

>>15763853
Your butthurt little reaction has zero relevance or substance. I'm just telling you why it's perfectly natural and valid, from the perspective of your "opposition", to seek to remove you from the conversation entirely. They have zero rational reasons to tolerate you.

>>15763857
Okay, fine, I will accept that. Physically, you cannot call upon mental powers to directly alter physical characteristics without a physical medium by which the mental communicates in most cases. What about structural differences in brain imaging between the chronically depressed and regular people? Does the mental not directly intervene and alter the physical state of mind directly?

>>15763845
Then why do you have to keep impotently threatening people instead of just force choking them out and doing the same to all these inhumans you keep crying about instead of doing anything about it?

>>15763851
You should stop conjuring up imaginary enemies inside your head, that's not good for your health.

>>15763832
Based

>>15763867
>if you aren't omnipotent you must not have free will
Cool fallacy, shows me you know nothing about the subject at all.

>>15763848
Ironic given your entire argument is that qualia exists because you are a butthurt retard who has emotions and hurts yourself.
>I can choose to make irrational decisions that are against my best survival interests
>I can experience an irrational emotion
You removed yourself from rational discussion when you based your perspective on irrational emotion, lady.

>>15763861
Oh man, you free willers really need to reply to everything. As if you know.. something pushes you to do it..

>>15763868
It's been normal to hate and kill your likes since the dawn of humanity. You're living in a tiny bubble that's about to burst and thinking the special protections afforded to you are some kind of a norm that the people who hate you are violating. Pretty delusional.

>>15763854
No subjective experience is a physical reaction involving individual physical subject, its not something that doesn't exist, its something that is a physical process.

>>15763880
Yeppp>>15763853
WE HAVE A BINGOO

>>15763875
I do it because my mental state vastly improves when NPCs make patently absurd statements that catch a Human Being off guard. It's rather funny to me.

>>15763874
>>15763875
Reminder: it's been normal to hate and kill your likes since the dawn of humanity. You're living in a tiny bubble that's about to burst and thinking the special protections it affords you are some kind of a norm that the people who hate you are violating. Pretty delusional.

>>15763882
>it le doesnt exist because i am le atheist

>>15763884
>>15763885
THEY KEEEP DOING IT OH MY GAWD ALL MIGHTY

>>15763866
Then you have to accept that you need to go back to the drawing board on your definitions and that your vague vocabulary and that OP is wrong because mental models are dependent on physical properties.

>>15763890

>We interact with the physical world through our bodies, with the brain being the the seat of consciousness at which interactions with the non-physical mental world take place. The mental world is host and client to our consciousness, which can influence the physical world outwardly (i.e., I can choose to make irrational decisions that are against my best survival interests), and the physical can influence the mental (i.e., I can experience an irrational emotion in response to a physical stimulus).

Try again lol. Grow a brain too while you're at it.

>>15763873
You also said you could do whatever you want (ie omnipotence), but you can't and your will isn't free, it is limited by the same physical forces that limit the things you can do.

What fallacy do you even think it is by the way just that anything that refutes your vaguely defined terms is a fallacy?

Watching physicalists squirm at the idea that they are below Human Beings is ... well it's like playing with a toy to me. It's wildly entertaining. I use physicalist shitting and pissing their pants as a source of entertainment.

>>15763888
>must misrepresent the other argument to make it seem as retarded as mine
Subjective experience is real because it is a physical process that can be measured.

Plot twist they stoped responding to me because they think they show fewe will like that but jn reallity they are again conditionee OH MY LORD MAH GAWDDD THIS THREAD

>>15763895
You are limited by the best probabilistic choice for survival (in both the physical and social contexts) while I am limited in controlling my physical body bound only by the capabilities of my physical avatar. In other words, you are in a mental (or mental-less) prison, while I am free to carry out any choice I so desire, whether it be rational or completely off-the-wall insane. You can only do whatever ensures your survival.

>>15763892
Yes, those are the faulty definitions that lead to silly conclusions like being able to directly alter physical characteristics with mental powers, so back to the drawing born.

>>15763066
Anon , yes you anon. Stop. Think.
Have you noticed people like OP allways come in groups in this kind of threads? Almost like a cult? Allways ignoring facts, using fallacys and agressive behavior to assert worldview?

>>15763907
Have you tried to learn reading comprehension? Maybe you should get brain surgery before you attempt to learn preschool level reading comprehension.

>>15763904
>while I am free to carry out any choice I so desire
Except you know that is wrong because you just admitted
>I am limited in controlling my physical body bound only by the capabilities of my physical
What do you even mean bound "only" by, when you entire argument in the fist place is that your mental is completely separate from your physical rather than being bound by it? What do you think the only accomplishes when the entire thing is whether your mental depends on physical or is independent?

>You can only do whatever ensures your survival.
Apparently so can you since you are actively surviving and your argument has gotten to desperation levels of survival mode too and you can't help but to manically reply and make to keep your thread surviving..

>>15763822
it's self-evident that dualism is false, no other arguments needed

why are philosophers such pieces of shit?

>>15763919
Yes, I can which is why I read the admission >>15763866 that mental models are dependent of physical actions and proved why it is silly to try to decouple mental from physical and made mental the primary identity when that is the one dependent on the other.

>>15763904
>I am free to carry out any choice I so desire
but are you free to choose your desires?
at least read some fucking Schopenhauer before trying to sound like you know what you're talking about

>>15763930
They are not. Fanboys with 0 academic education are.

>>15763923
>My car can't travel to the moon using vaginal fluid as fuel and can't fly inside-out back in time to stop meteor impacts on Titan
>My car therefore must not be a car at all, but a tram or monorail

>>15763930
OP is clearly a theologian masquerading as a philosopher.

>>15763923
>manically reply and make to keep your thread surviving..
Sweetie if you knew how this board worked you would know that I already hit the bump limit about an hour ago and am on page 2. With each bump of every other non-limited thread, this thread sinks further in position. That's just fine; I will make a new thread once this one dies just like this one to the prior thread. I got 366 replies in under 5 hours on a slow board. Retard.

>>15763934
Sounds like your car doesn't actually depend on your imagination as you would like to believe, but on physical reality as you are scared to learn about because you doubt you will understand even the most basic entry level information.

>>15763940
>cars and monorails are the same thing
>since you're not omnipotent, qualia doesnt exist and you dont have free will
>you dont have a choice in any matter
rofl, keep going

>>15763938
No, you got less than 100 replies since the rest are probably you given there are only 24 posters.

>>15763937
>OP is clearly a theologian masquerading as a philosopher.
does that happen often?

>>15763938
My god.. its as if.. its as if motivation behinde this thread was attention whoring. But how can that be? You are free willer arent you? How could you be motivated by anything hmmm...

>>15763904
>I am free to carry out any choice I so desire
you can't even post cp in this thread you impotent nigger

>>15763943
>>cars and monorails are the same thing
Both dependent on physical reality more than your imagination.

>since you're not omnipotent,
You can't do whatever you want.
>qualia doesnt exist and you dont have free will
Qualia is physical and willpower is limited by physical reality rather than actually free.
>you dont have a choice in any matter
Choice is also limited rather than free.

>>15763951
I do it because watching robots piss and shit their pants about being lesser than me is hilarious.

>>15763952
WHOA let me put my sunglasses on

>>15763956
Again.. motivation.. my God...

>>15763946
Anytime you see a thread about some immeasurable soul correlate where its obvious OP is just trying to make themselves feel special, yea, that is who is responsible.

>>15763955
I can choose anything I want but physical execution is sometimes impossible in the physical plane. How is this hard for you? Do you need brain help? Were you in an accident?

>>15763956
>being entertained by shit and piss
Ah yes, the real Human Being

>>15763967
>I can choose anything I want but physical execution is sometimes impossible in the physical plane.
Then you aren't choosing it, you are imagining it.

> Do you need brain help?
You are the maniac trying to convince the world you have invisible magical powers that do nothing, but somehow make you responsible for everything.

>>15763969
>Then you aren't choosing it, you are imagining it.
Define imagining.

>>15763971
Forming mental projections, visualizations, and predictions based on past physical sensations.

>>15763981
Are these projections, visualizations, and predictions ever novel? And tell me -- what ARE visualizations, projections, and predictions, after all? They seem to fully reside in the mental plane, don't they? Can't these visualizations etc. be unbound from the laws of physics as we know them entirely? Aren't we able to imagine physically impossible scenes?

>>15763938
>I got 366 replies in under 5 hours on a slow board.
Which means you are just a controversial contrarian flash in the pan that won't get nearly as much interesting discussion or exposure on your thread compared to threads that attract smaller numbers of well thought out replies over days to weeks of consideration, instead you will be largely ignored and forgotten by this time tomorrow without have made any progress proving you are some special snowflake with magical physically unexplainable powers, just proven you are repetitive retard with the lowest quality ideas possilbe.

>>15763983
>They seem to fully reside in the mental plane, don't they?
NTA but no verifiable hypothesis seems to indicate the existence of such plane. All ""evidence"" we have that something like this could exist is based purely on feelings, which are as substantial as revelations in any religion in the world.
As far as we know they are impulses in the nervous system mediated by neurotransmitters. Animals have projections and predictions as well.
Science shouldn't be based on feelings and undefinable, unfalsifiable claims and this is supposed to be a science board.

>>15763997
>Using physical tools to get physical evidence of a non-physical plane of existence

>>15764003
but you postulate that non-physical ""plane of existance"" can interact with the physical the entire thread

>>15763983
Yea, yea, you have no respect for words which is why you refuse to define anything and constantly demand others define every single little word even down to the and be because that is too wordcel core, but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong and your mental model is very clearly dependent on physical reality rather than the other way around >>15763866.

>They seem to fully reside in the mental plane, don't they?
No.they seem to be physical perspectives from a subject with a limited point of view in a larger physical world.

>Aren't we able to imagine physically impossible scenes?
You can probably imagine things in defiance of physical laws. capeshit and starwars powers or whatever, but I doubt you can imagine something that is completely unfamiliar and unrelatable to any physical sensation or previous experience you have been exposed to.

>>15764010
>You can probably imagine things in defiance of physical laws. capeshit and starwars powers or whatever, but I doubt you can imagine something that is completely unfamiliar and unrelatable to any physical sensation or previous experience you have been exposed to.
Sucks to be an automaton doesn't it? I am a Human Being.

>>15764005
OP said mental interacts not physically, but irrationally through bad decisions and emotions.

>>15764003
What tools can be used to get any evidence of that plane? ""Self-evident"" is not an answer.

>>15764016
No that is completely different than your original argument and definition of a real human which was that you can have a real experience while other people are just faking it.
Now you are saying that you can just bullshit and entirely makeup nonsense that can never exist.

>>15764016
Can you describe this imaginary thing you can dream up that is completely physically unfamiliar and unrelatable to any possible physical sensation or experience?

Why do the dualists claim qualia implies dualism? I don't get it.

>>15764034
As those threads prove they neither, they have just heard of them and use them as last resort to keep the fantasy about other plains of existence.

>>15764034
They want to be special, but lack the qualities they imagine of themselves, so they just imagine some other plane of existed where they are special because doing the work to attain the qualities that would actually make them special is too hard.

how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast yesterday?

>>15764142
how would you feel if you didn't have qualia?

>>15764147
I would feel like it would be just as hard for you to define it then as it is for you to define it now.

>>15763066
determinism is true. free will is a child's fantasy.

cope further.

>400 posts
>27 IPs

>Together, MUI theory and Conscious Realism form the foundation for an overall theory that the physical world is not objective but is an epiphenomenon (secondary phenomenon) caused by consciousness. Hoffman has said that some form of reality may exist, but may be completely different from the reality our brains model and perceive.[9] Reality may not be made of space-time and physical objects.[3] Through supposing that consciousness is fundamental, Hoffman provides a possible solution to the hard problem of consciousness, which wrestles with the notion of why we seem to have conscious immediate experiences, and how sentient beings could arise from seemingly non-sentient matter. Hoffman argues that consciousness is more fundamental than the objects and patterns perceived by consciousness.[10][better source needed] We have conscious experiences because consciousness is posited as a fundamental aspect of reality. The problem of how sentient beings arise from seemingly non-sentient matter is also addressed because it alters the notion of non-sentient matter. Perceptions of non-sentient matter are mere byproducts of consciousness and don't necessarily reflect reality. This means the causal notion of non-sentient matter developing into sentient beings is open to question.

>Hoffman argues that natural selection is necessarily directed toward fitness payoffs and that organisms develop internal models of reality that increase these fitness payoffs. This means that organisms develop a perception of the world that is directed towards fitness, and not of reality. This led him to argue that evolution has developed sensory systems in organisms that have high fitness but don't offer a correct perception of reality.[3][11]

Problem already solved

>>15766009
>Hoffman argues that consciousness is more fundamental than the objects and patterns perceived by consciousness.
he just moves the reference point. it is not our shared reality anymore, but to your sense of self/consciousness thing.
we see shared reality was here waaaaaay long before we were, seems fundamental for consciousness. our shared reality seems to do just fine without us, but we ain't shit without it.

>>15766027
Yeah, hyperreality to improve fitness

>>15766036
yes I'm having issues arguing against this, based on observation. I mean particularly this
>hyperreality to improve fitness

>>15766027
>According to current theories of perception, our visual experiences match or approximate the true properties of an objective physical world. Ecological optics claims this match is direct, unmediated by psychological or computational processes. Computational theories claim that this match is indirect, the result of sophisticated algorithms that instantiate, e.g., the inferential methods of Bayesian estimation. The assumption of all of these theories that there is an objective, i.e., mind independent, physical world has proved incapable, so far, of yielding a scientific theory for the mind-body problem, a scientific theory of the relationship between conscious experiences and the brain. Therefore I explore, instead, the pos-sibility that sensory experiences constitute a multimodal user interface (MuI) between the perceiver and an objective world, an interface useful precisely because it does not match, approximate, or resemble that world. I also explore conscious realism, the ontological claim that the objective world itself is comprised entirely of conscious agents. Together, MUI theory and conscious realism provide a straightforward solution to the mind-body problem, and entail epiphysicalism: physical objects, such as quarks and brains and stars, are constructed by conscious agents, but such physical objects have no causal powers.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03379572

>>15766080
>Ecological optics claims this match is direct, unmediated by psychological or computational processes
>conscious realism
these are hard sells for me but need to play with it for a while. it's a serious ask although I can see how it's pretty convenient and could also explain some of the strange shit. interesting but need to understand if it's frankensteined to make sense or everything fits nice.