[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 810 KB, 2048x1536, 3243432432423.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9642607 No.9642607 [Reply] [Original]

Mental events don't exist. Emotions, thoughts, desires, etc. are merely physical changes taking place in the body and brain.

...this isn't controversial, right?

>> No.9642613

>>9642607
Found the P-zombie

>> No.9642615

Depends on what you mean by "exist". Does software exist?

>> No.9642616

>>9642607
>...this isn't controversial, right?
Then where are the memories?

>> No.9642620

>>9642607
The facts you stated aren't controversial, but using them to conclude "mental events don't exist" probably is. You've basically explained what mental events ARE and then explained that they therefore don't exist.

It's like saying "electrons don't really exist because they're just excitations in the electromagnetic field." At some point you'll reduce it down so much that you conclude that nothing exists and then probably cause the universe to implode as a result.

>> No.9642624

Not only itis a deeply controversial topic, it's unanswerable

>> No.9642625

>>9642620
>electrons
Photons, rather, but I think (if thoughts even exist) that you get the point.

>> No.9642634

>>9642607
Unfortunately it is controversial, but only because most people think too highly of themselves to ever accept their belief in qualia as literal phenomena could possibly be anything other than true.

>> No.9642640

>>9642615
I mean mental events "exist" but not as mental events: they're purely physical.

>> No.9642642

>>9642634
There is no way to "prove" that qualia is material.

>> No.9642653

>>9642642
you don't have to prove it, it's just obvious ;^)

>> No.9642659

>>9642653
I don't know how ironic are you being but the thing is this OP. The nature of this questions are philosophical. You can postulate material reductionist if you want to but there is really no reason to postulate it.

>> No.9642666

>>9642607
>Emotions, thoughts, desires, etc. are merely physical changes taking place in the body and brain.
That's like saying "atoms don't exist, they're merely a collection of protons, neutrons and electrons"
In order for emotions, thoughts and desires to BE anything (merely or otherwise) they must necessarily exist..

>> No.9642669

>>9642659
>OP
wrong

>> No.9642670

>>9642666
Satan: Correct in that they must exist, but to call them "mental" is disingenuous. They are material reactions.

>> No.9642672

>>9642666
Obviously his question is not ontological, but metaphysical.
>>9642669
Mean to say other shit refering to OP. Tired so I dont know what happened.

>> No.9642673

>>9642607
>>9642634
>>9642670
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7DmA3yWwa6AT5jFXt/zombies-redacted

>> No.9642683

>>9642670
>They are material reactions.
They're both.
>>9642672
>Obviously his question is not ontological, but metaphysical.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.

>> No.9642696

>>9642683
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

>> No.9642709

How much does a thought weigh? What is its height and width?

Consciousness is non-physical, it is that which experiences the physical. The physical cannot create something non-physical, logically impossible.

>> No.9642746

>>9642670
depends what you mean by mental. if you refer to your own experience then isn't that mental, even if it is caused by or isomorphic or identical with the physical events?

>> No.9642760
File: 5 KB, 305x165, 1520192944295.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9642760

>>9642746
>isomorphic

>> No.9642795

>>9642760
>brainlet

>> No.9642799

>>9642795
Yes, that's you description. Brainlet and newfag, yikes...

>> No.9642803

Prove mental events are self contained.

>> No.9642825

>>9642799
keep on shitposting..

>> No.9642839
File: 77 KB, 645x729, you.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9642839

>>9642640
>mental events "exist" but not as mental events
>mental events do not exist as mental events
>A does not exist as A
I've got bad news for you anon... you may be unironically retarded

>> No.9642957

>>9642642
They're not material, they aren't anything real at all. It's beliefs, physiology, and behavior that are real, qualia are make believe concepts the brain has you believe and behave in terms of.
Also there's nothing to prove about qualia *not* existing. You need to prove something extra is there, it's not everyone else's job to disprove evidence-free phantoms.

>> No.9642973

>>9642839
It's not his fault, this topic is difficult to discuss effectively because language itself has been deeply influenced by assumptions about it in a way that forces you into awkward double-speak between words the way others are using them vs. the opposing thing you're trying to argue.

>> No.9643005

>>9642973
Even if we take that for granted, the error in his language example of it and could in fact be replicated with something completely unrelated to mental events, for instance
>Molecules "exist" but not as molecules: they're just groups of atoms

>> No.9643008

>>9643005
*his language is not an example of it

>> No.9643009

Does the law of gravity exist? How about mathematics, physics, astronomy or logic? None of these occupy space or have mass, there is no property of existence that these things have. Science itself is unscientific.
-paraphrase of Robert Pirsig

>> No.9643042

>>9642957
>It's beliefs, physiology, and behavior that are real
So beliefs are real but qualia aren't? What do beliefs have that qualia don't?
>qualia are make believe concepts
What concepts aren't make-believe?

>> No.9643044

>>9643005
No, this is incorrect.

Events taking place in the mind exist, but just because they're located in the brain doesn't make them unique or any different than you using your arms to tread water or legs to run a mile: they are are still physical events. There is no reason to label them as "mental"...it might be semantics, but the implication is that because they're taking place in the brain, they must be mystical/spiritual/something that can't be explained, when in fact they can be.

>> No.9643051

>>9643044
>Events taking place in the mind exist
>There is no reason to label them as "mental".
brainlet.jpg

>> No.9643084

>>9642607
>they don't exist
>they are physical changes taking place
are you mentaly retarded?
I agree that mind doesnt define reality (idealism), but if you mean that you worded it like shit

>> No.9643088

>>9643005
>Molecules "exist" but not as molecules: they're just groups of atoms
wtf?
then atoms dont exist as atoms, just as a grupo of nucleii and electrons

>> No.9643097

>>9642607
They exist as electrons. Briefly.

>> No.9643986
File: 49 KB, 645x729, you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9643986

>>9643005
>molecules don't exist as molecules

>> No.9644381

The better question is how does the brain contain such a large amount of possibilities when confined to what is arguably a fairly small space, while simultaneously not being specific enough that we haven't already easily figured out the genes that need to be on and what proteins really cause changes in mental states.

I've been reading on how quantum mechanics might play a role but even then there needs to be some physical aspect to it, and with the amount of space here it's hard to really wrap your head around just how the brain does it...

>> No.9644419

>>9644381
i dont think its that hard. theres far more neurons in your brain than the population of the earth. I don't see how its hard to understand how something with so many variable interacting components can create such a large amount of possibilities.

or are you a brainlet?

>> No.9644458

IQ 60 question tier

>> No.9644516

>>9642607
only if you believe you're special, if you're a romantic or a religious zealot this will be controversial

>> No.9644876

>>9643088
>>9643986
You do realize I only wrote that as an example of the fallacy in this post >>9642640
right?

>> No.9644948

Thoughts, emotions and etc exist, but only as an emergent property.

The same way that a school of fish exists, only because lots of individual fish make it up. They're something that has different qualities than what they're made of. If you look to close, you only see each individual fish, but zoom out and you understand that the concept of a school of fish exists. Even if there doesn't seem to be anything solidly rooted in the nature of its existence.

>> No.9645019

>>9642607
>So get this... your thoughts? They are physical. That’s right, They aren’t magic! You’re welcome for that information.

>> No.9645454

>>9642607
>doesn't exist
>physical
Imagine being this retarded.

>> No.9645478

>>9645019
>>9645454
>>9642607
qualia aren't physical, that was already addressed by >>9642709

>> No.9645549

Literally retarded.
>Emotions, thoughts, desires, ect. are physical changes in the body and brain
>But they don't exist though
>They are a physical change but they don't exist
??????????
The physical change is their existence you absolute idiot. I think what you meant to say is that they don't exist in some transcendent or spiritual realm. Actually think a little before you post something.

>> No.9645557

>>9642709
A thought weighs as much as the chemicals and neurons in your brain that make up the thought. Just because you don't know the answer doesn't make it logically impossible lol.

>> No.9645568

>>9642607
Metal events are large groups of coherent physico-chemical cascades that we have a very poor understanding of.

You cannot say "mental events don't exist" because we have no observable. That is currently not a testable hypothesis.

>> No.9645572

>>9642607
>don't exist
>are merely physical changes
?

>> No.9645582

>>9645557
>a lump of brain tissue is a thought lol
ok bud

>> No.9645590
File: 70 KB, 612x612, bLoyLiz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9645590

>>9645549
/sci/ is plagued with self-centered idiots who think they're better than most because only they realize the soul, the mind, free will, time, gravity, etc "doesn't exist".

>> No.9645665

>>9645582
What's the problem with that exactly? Do you think they exist in the "soul"??? I bet you believe in ghosts lmao.

>> No.9645883

>>9642709
You probably wanted to say that it's subjective. And it's still physical because it exists as a physical process, they are just different aspects of the same thing.

>> No.9645985

>>9645665
No that's retarded. His point is that the experience of a thought is not exactly the same as the grey matter in the brain therefore they cannot be the same thing. You cannot make a claim for thoughts and grey matter being isomorphic if they are not directly comparable (like in the way H2O and water are describing the exact same thing so are isomorphic).

>> No.9646014

>>9644419
Have you studied neurons? They're just cells that only change charge and by doing so release different chemicals. How does that even translate to physical thought? How would changing shape via different chemicals cause different angles and aspects of reality to come to light? There's no language for it yet but if it truly is just physical, then neuronal states and shapes will likely be that language. We're still so far from that, though, it's crazy.

>> No.9646062

>>9645985
h20 and water aren't describing the same thing. h20 is a molecule, water is a macroscopic system with specific properties that is due to how h20 molecules interact together in certain conditions. maybe you can make the same comparison for grey matter i.e. neurons. and the mind.

>> No.9646076

>>9646014
because its in their relational properties. the idea is that activity of neuronal groups is isomorphic to the patterns of their inputs. i.e. light, sound etc. if you have enough neurons you can recreate an infinite number of the types of patterns you encounter that come from the outside world.

>> No.9646447
File: 726 KB, 1520x1200, Cartesian_Theater.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9646447

>>9646014
>How would changing shape via different chemicals cause different angles and aspects of reality to come to light?
The trick is they cause the *belief* reality is "coming to light," along with your behavior around that notion. They don't literally conjure up non-physical visuals to present to you even though we tend to very strongly believe something like that is what happens when we "see" something.
Aside from that sort of conjuring not making any sense when scrutinized, it would also fall victim to the interaction problem (if there's some new non-physical thing we need to start accounting for then how does it interact with the physical stuff we're already familiar with, and why have there been zero cases total in the history of formal physics where some impact on physical material was identified as caused by this alleged non-physical stuff?) and to the cartesian theater / infinite regress problem (if visual stimuli causes literal visuals to be presented, then it raises the question of how the thing viewing those visuals in your head is able to see them, which raises the question of how the thing viewing *those* visuals inside the first thing's head is viewing them, etc).
Everything starts making shitload more sense once you make the leap that nothing is literally being presented to you and the brain mostly just deals in beliefs and behavior (and physiology which I have to mention so some smartass doesn't show up and try to gotcha me about shit like increased blood pressure in response to "pain" stimuli).

>> No.9646508
File: 79 KB, 600x760, 103.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9646508

>>9642607
/thread

>> No.9646534
File: 56 KB, 645x729, d27.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9646534

>>9643005
>A circle is composed of 2 half circles

>> No.9646540

>>9642607
You're thinking about this wrong. The brain isn't a first-order system, a synapse does not flash to recall a memory. Anything we think is a precise system of many synapses operating in order, and the way they operate is affected by your current brain chemistry/activity and will fundamentally change connections in your brain as it does so. You could think of this as a third order equation, and who's to say it doesn't go deeper than that?

>> No.9646559

>>9646447
>The trick is they cause the *belief* reality is "coming to light,"
Beliefs aren't real. Have you ever seen a belief atom? People don't believe in anything. In fact, "people" don't exist, you merely behave as if you believed they do, but you don't and they don't. Everything is just fundamental particles acting according to the laws of physics. If you think anything else exists, that's just an illusion.

>> No.9646572

>>9646508
whew this one again, super deep. make sure to put on your water wings so you don't drown in that thought, you fucking pseud

>> No.9646724

>>9646447
>They don't literally conjure up non-physical visuals to present to you even though we tend to very strongly believe something like that is what happens when we "see" something.

What about hallucinogens?

>> No.9646728

>>9646447
technically, none of those arguments actually disprove a mental perspective. you sound like some middle school "progidy" whos just read kant.

brainlet.

>> No.9646731

>>9646724
still neurons.

>> No.9646734

>>9646540
from what I understand of second order equations, this doesn't necessarily make sense. bad analogy.

>> No.9646735

>>9642607
It isn't controversial at all, indeed this should be common sense

>> No.9646736

>>9646559
>beliefs aren’t real
>people aren’t real
The absolute state of /sci/.

>> No.9646738
File: 75 KB, 645x729, D88E98A0-9D0C-4652-B716-6246D3166C86.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9646738

>>9646447
>nothing is literally being presented to you
This fucking retard again.

>> No.9646752

>>9642709
>patterns dont exist because i cant weigh a pattern

>> No.9646829

>>9642607
we are a model. that's what we see. and its all relational properties.

>> No.9646831

>>9642709
youre talking as if you can use your own senses to objectively way something.... your senses are frivolous too.

>> No.9646836

>>9642709
It weighs the amount of electrons present in the grey matter at that time.
Just like you can pull a signal from a copper wire.

>> No.9647132

>>9646447
The interaction problem is hardly a deal breaker. It's simply the complaint that we don't know how dualism would work. That we don't know how something would work doesn't mean that it couldn't actually work.
As for the homunculus fallacy (the proper name for the "cartesian theater / infinite regress problem" you mention), it's not inherent to the notion of qualia so it doesn't actually disprove what you think it does.

>> No.9647191

>>9646014
Same way as computer works: physically it's motion of electrons, but programs have no electrons in them, they work in different terms.

>> No.9647241

>>9646447
So, you're just gonna dismiss the fact that you have experiences and the existence of those experiences is the only thing you can know for certain? Or are you a zombie without any experiences?

>> No.9647267

>>9646062
There's two types of emergence. First is when a group of objects gains properties not found in the singular objects through the interaction of of said objects. These properties are physically observable. But it's evidently possible for emergence to spawn properties that are not physically observable, specifically the conscious experience (the existence of which should be clearly and undisputably apparent to you, unless you are a zombie or suffer from cognitive impairment and are too dumb to understand that there's a difference between your senses and the things you try to analyze through them).

>> No.9647296

>>9642607

YOUR mental events certainly don't exist.

>> No.9647420

You’re explaining a dogs mind u fucking brainlet

>> No.9647697 [DELETED] 

What kind of comment is this? Of course experience/"mental events" exist, otherwise we wouldn't have experiences, they wouldn't have a presence. But just because we can't physically measure our experiences doesn't mean they don't exist in some other dimension.

>> No.9649028

>>9642642
>qualia
>>>/x/

>> No.9649088
File: 20 KB, 486x515, xs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9649088

>> No.9649140

>>9647241
>So, you're just gonna dismiss the fact that you have experiences
No, I explained the belief of "having experiences" and the behavior we have in reference to it. It's a belief, not a fact. Which makes sense because you absolutely cannot provide a coherent explanation for how this would work as a literal "fact" even just hypothetically.
I'm basically just sorry at this point if you or others can't accept it. The alternatives are all retarded and this account actually works. I think most people will probably continue to cling to your way of thinking for a long time into the future and it will just result in a lot of wasted effort chasing down nonsensical ghosts when the effort would be better spent on reproducing the actual behaviors caused by brain activity.

>> No.9649144

>>9642607
This is a metaphysical question, not an empirical one.
>>>/phil/

>> No.9649150

>>9642607
>Mental events don't exist.
That makes me sad.

>> No.9649228

>>9642607
what do you mean mental events don't exist? "Mental" is just thinking, who cares if it has a mechanical underpinning

are you just pretending to be retarded

>> No.9649266

>>9649140
>No, I explained the belief of "having experiences" and the behavior we have in reference to it. It's a belief, not a fact.
And I'll ask you again: by what criteria can you claim that qualia are mere illusions but beliefs are definitely real?
>you absolutely cannot provide a coherent explanation for how this would work as a literal "fact" even just hypothetically
Our current inability to explain something isn't proof that it doesn't or can't exist. Things don't have to be immediately explainable in order to exist.

>> No.9649563

>>9647267
>But it's evidently possible for emergence to spawn properties that are not physically observable,

prove it. its logic that the neuronal interactions of the brain perfectly specify conscious experience. Tbh, quantum mechanics demands more explanation than the brain. Yet then again, that is an oversight because people don't realise what an explanation is. a mathematically reliable description. the only difference between quantum and classical mechanical explanations is classical mechanics is more intuitive. so fuck off brainlet. I don't see any reason to postulate an extra-material presence for the mind.

>> No.9649578

>>9642607
physical events don't exist, they're merely mental changes taking place in my mind

>> No.9649599

>>9649563
>its logic that the neuronal interactions of the brain perfectly specify conscious experience
I don't think you know the meaning of the word "logic"

>> No.9649657

>>9649599
whats your argument. they do. we study it. neuronal interactions perfectly specify consciousness. its called a brain. are you an idiot?

so logic is ignoring the whole of biology? fuck off little boy.

>> No.9649659

>>9649599
prove otherwise nigglet kike,

>> No.9649668

>>9643044
Well from what I gather and assume from your stance on this is that "mental" or in your words physical events that happen in the brain or body should be treated as physical events not to the mental aspect and although you are right that this is a way to look at things, I think that their is another sembelance of truth to "mental" events taking place. When you play a computer game you can influence actions in the game by doing physical things on a keyboard to interact with the programming in ways that does not alter the programming. Does that mean you are physically changing the game? No you are playing to its constrictions and i guess propagating its construction as a program, alternatively you could just change the programming to make the player win at the start of the game no matter what but that is physically changing the coding of the game itself. Now you could ditch actually using the program how it is used but the fact remains it still exists as a program despite their being a physical manifestation of the program in code that is possible to interact with.

This of course assuming
Program=Mental proccess
Code=Physical proccess

>> No.9649674

>>9649266
>by what criteria can you claim that qualia are mere illusions
Never once claimed "qualia" are illusions you dishonest piece of shit. I very clearly explained the alleged concept in terms of useful (but not literally true) beliefs.
>but beliefs are definitely real?
Beliefs are propositions behaved in reference to as though they were true. If you really want some sort of argument for why they're real (and I'm not sure why anyone would), you can look at simple and behaviorally transparent appliances like a grocery store barcode scanner and recognize that they themselves behave in reference to propositions as though they were true. We don't normally call non-human beliefs "beliefs," but that'll probably change as non-human systems continue to conquer more traditionally human specific tasks. And if you complain "but anon, that's not a belief!" well first of all fuck you but second of all feel free to give "a proposition behaved in reference to as though true" whichever alternative name you want and then replace all instances of "belief" with your preferred alias because that's what I'm talking about.
>Things don't have to be immediately explainable in order to exist.
Not really the case here. We have an explanation for the behavior of reporting "experience" that already works within the bounds of physical cause and effect reality, and the extra "thing" you're arguing for is completely incoherent and only even entertained as possible because "my belief in it is very strong!" or some variation on that, as though the brain were such a poorly structured organ that it's somehow completely incapable of ever dealing in terms of any propositions other than those which are literally true (meaning you inexplicably don't believe in numbers, or money, or object oriented programming, or pragmatism in general).

>> No.9649714

>>9649668
so software has no physical cause.... right.

>> No.9649724

>>9649674
>We don't normally call non-human beliefs "beliefs," but that'll probably change as non-human systems continue to conquer more traditionally human specific tasks.

dude. this is your opinion. not truth. youre using the word belief so loosely. you talk about abstract beliefs in reference to the brain without talking about how you would define a belief neuronally. this isn't semantics.

you fucking brainlet.

"a proposition behaved in reference as though true". so did you look at a brain and find this in a brain or define it yourself. maybe human defined. is it really valid to use this as a fundamental process in the brain.

no. fucking. brainlet.
stop accusing people of using qualia too easily when youre using beliefs to describe the brain when it shouldn't be warranted. the abstract idea of a belief shouldn't be used in the context of a brain and if you use if in the context of you and me as agents, youre using it in a way which contradicts your anti-qualia agenda since its in reference to purely defined notions of "me". fuck off.

>> No.9649726

>>9649657
It's not logic because logic is a process for getting to a conclusion, but all you did was post a conclusion. In order to call your conclusion logic, you would first need to post a logical argument that justifies your conclusion.
>>9649674
>Beliefs are propositions behaved in reference to as though they were true.
So do atoms "believe in" the law of gravity? They certainly behave as if the law of gravity were true.
>We have an explanation for the behavior of reporting "experience" that already works within the bounds of physical cause and effect reality
That would be all well and good if experience didn't exist, in which case you would only need to explain why people report its existence, but as this is not the case your explanation is wholly insufficient.
>the extra "thing" you're arguing for is completely incoherent and only even entertained as possible because "my belief in it is very strong!"
Your belief that this is the case is only even entertained as possible because you've been indoctrinated with physicalism.

>> No.9649759

>>9649714
Thats not what I said, there is a physical manifestation for software but the program can exist with the physical part.

>> No.9649765

>>9646836
You just describe things with qualitative attributes. You can pull a signal from a gold wire too, it's the quality of material not quantity. A magnet for instance is nothing other than a chunk of ceramic an iron, the only thing that makes it do what it does is coherency and quality.
There is no quanta when talking about consciousness or ideas.

>>9649714
No it does not. Everything is memories stacked upon memories. There is no "Cause" other than the magnitude of the last. You can say that the "cause" of the software was the human that wrote it, but then you have to break it down into the idea of the software. What was the software intended to do? To do x? Okay, but you have to use the constraint of the computer to express x.
It literally creates an illusion of physicality by being unable to fully interpret the incommensurable nature of memories and ideas originating from your head. It is literally an extremely fast abacus with more methods of inputs and outputs. You have to limit your ideas because you must "physically" express them through resistance. Resistance of whatever is not physicality, it's resistance.

>> No.9649779

>>9649765
For the second part I wholly agree with you except for the fact that in the essence of mind and interpreting what goes in there we have to seperate our POV and what our body is actually intaking as information. So that they act as two different things. So although software may be memories, it is written into an area that can be """physically manipulated""" therefore for the sake of OP's original post can be thought of as a physical representation of the human brain or body.

>> No.9650349

>>9649140
If an experience is experienced by some kind of an entity (a self), then that's all that's required for the experience and the experiencer to exist. There's necessarily something on the receiving end of the experience for it to be experienced (and for this thing to be happening in the first place), and the experience itself must exist since by definition it's nothing more than something experienced by an experiencer (which is clearly happening, the experiencer is having this particular experience, regardless of what the further definition of an experience is). The experience of an experiencer exists by the virtue of being experienced, regardless of how "true" or how much of a "belief" it is. If an experiencer experiences something, what force suddenly makes that experience a "belief" after the fact? What does "belief" even mean? Are you using the term to assert the non-existence of experiences? Because that's retarded, assuming you've ever experienced something. Or are you using it to label experiences as subjective? Because experiences by definition are subjective, if there's an experiencer "believing" he has an experience, then he is having an experience and that experience is there. What other alternatives are there? If an experiencer doesn't "believe" in having an experience, then that experience doesn't exist. It's almost as if your use of the terms "believe" and "belief" can be replaced with "experience", which means you are adding absolutely nothing to the discussion.

It's likely impossible to define experiences more fundamentally, they're a fundamental phenomenon that is apparent to any conscious entity since they can observe themselves having them and be certain of their own experiences being there when they experience them. So clearly experiences exist in a way that's indisputable at least from the perspective of their experiencer. You throwing around the term "belief" doesn't change that as far as I can see.

>> No.9650355

>>9649563
>prove it.
I exist, I don't have to prove that to you, I even can't prove it to you. This is most likely due to emergence, but it doesn't have to be. If it is due to emergence, there has to be some sort of a subjective quality to all physical particles, something akin to weak radiation, noise, and when you compose those particles you not only cause physical emergence (like creating a physical brain for example) but also create more complex conscious experiences (from the combined noise of the particles).
>its logic that the neuronal interactions of the brain perfectly specify conscious experience
?

>> No.9650364

>>9649674
>We have an explanation for the behavior of reporting "experience" that already works within the bounds of physical cause and effect reality
So you're saying our behavior is deterministic and defined by our physical bodies? That's fine.
>and the extra "thing" you're arguing for is completely incoherent
Ok, so now you're saying the subjective experience doesn't exist alongside this physical process? Do you understand how retarded that is? How did you come by your information (assumption, to be more exact) of the physical world? Through your experiences, didn't you? Somehow you think it's logical to disbelieve your experiences but believe the things relayed by them.

>> No.9650532

>>9646447
this is honestly the dumbest post I've ever read on this board

>when you're so committed to your philosophical position (eliminative materialism), that you somehow confuse with being science, that you literally deny the presence of your own experiences

it's like you're a cult member. You'd rather claim you're a literal p-zombie than examine your philosophical position. It's pathetic.

Probably based in some sort of insecurity around needing the world to be completely explained

>> No.9650868

>>9642760
>>9642839
>>9643986
>>9646534
>>9646738
Love this brainlet meme.

t. brainlet

>> No.9650878

>>9647296
REKT
E
K
T

>> No.9652142

I'll just bump this so that the dumb materialist has a chance to defend himself

>> No.9652438

>>9642607
No part of the atoms which make you up are conscious. Only the soul is awake and aware of what is going on around oneself. No matter what configuration you place matter in at no point will it come alive.

>> No.9652668

>>9642607
Welcome to
>100 years ago

>> No.9652685

>>9652142
>materialism
>dumb
>>>/x/

>> No.9652950

>>9642607
things are more then the sum of their parts., this sum is mental events

>> No.9653510

>>9652685
being a materialist is saying you don't exist, only your physical body does. which is clearly a colossally stupid statement.

>> No.9653775
File: 9 KB, 300x168, burger isomorphism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9653775

>>9642760
your mind is clearly isomorphic with a McDonalds Burger franchise

>> No.9653781
File: 6 KB, 285x177, burger category.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9653781

>>9653775
This is now offically a burger category throey fhred/

>> No.9653849
File: 516 KB, 800x1040, norbulingkashop_1134_buddha-colour_resize_800x1040_10d014bad912654dec6b95459cdcdf19.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9653849

>>9653510
Even non-materialists recognize self isn't real. Go eat some psilocybin faggot.

>> No.9653861

>>9653849
maybe your self doesn't exist, hippie, mine definitely does.

>> No.9654000

>>9653861
>mine definitely does
Nope, just impermanent and ever changing groupings of matter, sensations, perceptions, volition, and discernment which throw around the label "self" to explain away phenomena without examining them.

>> No.9654064

>>9654000
I don't say that I argued enough for some kind of a persistent "me" existing. but the "impermanent" self and its experiences certainly do exist. the subjective experience you have right now is the only thing you know exists for certain. I hate how materialists always rush in and start rambling aboutsubjective experience not existing when it's clearly there, more clearly than anything else in your life.

>> No.9654082

>>9654064
what is a materialist mean?

>> No.9654100

>>9654082
somebody who thinks everything that exists is physical. I checked up the wikipedia page for also, it does point out that there are other less stupid materialistic views and physicalism would be a more accurate term for me to use.

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

>> No.9654470

>>9654064
>I don't say that I argued enough for some kind of a persistent "me" existing.
>the subjective experience you have right now is the only thing you know exists for certain
If you accept self isn't real then you can't use the Descartes epistemology argument anymore since it depends on his assertion self is real.
"I know I exist because I am thinking" gets reworked to the alternative "thoughts must exist because thoughts exist" which is question begging meaninglessness.

>> No.9654481

>>9654470
this was already talked about ITT >>9650349

your "self" is just something that experiences things at a certain time. anything further than that is up for debate, but it's plain stupid to deny that this phenomenon of something having experiences isn't happening right now. it's akin to making some other ridiculous statement, like saying that colors don't exist while subsequently staring at them.

>> No.9654486

>>9642607
>Mental events don't exist
>Emotions, thoughts, desires, etc. EXIST AS "merely" physical changes taking place in the body and brain
What did he mean by this?

>> No.9654535

>>9654486
Probably something like your center of gravity doesn't exist, just other, physical things do that can give the impression something like a center of gravity exists.
Or that a woman sawed in half and put back together doesn't exist, just other, physical acts of trickery do that give audiences the impression something like that was carried out by a stage magician.
Kind of the whole point of reductionism in general. Or to a greater extreme, mereological nihilism.

>> No.9654556

>>9649726
>So do atoms "believe in" the law of gravity? They certainly behave as if the law of gravity were true.
The laws of gravity were extrapolated from how atoms behave, not vice versa.

>> No.9654561

>>9654535
I'd like to add that gravity and electromagnetism don't exist either because as a reductionist I'm having a hard time understanding that some things are fundamental and impossible to break into smaller parts.

>> No.9654572

>>9654561
You're trying to be sarcastic but that's actually a common belief, that one day a more fundamental unified explanation will do away with current models.
It also already happened before, just look at how you used the word electromagnetism which is the subject of a more fundamental explanation that overtook older models where electricity and magnetism were considered distinct.

>> No.9654578

>>9654572
and then after that? a more fundamental model for that? it has to end at some level. it doesn't really matter where that level is, the point is that some things are fundamental. like subjective experiences, for starters. you don't argue against the existence of gravity, why would you argue against the existence of subjective experience? just because it's subjective and physical things are supposedly objective? there's most likely 2 levels of existence and I'm not gonna be as stupid as to argue the more fundamental one of them doesn't exist. I'd rather disbelieve the existence of an objective world than the existence of my experiences that paint me the image of it.

>> No.9654587
File: 178 KB, 1190x906, bd8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9654587

>>9654578
>the point is that some things are fundamental. like subjective experiences
>there's most likely 2 levels of existence
>I'd rather disbelieve the existence of an objective world

>> No.9654596

>>9654587
ok