/sci/ - Science & Math

Consciousness arises only from matter, and thus it is a physical based phenomena. Thus, spirituality fails to the extent it is based on the mistaken notion that there can be consciousness separate from matter.

>>9912029
>Consciousness arises only from matter
[citation needed]

>>9912035
Here you go. Now cite your sources of consciousness not stemming from matter

>>9912029
Incorrect.
Consciousness is an emergent property, not a direct property.
Think of it this way. The "economy" is like consciousness because it too is an emergent property. But you can't say that the economy is just stuff you can hold. Trade is required for things to develop into an "economy".

Of course since all things are physical, you can't have consciousness emerge in a non-physical medium, but consciousness itself is not physical.

>>9912029
Other way around, matter arises from consciousness.

>>9912064
>Consciousness is an emergent property, not a direct property.
No it isn't. Emergent properties still rely 100% on all the fundamental properties where as our fundamental view of matter can't explain consciousness. Emergence isn't magical it can't create something that violates it's fundamental rules.

>>9912092
Oh I agree.
But nonetheless, it is not "physical". It is made up of physical things, which all things are, but unlike physical things, it does not have, atoms I guess, my vocabulary is failing me now.

The economy example is easier to explain since it's a more "understood" emergent property.
Can you point at money and say "That's economy"?
No, of course not.
But the second you give that money for a product, that trade for an instant becomes a very small economy.
But what physical thing became economy? There was no economy. But then there was. No physical change happened. What particle or atom exists of "economy"?

It's the same for consciousness

>>9912103
I know what you mean but my problem is I don't agree with materialism and I don't think consciousness is physical in the sense people think of the word physical.

>>9912114
So you're a dualist? That there is some kind of supernatural aspect to the universe?
Again I go back to the economy. Does the economy have a supernatural aspect?

>>9912064
isnt the idea of "holding" itself non concrete. what does that even mean. if u wna get to the microphysics of it, is it even still holding? is it holding like you think? isnt the idea of "holding" just your own subjectivity? can you actually say for sure that anything we know right now constitutes a fundamental of matter. we should look at relativity. all our ideas. metaphysics, relative.

and ive got a fucking ant in my house.

>>9912103
Without the physical, there is nothing from which consciousness may emerge from.

Thus, God, if exiting, must have physical properties from which God consciousness may arise.

>>9912126
This nigga drunk/high as fuck.
But he has a point.
What material principle separates a bunch of atoms that are owned from a bunch of atoms that are not?
Meta-properties exist.

>>9912125
Nah I am idealist I think the universe is all consciousness. Consciousness is nothing like the economy it has properties that can't be explained linguistically which means it can't fit into physics since everything we understand about the universe outside of consciousness can be described with some language. Conscious experience can't be described totally with language (although it can be partially described).

>>9912092
what most philosophers dont get is that physical theories never have any assumptions about things like matter. they work with what they got. you tell me what matter is and why it has to be and why it conflicts with consciousness.

>>9912134
>universe is all consciousness. Consciousness is nothing like the economy
You're losing me on these points.

Do you disagree that it would be possible to simulate an entire being in a computer if we were accurately able to map every atom in said being?
Like imagine we had a mega-computer able to map out every atom in a lynx. Would that computer not be able to render an accurate simulation of that lynx?

Basically, if you can simulate the atoms of a being, is that enough to simulate the being itself?

>>9912134
So, what are you drinking.

>>9912045
>consciousness can arise from a brain, therefore consciousness arises only from matter
[further reasoning needed]

>>9912142
I am not actually arguing the truth about what matter is inherently conflicts with consciousness just that the view of matter by most people does. Which is essentially that the only interesting things about matter are things we can observe and that all of the things we can observe about objects can explain every phenomenon including internal subjective phenomenon. That is not true because subjective experience is something you can't fully capture without actually experiencing it.

>>9912103
its the same with anything dude. any physical phenomenon is an aggregate. like statistical mechanics. you can ask the same thing with many other physical phenomena. so whats your point. the whole beauty of science is complexity emerging from these laws. im not sure you understand what an emergent property is. is you asking me "is that economy" a non-emergent phenomena. dude. you have to realise that every fucking interesting thing in science is emergent and in psych or econ its just more complex. or your an idiot and dont question your own metaphysics. in my eyes anything meaningful in this world is an emergent product. even atoms arguably.

>>9912103
While you can't say that the economy is identical to some physical stuff, you can say that the economy supervenes on the physical, ie it is fully determined by it and can in principle be reduced to fundamental physical events.

It's way harder to make the same case about consciousness, because it doesn't seem like any physical events or properties could give rise to our phenomenal experience. Following physicalism, matter is nothing more than structure and behavior. Structure and behavior alone can never give you qualia.

>>9912144
No I don't believe it is enough because nowhere in that system is consciousness encoded because it can't be encoded. You can't reduce a conscious experience to information because it isn't actually information it is something else that I believe is an inherent of existence.

>>9912157
>it is fully determined by it and can in principle be reduced to fundamental physical events.
That's what I believe to be true about consciousness.
Do you have evidence against that thinking?
How else do you explain brain damage?
If you hurt the brain you hurt the consciousness.
Hell we're so good at hurting brains we can tell just where to hurt one to get the desired effect in the consciousness, most of the time.

Look at Phineas Gage. My favourite example to dispute dualism.
Man had his brain nearly destroyed by a railroad spike. He lived, despite in being the 19th century. But he was changed wholly. Very less intelligent, prone to anger, violent.
If the seat of consciousness is not physical why does a physical change affect it?

>>9912153
Where is there consciousness without a brain.

Oh, sorry. I guess you are an example of that.

>>9912172
Do you have any evidence for why you believe that?

>>9912175
Not him but I believe the reason that physical damage to the brain damages consciousness is because the physical world is produced not by one individual mind but by a grand encompassing mind which contains all other minds. Basically physics is an expression of this minds thoughts and other minds are as well. When something happens to the physical information of the universe it propagates it to every mind because every mind is part of this grand mind.

>>9912157
mother fucker. define physical. what is it? is not the relation of economics to people like molecules to atoms? its a fucking continuum. physical is a myth. if there is a fundamental substance it is way below any relevance to our mesoscopic living.

>>9912185
An interesting thought that may or may not have some grains of truth in it.
But, if a man lobotomized himself without any one knowing about it, wouldn't he not be affected by it?
Is that what you're saying that if reality is created by a "grand mind" of all minds together, if someone damages their brain in secret, how would the "grand mind" reflect that?

>>9912183
The evidence is just honesty about what conscious experience is and what information is. Think about what it is actually like to feel something and it becomes apparent that the feeling possesses properties beyond explanation. You can't describe color or taste or sound without simply relating it to other colors/tastes/sounds. There are shrimp that see more than 3 colors and we can't possibly understand what that is like with science that means there is something in the universe science can't explain which includes physics. Information is anything that can be explained I know people do not view matter as mere information but when you think about what matter is the only things we know or believe about matter are all the things we can describe about matter (or reduce to information).

>>9912092
>our fundamental view of matter can't explain consciousness.
Our fundamental view of matter can explain consciousness, but we actively reject all observed infinitismals within the theorem.
It's not hard for us to view the brain as an entity unto itself, and come up with an analysis that will have plenty of clinical basis. It's what we do with most other organs in the body - as a matter of fact, other nerves in the body. It's only when emergent behaviours such as the economy, the flow of water and consciousness arises that we reject treating the body performing the function as a singular body as opposed to an organization of smaller bodies. We also never accept what the smallest component is regarding such a body - for economics microeconomics we can scale all the way down to a transaction or the smallest possible component (usually imaginary) within a transaction, for water we use a literal infinitismal for navier-stokes, and for the brain we just poke around nerve cells.
I propose that our approach is simply bad for dealing with the concept of chaos and large systems. Our paradigm in dissecting the natural world and engineering solutions is incompatible with large swaths of reality, but we're too stubborn to admit it and would much rather buy fancy toys. The navier stokes equation is an obvious exception in that it's infinitely scalable and applicable practically everywhere, yet a uniform body is hardly a good representation of what we have to deal with even on a daily basis.
The worst part about all this is that our current approach really does work - it would have been easy to declare atomic entities as atomic, but our refusal of accepting them as the smallest component of reality has improved our understanding of the world multiple times over. The problem comes when we try to "scale up" the things we discovered at the smaller levels, and this is emergent properties in a nutshell. That doesn't make quantum, consciousness or emergent properties, "magic".

>>9912192
I don't think they can do it in secret because they are contained within the grand mind and are inseparable from it. That doesn't mean there are no individuals just that individuals are all connected by one mind.

>>9912196
Oi, don't you get going on qualia bullshit.

Again, I must go back to economy. Since we are two consciousnesses talking about consciousness, I think we may be a bit biased in that regard. The phenomenon must be special, right?

Just because an economy trades silver instead of gold, it doesn't mean that they're incomprehensible.

>>9912196
information is mapping. mapping the dynamical states of one medium to another. like when you map the geography of great britain onto a paper map. and then mapping that onto your mind to guide your movement.

I haven't checked this board in a while. Ya'll still denying free will?

>>9912206
Where has there been a mind without a brain?

>>9912215
It seems most people are being dualists here and insisting that free will exists

>>9912214
I see what you mean but when you physically interact with the world you experience something first and foremost then you process it in the form of information. You never tap into the thing beyond information, you only tap into experience and ideas from that experience.

>>9912209
You misunderstand because you are thinking of consciousness as a highly complicated system (which it may very well be) but I am talking only about the most simplistic parts of consciousness, the raw experience that make up the basis of consciousness. So I am not talking about an economy but an atom.

>>9912228
>the raw experience that make up the basis of consciousness.
And what's that?
Two neurons communicating?
Just like my example of an economy existing between two people trading?

>>9912220
Where has there been existence without a mind? The question you ask assumes matter comes before the mind I believe the mind comes before matter so it doesn't contradict what I am saying.

>>9912202
long post but i agree if basically youre saying emergence is not special but normal in nature.
desu i think we are getting there with modelling complex systems. the problem isnt our models, its our data. we cant get the data we need from the brain.

>>9912234
No I am not even assuming anything about physics I am only thinking about the basis of consciousness as a consciousness will experience it. Neurons could very well be an expression of experience through a shared consciousness and not a creator of experience.

>>9912175
>That's what I believe to be true about consciousness. Do you have evidence against that thinking?

Well let's be careful here. It's very easy to be mislead about what contemporary anti-physicalist arguments are really saying. "Consciousness" in philosophy of mind does not refer to the standard meaning of consciousness. It's not about how the brain behaves, how it makes decisions, how information is processed, etc. Consciousness here only refers to phenomenal properties, qualia, our first person experience of the world, the pure redness of red, etc. When you directly experience the color red, it's about accounting for what that experience really is, and as the arguments go, this is where physicalism runs into issues. Because nothing about what it is like to see red conceivably reduces to physical properties in the same way for example decision making or cognitive thinking would, there it's just a question of complicated behavior, but with qualia, it seems just behavior won't be enough. It seems like complicated behavior alone can't ever give you the direct experience of red, there should simply be the behavior. And here you might be inclined to say something like "the experience of red is just behavior" but these arguments are very hard to make coherent, because they seem completely different.

No doubt physical brain states are very much involved in making consciousness, but following physicalism we can find no way to see how it did that, so we posit something more must be needed. That or we need to fundamentally reconsider if there is more to the physical than standard physicalism would have us believe (just the structure and behavior). It's like we're making omelets but then realize we had no eggs, but it still worked.

>>9912236
you saying or assuming something doesn't make it so.

When has there been a mind without a brain generating that mind?

>>9912196
>You can't describe color or taste or sound without simply relating it to other colors/tastes/sounds

this is the same for anything. everything is relative. you cant describe what a teddy bear is without referring to other objects/concepts/relations, im not sure you actually know what information is.

>>9912243
I feel like a broken record coming back to this, but why aren't other emergent properties like the economy supernatural and special?
Everything you said can be applied to economy, but with a weird referential and religious tone.
You do that to consciousness but you won't to economy?

>>9912202
I appreciate the response but the problem isn't that consciousness is too difficult to explain but that it can't be explained because of properties it possesses.

>>9912228
what you guys should get is that information isnt a thing, its a description. experience can be described by information.

>>9912250
I thought it was clear in my post but maybe I should rephrase it. You can't describe the experience of color or taste or sound without relating it to other experiences of color tastes sound. Also you can describe concepts without relating them to others those are the base concepts but they are usually so simple we don't bother discussing them. They build up into greater concepts.

>>9912188
Physicalism is the view that everything is physical - which means everything could be explained by physical theories. Physical theories are only concerned with the behavior and structure of matter (what matter really is in a metaphysical sense is a deeper question but not really relevant here). If there is something in the universe where structure and function will not account for a phenomena (which seems to be the case with qualia), then physical theories will not account for it, and thus physicalism is false.

>>9912188
Physicalism is the view that everything is physical - which means everything could be explained by physics. Physics is only concerned with the behavior and structure of matter (what matter really is in a metaphysical sense is a deeper question but not really relevant here). If there is something in the universe where structure and function will not account for a phenomena (which seems to be the case with qualia), then physics will fail to account for it, and thus physicalism is false.

>>9912258
Information is everything that we understand about physics though anon. All of it can be reduced to information yes the debate is whether the "stuff" behind the information is physical/mental/whatever. I am saying it is mental because we have reason to believe mental things need a "stuff" to explain their existence. Where as physical things do not need a "stuff" because there is nothing we can get from an object beyond what we can observe (and consequently describe).

>>9912263
you can only describe concepts without relating them to others because you assume the other person understands the concepts which they are based. the only real issue is transparency. its impossible to know another persons taste but we have an intersubjective view of what a line is because we can can correlate with eachothers experiences. we both are viewing a reality and can co-correlate. taste, colour, sound isnt special. its just an introverted sense; one that is unverifiable by a third person. its not special. some senses are verifiable because you can act in a way which we can mimic and it couples between two observers. not with smell. not with colour. but with lines and shit. you guys just making up shit. all phenomena is the same. some is intersubjective and some isnt.

>>9912274
I guess what I mean is that you can only describe red by relating it to someone who already understand what red is and has the capacity to experience it (experience being the key here). So a blind man can never comprehend the experience of red but they can understand the whole of physics without sight.

I'm pretty sure it is an abstraction of Davidsonian Triangulation. So, yes, I think consciousness is a vital component of reality and you always need more than one conscious Idenity.

>>9912252
Because again, it seems that there is nothing about the economy that couldn't in principle be reduced to just complicated physical states and their behavior. For consciousness, it's not about explaining behavior, but why it feels like something to be a subject of experience. If you think consciousness is the same as the economy, then we will probably forever disagree about this. I also feel like a broken record because I feel like I've explained pretty well how they differ.

Maybe Chalmers' paper on the hard problem will do a better job? http://consc.net/papers/facing.pdf

>>9912272
no no no you got it all wrong. its not reduced to information. its described by it. do you think my picture of an elephant is the same as a fucking african elephant? no? thats what science is to life. dont confuse that just because we can describe science easily makes our description of science the metaphysical reality of it. no. thats like saying a picture of an elephant is an elephant. from this view. theres no necessity of saying consciousness is something else. it just hasnt been explained.

physical, mental is a false dichotomy. i bet you cant even define the differnece to me. no you cant because theres a confound that everything we perceive is from the mind so you cant describe the physical outside a mind perspective yet a mental ontology is also insufficient in explaining how things maintain contingency outside of experience. ultimately there is no such thing as mental vs. physical. false dichotomy. you should get onto that unless you can explain to me the difference between them.

>>9912179
>I’ve never seen it so it doesn’t exist
cringe

>>9912287
but cant you say that with any concept? an ape might not understand what the concept of aesthetics is. a chick might not understand multiplication.

>>9912267
>what matter really is in a metaphysical sense is a deeper question but not really relevant here
that was literally his entire question you toad

>>9912297
I didn't say it can be reduced to any information so a real elephant can't become a picture of an elephant but everything about the elephant (besides it's consciousness) can be fully described by statements (or whatever you want to call them a collection of information) in a language. In a sense the elephant actually is no different from the information at least nothing we can infer about it is. Actually an elephant is a bad example because it probably possesses a consciousness.

Also I accept that maybe a mental explanation is wrong too but then a third option is to have a third substance containing both physical and mental some kind of "spiritual" substance or whatever you want to call it. My problem with that is it assumes more than the mental explanation in my opinion.

>>9912304
Sure but that is more related to general intelligence. What I mean is that no matter how capable the blind man's mind is he can't see and can't know what that experience is like. Understanding information and understanding experience are different is the point I am making. I know using the word understanding just makes it confusing but I don't know how else to describe it.

>>9912296
i think theres a confound here given that youre using the same mind to describe consciousness as the economy. Berkley gives a very good argument as to why "qualia" type things are just the same as any abstract creation. they are all mind-based and based on presumptions, the only difference between colour and economy is explanatory power. im sure if everyone was synaestetic or whatever you call it, we would not be treating colour like a mysterious creation. the only difference between colour and other concepts is description. colour is hard to describe. but if we were synaesthetic we could describe it. you might say thats different but try reducing a line to its fundamental points. at some point ull get qualia. and otherwise its just a mapping. generalizing across modalities.

>>9912305
His question was what I meant by physical, which I explained. I was not referring to "physical" on the metaphysical level (what matter really is), because we don't know what matter really is. All we can do is try to describe its properties. 2 of these properties are behavior and structure, which physics describes. If there are more types of properties, then physics as it is today can not describe them.

>>9912309
why does it matter if an elephant has consciousness if you cant infer that. But i also ask, how do you define mental vs. physical without referring to some apriori concept.

i agree there are things that we cannot describe because they are fundamental to experience. If describing something is making a mapping between the medium you are describing and another ... (e,g, drawing an elephant on a piece of paper or describing it verbally) then how can you describe the very fundamental medium we exist in if there is no other medium outside of our existence. thats why you cant describe colour. i guess the problem is that what we can describe is external. others are internal.

>>9912317
yes but someone who is born without a certain part of the brain e.g. language will never know what its like to experience language. my point is that experience is necessary for information.

>>9912342
behaviour and structure? i think youve made that up desu. never heard that. thats from your own head isnt it. but if you define those as properties of physical, is everything outside of that mental? and why is that?

>>9912345
>then how can you describe the very fundamental medium we exist in if there is no other medium outside of our existence
I know what you mean anon which is why I am arguing that medium is consciousness or mental "stuff" What I am arguing is that physical "stuff" doesn't need to exist to explain reality only the concepts need to exist as a part of the mind. That is why I say the information describing the flow of water for instance doesn't *need* to be different from the water. I accept that there could be water flowing outside the concept of water flowing but that this is not necessary because all that we can attain about water flowing as an inependent object from our experience of it is reducible to information. An example is a computer simulation, computer simulations work because they operate on the information rather than the real "stuff" in a sense this is what I am talking about (although computation is limited in what it can actually do i'm just using it as an example).

>>9912342
>what is physical
>it means you can explain everything in terms of matter
>what’s matter
>SHUT UP THATS NOT RELEVANT
you’ve explained nothing

>>9912352
Oddly enough this sounds like something I would argue anon lol I don't know if we really disagree here?

>>9912364
i dont think there is a discernible difference between information and "real stuff". metaphysical nonsense. the thing is that you need to explain why the world is stable outside of our experience. the moon seems to be there when we turn our heads away from it. yes our world is mental in terms of being constructed in our brains. but the causes of that i think have to be independent. though i have always agreed. there is no such thing as an unseen tree. a tree is a mental concept whether youre looking at one or imagining it. i dont see how information and real stuff are differnet. what is the difference.

>>9912379
The difference is that information is an inert thing it possesses no "life" The real "stuff" has energy and can create actions from that. Basically a universe of just information would be totally inert but a universe with real stuff isn't. I think it is pretty clear we are in a universe with stuff" the question is what kind of stuff is it.

>>9912364
i suppose my view always presupposes that our perceptions are mentalistic. and my main presumption i guess for no difference between these things is that everything is brain-dependent and we have no real access to the outside world but i thnk metaphysically how people propose mental vs physical there is no real difference pragmatically and it, itself creates its own hard problem.

>>9912365
>it means you can explain everything in terms of matter

No, you got it wrong.

It means you can explain everything in terms of behavior and structure of matter, NOT matter itself. What matter really is on a deeper level is not relevant to this discussion. At all.

>>9912357
I'm not surprised you've never heard of it, someone who unironically uses "desu" has probably never read any philosophical literature. If physics doesn't describe behavior and structure, what does it describe?

>>9912386
im not sure you understand what information is if you think a universe of just information would be inert. what do you think information is? if anything, information is necessarily causal.

you cant even define real stuff i bet. and this is where the mental/physical dichotomy has problems.desu how can we get a fundamental view of reality when all descriptions are relative to a context. thats why the definition of energy is circular. its based on descriptive relations. thats why colour cant be described. and here we go seeing something circular like energy/work being in the same ball park as qualia.

>>9912387
Maybe it isn't different in a useful sense I know. Viewing the world as being composed of mental things won't necessarily help much with science but it is still important. First of all accepting physicalist views of reality can lead to nihilism and other very cold views of humanity because we start to view humans as just machines to be programmed and fixed when in reality that is not likely the case. It is also something that is just nice to know in itself I think we all wonder about metaphysics at some point in our lives it might have even been what got most people here into science in the first place (which could be why people really want science to explain everything even consciousness).

>>9912388
well explain to me how behaviour and structure defines matter?

if you describe things in terms of behaviour and structure but not matter then you have no license to say things are physical or not if you dont even ascribe your descriptions to matter.

>>9912405
Information is inert it doesn't do anything on it's own. Real stuff doesn't really need a definition anon the words describe it pretty clearly.

>and here we go seeing something circular like energy/work being in the same ball park as qualia.
Right but we don't have any inference into energy beyond what can be described we do actually get to "understand" qualia though.

>>9912414
I didn't say they define matter. But structure and behavior is everything physics can tell you about matter.

>if you describe things in terms of behaviour and structure but not matter then you have no license to say things are physical or not if you dont even ascribe your descriptions to matter.

But you do remember that my definition of "physical" had nothing to do with matter in the metaphysical sense, right? My definition of physical just refers to how physics describes structure and behavior. But you're right, structure and function doesn't tell you anything about what matter really is, which is why science can't ever tell you what matter is, which many people believe it does.

>>9912406
>. First of all accepting physicalist views of reality can lead to nihilism and other very cold views of humanity because we start to view humans as just machines to be programmed and fixed when in reality that is not likely the case.

bullshit.

we can classify things as mental of physical but we should do it it in the same way we classify metals and non metals. they shouldnt be seen as some otherworldly metaphysically different world. my view is that we perceive the world. sensory input. that is that. everything else is inferred. the independence of our sensory input suggests that the world isnt contained within our heads. but it doesnt necessitate that there are two different dualistic mediums in the world. just that we are observers. to me there is no fundamental metaphysical thing. we cannot say. because we are observers. we cannot even experience a fundamental metaphysical thing. you can assume its the mind. but evidence says otherwise.

>>9912416
define understand. how do we understand qualia when its well known we have a poor understanding of our own attention, consciousness and own inferential abilities.

and jesus dont be such a brainlet. real stuff doesnt need a definition? wtf are you talking about.
>Real stuff
>Real stuff

listen to yourself. are you satisfied with that. if you were arguing with me and i just said, real stuff, self explanatory. We dont even have full contact with real stuff. what would you have said to people 10000 years ago talkign about real stuff when they had no information abotu the world like we do. but surely dont you think they also would talk about "real stuff"

>>9912429
I'm not a dualist I am an idealist. It also isn't supernatural it is just natural it is THE natural world. The whole point of my argument is that the natural world can't be explained entirely with physics (or any language). That doesn't mean we don't want to attempt to describe something so I describe an idea of what it could be without it actually being testable at least not in this life. I just think most people want an explanation for reality it is why religion is so popular we need something to explain why we exist and I think I have a view that is compatible with science and reality and doesn't really incorporate a lot of fantastical stories (although I don't think it is so bad to be religious and have stories like that).

Consciousness as solely an emergent property :

What happens if we shut off someone's brain entirely and then restart it?
The same consciousness from before should reappear, correct?
Doesn't that show that consciousness is attached to specific brain matter?
What if we start pulling off neurons and replacing them with new ones until an entirely new brain is constructed?
Isn't there something missing from the picture?

>>9912424
also i was saying what about structure and behaviour is unique to the physical? what makes it physical?

if youre gonna talk about how physics describes things then thats inadequate because physics doesnt describe everything. hypothetically physics might describe the brain in the future. the brain and what we perceive is accessible to physics. and then i could also say. physics isnt necessarily physical reality and i guess you said it before but then youre doing a red herring and youre misleading us in thinking we're having some dualist discussion when really its about scientific methodology.

>>9912434
We understand it through experience but we don't necessarily totally understand it. And no anon real stuff is pretty self explanatory. You know what real is and you know what a thing is so real stuff is describing the real things the universe is made of not the information necessarily but the "life" of the universe.

>>9912436
but your idea can be argued against with god of the gaps. we dont actually know what can and cannot be explained physically. and i think if we dont know why certain phenomena cant be explained then youre overly jumping the gun. ive had my own ideas on why certain things cant be explained or described and ultimately when youre talking about description and explanation, its a social/human construct and i think that you shouldnt argue for idealism based on that.

>>9912442
>description and explanation, its a social/human construct
Everything you understand is a social/human construct of course you should argue based around that. Well I had fun arguing anon but I am getting tired of this but thank you anyways it is fun doing this.

>>9912440
you would not pass a philosophy class dude. thats just stupid. you need to describe what something is. wtf is real stuff. i think its a very important question given we have indirect views of the world so we dont know what real stuff really is. and further more we dont even have an accurate account of our own experiences. so yes please tell me what is real stuff. define real. sorry you cant just tell me its self explanatory in an argument if youre arguing with me. youre pretty much forfeiting your arguments.

"life of the universe" "not information"

this conversation is over. im triggered as fuck.

>>9912450
then what is real stuff.

>>9912456
Actually I did pass Philosophy 101 with a B :)

>>9912472
undergrad university is fuckin bullshit. not like the fucking old days. now anyone can get a first for spouting premeditated volumated shite.

go home zoomer.

>>9912439
I still think the confusion and "red herring" comes out of us talking about two different notions of physical. There's the substance notion where physical is referring directly to matter as a substance and what that really is, and the physicalist notion of physical where physics describing behavior and structure of matter is what's meant. I've always been talking about the latter. You do not need to talk about the former notion to make arguments against physicalism, as outlined below.

You don't have to be a dualist about substance to reject physicalism. You can be a property dualist and say that everything is made of matter, but that matter also has mental properties that do not supervene on the structure and behavior of matter, as something like our understanding of a tornado would.

>>9912439
I still think the confusion and "red herring" comes out of us talking about two different notions of physical. There's the substance notion where physical is referring directly to matter as a substance and what that really is, and the physicalist notion of physical where physics describing behavior and structure of matter is what's meant. I've always been talking about the latter. You do not need to reject that the mental is physical in former notion to reject physicalism, as outlined below.

You don't have to be a dualist about substance to reject physicalism. You can be a property dualist and say that everything is made of matter, but that matter also has mental properties that do not supervene on the structure and behavior of matter, as something like our understanding of a tornado would.

>>9911972
>>9911972
Why say "physicalism" instead of writing out the idea which you mean to label with that word?

>>9912568
maybe ill surrender to dualism.

well i dont think the latter works so well since it is just a subjective description in the language for a human to understand.

i wonder what the definition of a property is. i just think the idea of having these mentalistic properties puts physicalist ones in supremacy. as if because we have an idea of a physical world and we describe it, this makes other things non physical or repugnant and i do not think that is the case. i still dont think we can say anything concrete about physicalism. physics has never said anything concrete about creation. just rules about how things act. and all those acts are in the observed eye. but at the same time we know that our sensory input cannot be just this mentalistic realm. it has extrinsic cause. and there i say we should look at the world as a bayesian engine with hidden labels and variables we will never have access. we create our universe. we create our descriptions. maybe it is idealistic. but it aint mental. because something else is out there.

just deal with it. there will always be a gap.

>>9912029
fpbp

>>9912087
>matter arises from consciousness
Absolutely zero fucking evidence. Niet. Nada. Naught.
>consciousness arises from matter
Welcome to neurosciences son.

>>9912927
Have you any evidence that evidence is the only way to acquire knowledge?

>>9912942
Already hit that bottom, uh? (I just jumped into the train, sorry if the problem of induction has been addressed before).

Okay so if you have read Karl Popper, you know the answer is no.

We don't have evidence that evidence is the only way to acquire knowledge, but we chose to rely on empirical observation to prove that matter exists and that reality behaves in some ways, because it's a still a better choice than thinking that we're a bunch of dreamers who dream they're dreaming.

In fact, this is how we separate science from metaphysical discourse. In the end it's a postulate story.

Now the quesion is still valid. I would say that there's strong evidence that we can produce knowledge without empirical needs. For instance, do I need to observe triangles to know that "All triangles have three sides." ?

>>9912179
>I guess you are an example of that.
Why do you guess that I have consciousness?

>>9913004
>For instance, do I need to observe triangles to know that "All triangles have three sides." ?
We kinda do. Without seeing a triangle, or having it explained to you, you wouldn't know what a triangle is. A baby doesn't know how many sides a triangle has, is has to be taught.

>>9913004
>In fact, this is how we separate science from metaphysical discourse. In the end it's a postulate story.
So God is real? People have experienced him, and if we're taking sense data and observation as valid...

>It can't pose a problem if it doesn't exist!

>>9914120

>>9912029
>>9912064
>>9912131

Fundamaterialists detected. Required reading: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799144/m2/1/high_res_d/vol21-no1-5.pdf

"Science is a methodological process of discovering truths about reality. Insofar as science is an objective process of discovery, it is, and must be, metaphysically neutral. Insofar as science is not metaphysically neutral, but instead weds itself to a particular metaphysical theory, such as materialism, it cannot be an objective process for discovery. There is much confusion on this point, because many people equate science with materialist metaphysics, and phenomena that fall outside the scope of such metaphysics, and hence cannot be explained in physical terms, are called "unscientific." This is a most unfortunate usage of the term. For if souls and spirits are in fact a part of reality, and science is conceived epistemologically as a systematic investigation of reality, then there is no reason why science cannot devise appropriate methods to investigate souls and spirits. But if science is defined in terms of materialist metaphysics, then, if souls and spirits are real, science, thus defined, will not be able to deal with them. But this would not be because souls and spirits are unreal, but rather because this definition of science in terms of materialist metaphysics has semantically excluded nonphysical realities from its scope."

>>9912045
>>9912179

http://www.horizonresearch.org/Uploads/Journal_Resuscitation__2_.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Near-Death-Experience-Consciousness-Survives/dp/1594773564/

https://www.amazon.com/Self-Does-Not-Die-Experiences-ebook/dp/B01LYMHXCO/

That's all you need to know, basically. There is a lot of well-documented cases of consciousness existing independently of the brain.

>>9912175

>If the seat of consciousness is not physical why does a physical change affect it?

See Carter's book. A preview: https://trans4mind.com/spiritual/Does-consciousness.pdf

Physicalism is literally 'Question Begging: The Ideology'

>>9912588
>tornadoes are mental properties
lmao how are brainlets like you even allowed on sci

>>9917820
The tornado is my example of something that do supervene on the structure and behavior of matter, not the opposite. Maybe it was unclear in how I structured the sentence.

But even if you interpreted it that way, something is not a mental property just because it doesn't supervene on structure and behavior.

>>9917647
>That's all you need to know, basically. There is a lot of well-documented cases of consciousness existing independently of the brain.
Nothing you posted documents consciousness existing independently from the brain. NDEs are just vivid hallucinations that occur while the brain is dying or after resuscitation.

>>>/x/

My reasoning is simple.

Nature, that IS mollecules rocks water and microbes influence the universe with the help of mollecules rocks water and microbes.

Notice the one on one correspondence.

Our consciousness on the other hand influences the universe also with the help of...information. So therefore consciousness must be a new thing in nature, and it must be information.

So Tononi with his Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness (google it) is the closest one who figured out consciousness, in my opinion.

>>9917799
I show the invalidity of your chosen frame every time you do that, and then you do the same again the next day, presuming again the validity of your invalid frame.

>>9912927
>Absolutely zero fucking evidence. Niet. Nada. Naught.
Conciousness affects matter. Matter does not affect conciousness.

>>9917909
So when I drop a hammer on your foot, my dropping of that hammer was not at all causally connected with your subjective experience of pain? That sounds almost self-defeating.

>>9917913
>my dropping of that hammer was not at all causally connected with your subjective experience of pain?
>Oh boy here we go...

>>9917909
>consciousness affects matter
So if I think hard enough, I can bend iron and break walls? Wew lad, thanks for the tip.

matter does exist
consciousness gives matter some amount of life.

We give our conciousness and life force to things we do, make, and it's like a cosmic smell that points back to us.

please stop trying to be right, and listening to how everyone is is right and working with that

>>9917829

>Nothing you posted documents consciousness existing independently from the brain.

Demonstrably false. The first link has a study that found conscious activity 3-5 minutes into a cardiac arrest, with verified, accurate perceptions during that time period. If you had actually bothered even a little to investigate the sources instead of a categorical dismissal, you would realize that.

The third link contains 104 well-documented cases of accurate perceptions while out of body that could not be accounted for via normal sensory channels. Here is a simple example:

>Case 2.5 involved a patient who:

>turned out to be suffering from an obsessive-compulsive disorder . . . she tried to commit to memory every number she came across. The woman claimed that during her OBE she had imprinted in her memory the [12-digit] serial number of the respirator, which was on top of the [6-foot-high] machine. (p. 36)

>The number reported by the patient matched the number on the respirator. Odds against chance, anyone?

And yet, you deal with none of these cases, and just offer a blanket "nuh-uh" denial because >muh dogma.

Materialism must be true, right?

Anyway, pic related. You'll be finding yourself in the very middle.

>NDEs are just vivid hallucinations that occur while the brain is dying or after resuscitation.

That is the hypothesis everyone immediately assumes when they hear about them.

But the data is explicitly incompatible with that hypothesis. Hence, deal with the actual data, and don't just regurgitate your predictable a priori gut reactions, as if every single NDE researcher hasn't thought of that possibility before, lol.

>>9912131
>Thinks that the laws of psychic of which he adheres to applies to God
brainlet.jpg

>>9912029
>consciousness is not an extra physical thing that uses the brain as a its vehicle

>>9912144
You-d have to simulate also interactions between said atoms and the environment so that said simulated being and all its internal processes can develop like in a real one, I think. You could work around that to save resources but in theory I agree with you.

Unrelated but I find interesitng that the digital world is a fragile one compared to our universe, and will be for a long time, as it depends on a very delicate infrastructure that has to be maintained by delicate beings(us) on a planet that can sustain life thanks to a delicate balance between celestial bodies. Makes you wonder how fragile our universe really is, since the scale is so big we might not even notice for a long time that something on a universal scale has happened(?).

You could see consciousness as a fragile plain of existence similar to a digital world. It depends on us being alive and on our brain to work properly, plus all the previous requirements that so far we've seen only here on earth.

Economy is a stronger idea in a sense, because it doesn't depend from a single entity anymore. Religion, memes, all these are just built on top of simpler ideas and with enough consciousnesses involved lose the need for a body to exist, but still die if the whole population dies.

>>9917647
Imagine being this delusional

>>9917647
Can you detail how exactly near death experiences prove that consciousness can exist without a brain / that it's not the same thing as brain states?

I see nothing suspect about being able to experience weird shit when you're about to die, since the brain is probably going to act in a very different way when it's being deprived of oxygen.

>tfw I'm actually starting to come around to dualism
I never thought this would happen

>>9920603
What convinced you to take the step?

>>9920608
Alcohol abuse.

>>9920608
200mcg of LSD and a four hour solitary walk through the forest around the Puget Sound
I don't want to be the asshole who thinks he "figured it all out" from his stupid little acid trip but I can't in good conscious ignore the things I experienced during that time. If that dooms me to be wrong for the rest of my life, so be it

>>9920566

pic related

>>9920597

Sure! First of all there are the strong evidential cases documented in those links, that is well worth investigating. Essentially, we now know beyond a reasonable doubt that you can have veridical perception during a time at which your brain is demonstrably flat-lined during cardiac arrest. See for instance the one in a trillion and beyond correct observation here >>9918129. And it's hardly rare: In 92% of all cases of observations during an out-of-body experience (OBE) during an NDE they are entirely accurate, down to the last detail like this. For elaboration on this point, see for instance this: https://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Near-Death-Experiences-Thirty-Investigation/dp/0313358648/ (Here is a good review of the book well worth reading, if you're skeptical before getting it: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461747/m2/1/high_res_d/28-4%20FINAL%20GROSSMAN%20BR.pdf))

But again, Carter's book and "The Self Does Not DIe" are really the only books you need to read, and especially the latter if you just want confirmed cases of out of body perception like this.

>weird shit

If only it was weird shit, you would have a point. However, NDEs are highly lucid and crystal clear, vastly more so than our ordinary life. The life review is a good demonstration of this, where you re-experience your entire life in totality in just a second, with perfect access to every moment exactly as it happened the first time (and not as vaguely as we remember things now). Furthermore, you experience everything from the perspective of everyone you interacted with, and feel their feelings. You also see everything from a third person perspective. All simultaneously, all with perfect clarity, you remember every dream as an infant, ever mosquito in every scene, etc. And you understand everything.

That is the brain power of 3 lifetimes simultaneously in a single second, at the very least. That's not what I'd call "just some weird shit".

>>9920868
>Essentially, we now know beyond a reasonable doubt that you can have veridical perception during a time at which your brain is demonstrably flat-lined

Does that mean vision when the heart has stopped, or when you can detect no brain activity? How can we be sure that the person recollecting these visions are actually recollecting from the time the brain was supposedly dead, and that his memories aren't playing a trick on him?

>>9917647
>a filthy dualist
>still cucked by the problem of induction

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

>Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or “difference-in-sameness”. Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar.

>the mere fact that the difference can be linguistically or geometrically expressed implies that it is only partial and that both relands are manifestations of one and the same ontological medium.

>In other words, (1) where informational distinctions regarding a system X are regarded as instantiations of law, they can also be regarded as expressions conforming to syntax; and (2) the expression of differences requires a unified expressive syntax

>>9912172
religious belief

>>9911972
Does physicalism have some requirement that demands it to explain consciousness?

>>9918129
>Demonstrably false. The first link has a study that found conscious activity 3-5 minutes into a cardiac arrest, with verified, accurate perceptions during that time period. If you had actually bothered even a little to investigate the sources instead of a categorical dismissal, you would realize that.
How does this respond to my point?

>The third link contains 104 well-documented cases of accurate perceptions while out of body that could not be accounted for via normal sensory channels. Here is a simple example:
This is an obvious lie. There is nothing "well documented" about the example you give. It's one person's vague anecdote. Why would this case not be written up immediately in the medical literature with witness testimony and documentation? Because it never happened.

>And yet, you deal with none of these cases, and just offer a blanket "nuh-uh" denial because >muh dogma.
And yet, you blindly accept these cases with zero skepticism and claim they're all well documented when not even the example you chose is!

>But the data is explicitly incompatible with that hypothesis.
No it's not.

>>9921750

These always turn out to be troll images so I’m just gonna go ahead and assume that this is a troll image even though I don’t actually understand what any of that means.

>>9921750
mysterianism is stupid because as one clinical consciousness researcher noted, the 'easy problem' is really the complicated one and the 'hard problem' will likely just emerge as the easy problem is worked on.

eliminative materialism is stupid
cartesian dualism is stupid

reductive materialism is reasonable
the epiphenomenon idea falls under reductive materialism

monism is the ultimate truth, it's held by some major western and most major eastern philosophies (eastern religions)
dual aspect theory falls under monism

Basically consciousness is an emerging property in some physical systems, consciousness evolved to let us organize information better, but materialsim will never fully explain it

>>9911972
I am quite unsure what any reasonable alternative to physicalism is. The most lucid distinction I have heard of the difference between the physical and spiritual plane is that the spiritual plane is eternal and unchanging. It follows then that the evolving process of consciousness is a physical and temporary thing even if the states of mind themselves which the mind passes through are spiritual.

What I am getting at is that a different plane of reality isn't inherently nonphysical.

>>9912482

>>9912472 is a regard but fuck you higher ed isnt easier than it used to be

It is literally just Davidsonian Triangulation abstracted to ontology. I just got another math piece. The puzzle isn't close to complete, but the overall picture is clear.

>>9920971

>Does that mean vision when the heart has stopped, or when you can detect no brain activity?

Both.

>How can we be sure that the person recollecting these visions are actually recollecting from the time the brain was supposedly dead, and that his memories aren't playing a trick on him?

Does it really matter? The patient saw a 12-digit number in a place she shouldn't have been able to see it in even if she was awake and well during her cardiac arrest.

To answer your question with another case, take for instance the case in the AWARE study. Here, a person had accurate perceptions 3-5 minutes into a cardiac arrest, and we know that the entire neo-cortex goes offline completely within 8-20s after onset of cardiac arrest.

Hence, there is no way for him to observe those things with the use of his brain and senses during that time.

>>9921024

>>a filthy dualist

There being an afterlife in light of NDEs does not imply dualism, my friend. Idealistic monism is the answer.

>>9921876

Sigh. It's clear that you're an a priori denier who has no interest in a dispassionate discussion, and no interest in delving into the actual data.

Nevertheless, here are some quick refutations of your non-reflective points.

>How does this respond to my point?

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. Read what you wrote, read my response, see how your point was explicitly addressed by what I wrote.

>There is nothing "well documented" about the example you give. It's one person's vague anecdote.

It was corroborated by the medical staff that was present during the cardiac arrest. Could it be more corroborated? Yes. Does that negate that it was well-corroborated still? No.

>Why would this case not be written up immediately in the medical literature with witness testimony and documentation?

Because of attitudes like yours that make this a non-funded and stigmatized research subject.

If Elon Musk donated a few billions to this research, we would swim in overwhelming evidence a year from now. The issue is funding and ignorance preventing this research from being more thorough and widespread.

>And yet, you blindly accept these cases with zero skepticism and claim they're all well documented when not even the example you chose is!

I presented it in a summarized fashion, that does not mean that it is not well-documented. Which one of us have read the book, again, and which one of us is dismissing it out of hand because it goes against their a priori ideological convictions?

Stop being so religiously certain and actually engage with the actual data.

>No it's not.

Proving the point, being certain despite not having researched it at all. Praise Richard Dawkins indeed.

>>9922401
>Does it really matter? The patient saw a 12-digit number in a place she shouldn't have been able to see it in even if she was awake and well during her cardiac arrest.
According to what well documented evidence?

>Here, a person had accurate perceptions 3-5 minutes into a cardiac arrest, and we know that the entire neo-cortex goes offline completely within 8-20s after onset of cardiac arrest.
All this shows is that there are rare cases in which clinical death does not mean total loss of brain function.

>>9921754
Well physicalism is a sort of identity theory that says that everything is physical. Physicalism is justified from the idea that that everything can be explained in terms of physical interactions (ie behavioral rules of particles, quantum waves or what have you). If we can find something where behavioral rules alone can't explain a phenomena, we have reasons to reject physicalism.

>>9921942
Eliminative materialism is unironically the most respectable materialist stance one can take. In choosing to eliminate phenomenal properties it takes the problems they pose for physicalism seriously in one sense. With reductive materialists it's almost like they can't even grasp the issue.

>>9922404
Sigh. It's clear you are a dogmatic believer who will attempt to spin data that doesn't support your a priori beliefs.

>I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
You realize that this phrase only makes sense if you actually tried to explain it to me right? You didn't, you just said to read again what I asked you to explain.

>It was corroborated by the medical staff that was present during the cardiac arrest.
Where? I don't think you understand what corroboration means. It doesn't mean that I tell you something happened and that other people were there, it means that other people tell you they were there.

>Because of attitudes like yours that make this a non-funded and stigmatized research subject.
LOL there's such a lack of funding and so much stigma that there are large, well publicized studies like AWARE and "104 we'll documented cases." You can't have it both ways. It takes zero funding to report a single case in the literature and there is no stigma against reporting NDEs. There is only a stigma against junk science and anecdotal evidence being presented as well documented evidence. Your excuses are pathetic.

>I presented it in a summarized fashion, that does not mean that it is not well-documented. Which one of us have read the book, again, and which one of us is dismissing it out of hand because it goes against their a priori ideological convictions?
I read the relevant excerpt from the book. It says the machine is 7 feet high, not 6 (so much for well documented) and presents no corroboration.

Stop being so religiously certain and actually engage with the actual data.

this website needs a fucking philosophy board, this is getting ridiculous, or at least they should stop deleting every fucking philosophy related threads on /lit/

>>9917909
>put metal spike through your brain
>your whole personality changes
hmmmmm

>using NDE to critique physicalism and ignoring the valid reasons
Has to be a false flag

Depends if meaning is physical. Although matter is ground of all being, I'd say that it only exist by the relationship it has to itself as a closed system, whos parts exist as closed sets and the movements of these parts and the system, and corresponding movement of the whole, which is not a closed system but an open ended whole that is not divisible into parts, but is animated as a whole by the movement of the parts of the system that the whole is represented in.
So I do say there is more than what is physical, the phareon that is represented in and emerges from the physical. I also say that what is physical is also just the most basic form of animation. Delueze has similar thoughts in Cinema, also I get most of this from interperting CS Peirce. Physicalism strikes me as life-denying.
Phareon exist in its own space, the fact that phenomenon is nested in material relation only proves it's immanence. It's an anime ontology, it's not about dots are connected, it's about how the connections are made.

Rate my theory of everything.

>>9922484

>According to what well documented evidence?

Rivas, T., Dirven, A., & Smit, R. H. (2016). The Self Does Not Die. Durham, NC: IANDS.

Pages 35-36.

>All this shows is that there are rare cases in which clinical death does not mean total loss of brain function.

Except for two crucial facts: We have no evidence that there can be any activity in the neocortex this deep into a cardiac arrest. None.

Secondly, the patient did not just hear accurate things, but also saw accurate things that could not be heard. Your eyes are closed when you enter into a cardiac arrest. If you doubt that, take a look at this embarrassing moment when a pseudo-skeptic tries to argue against a world-leading resuscitation specialist on this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPCvuva2deU&t=46m30s

The facepalmest of facepalms. Pure cringe.

Prevailing denominations of physical nerves conduct the qualia through which you perceive the universe. But is qualia itself physical? Your experiences are informational, but carried by physical parts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj4M5yd21Gs

>>9912064
Fuck sake not this economy shit you pulled last time. As other person said, emergent needs a fundamental property before it. Things go down, not up.

>>9922527

So you keep on being a parrot with no unique way of phrasing yourself, and just "nuh-uh" your way through the dialogue and continue being in the middle of this picture >>9918129. I feel a bit like Bilbo Baggins here, encountering an actual troll. Can you move in sunlight?

>You realize that this phrase only makes sense if you actually tried to explain it to me right?

And I did. You originally said that "Nothing you posted documents consciousness existing independently from the brain.", to which I cited the case in the AWARE study, and the 104 cases in The Self Does Not Die. These cases demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that consciousness can exist outside the body, since they are well-documented cases of people seeing and/or hearing correct information that their brains and sensory input channels could not have accrued at that time. How is that not responding to the point you made?

>Where?

See >>9924225.

>LOL there's such a lack of funding and so much stigma that there are large, well publicized studies like AWARE

Which are rare for a reason, and it was still tremendously underfunded. They wanted to put shelves in all 12500 hospital rooms of the 25 hospitals, for instance, but could only due so in about 1000 rooms due to funding restraints, and in some hospitals they weren't allowed to have any shelves at all, due to the ethics committees of those hospitals. So much for society wanting to find the answers!

>It takes zero funding to report a single case in the literature and there is no stigma against reporting NDEs.

Have you ever tried to publish positive evidence against materialism? The gatekeepers of the journals are not exactly open-minded on this issue for the most part, I can promise you that. And some academics will get seriously angry and wildly irrational and emotional when you bring up the very idea that there can be empirical evidence against materialism. It really hits a sore spot.

>It says the machine is 7 feet high

No.

>>9924225
>Except for two crucial facts: We have no evidence that there can be any activity in the neocortex this deep into a cardiac arrest. None.

Couldn't that be because our tools of measuring brain activity is limited? If the brain is deprived of oxygen then it's dubious whether fMRI will give a good picture of activity. The electrical signals that remain might also be too weak to be picked up by EEG.

>they still haven't taken the Platonist pill
Read the Phaedo dialogue faggots.

>>9924345
*snap*

>>9924225
>Rivas, T., Dirven, A., & Smit, R. H. (2016). The Self Does Not Die. Durham, NC: IANDS.
Not available online. Post the pages.

>Except for two crucial facts: We have no evidence that there can be any activity in the neocortex this deep into a cardiac arrest. None.
We have no evidence that there is consciousness outside of the brain. None.

>Secondly, the patient did not just hear accurate things, but also saw accurate things that could not be heard.
Which patient are you referring to? The AWARE study only had one OBE and the only "interesting" part was that the patient claimed to hear a defib machine, which is something that laymen would expect to be used.

Matter arises from consciousness. Without an observer nothing exists.

>>9924711
Cringe.

>>9924254
>So you keep on being a parrot with no unique way of phrasing yourself, and just "nuh-uh" your way through the dialogue and continue being in the middle of this picture >>9918129 #.
I don't see an argument anywhere here, try again.

>And I did. You originally said that "Nothing you posted documents consciousness existing independently from the brain.", to which I cited the case in the AWARE study, and the 104 cases in The Self Does Not Die. These cases demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that consciousness can exist outside the body, since they are well-documented cases of people seeing and/or hearing correct information that their brains and sensory input channels could not have accrued at that time.
You're just repeating what I asked you to explain. Let's try this again: how does anything you've posted show consciousness existing independently from the brain? You claim it does, but you have not shown that any of these people lost all brain function, you just claim that there is no evidence of it. If I were to accept that as a valid argument then you should accept the argument that there is no evidence of consciousness outside of the brain! In order to say that these cases are evidence of consciousness outside of the brain, you have to assume that they are not evidence of brain activity beyond clinical brain death. So this argument goes nowhere. Other cases can even more easily be explained by false memory, subconscious guessing, or lying. So we need verifiable, scientific tests, not your garbage anecdotes and leaps of faith. Until you get a positive result, you'll just keep getting dismissed by the "skeptics," and rightly so.

>>9924254
>Which are rare for a reason, and it was still tremendously underfunded. They wanted to put shelves in all 12500 hospital rooms of the 25 hospitals, for instance, but could only due so in about 1000 rooms due to funding restraints, and in some hospitals they weren't allowed to have any shelves at all, due to the ethics committees of those hospitals. So much for society wanting to find the answers!
Seems normal to me for research on real patients with such little basis. Generous if anything. But all you have to do is get all your quack buddies together and put your money where your mouth is. Don't expect funding to be wasted on this nonsense when real medical research has to be done.

>Have you ever tried to publish positive evidence against materialism?
Publishing case reports is not nearly as hard or rigorous as publishing in scientific journals. And medical journals want interesting cases. There is no reason why this couldn't be published, other than the fact it didn't happen. And remember, you're the one who claimed you had well documented evidence, not me. Live up to your own claims.

>No.
Yes. An earlier description in the book The Death Class says "about 7 feet."

>>9924756
No.

>>9924345
This. Panpsychism is the only tenable position. Matter has 'mental' properties; everything else is cybernetics --
Rocks in some sense 'feel' when you step on them. The difference between the proto-sensory phenomenon in a rock and qualia-like phenomena in a brain is that the brain is structured such that proto-sensory loops are materialised within it. Qualia is sensation of sensation, literally.

Basically, panpsychism is the sound version of emergent theories of mental phenomena. The problem with simple/unqualified emergentism is that hard emergence is a metafiction. Nothing ever arises for which there isn't already some inherent potential, that is to say, "emergent" anythings have no ontic content.
Only soft emergence (basically, just a different name for "structure") obtains in the world.

Of course, dude, consciousness makes weak and depressive... look at stephen hawking dude

Wake up

>>9924787

>>9924787
>Rocks in some sense 'feel' when you step on them
Prove it fag

>>9924790
Cringe. Go back wherever you came from brainlet.

>>9924793
I just did.

>>9924796
>I proved it because I said it
so this is the power of brainletdom....

>>9924801
To deny that rocks sense is to deny that you sense.
To affirm that rocks sense is to affirm that you sense.
You sense, ergo, rocks sense.

Hallo ich bin ein deutscher und ich roleplaye as a serious and smart person

>>9924807

Hoffentlich kommt er nicht dahinter dass du behindert bist mein guter

>>9912185
this is not interesting or cool or unique you are just a retard hippie or something

>>9924803
To deny that rocks sense is to affirm that you sense.
To affirm that rocks sense is to deny that you sense.
You sense, ergo, rocks don't sense.

>>9924898
>To affirm that rocks sense is to deny that you sense.
This is false.

>>9924903
>>To affirm that rocks sense is to deny that you sense.
>This is false.
This is false.

>>9911972

>worlds smartest man

>Keeps taking IQ test until he knows all the answers

>>9924905
No, it isn't. The two are not mutually exclusive.

>>9924943
Yes they are.

>>9924954
They aren't. Rocks sensing doesn't strip you of the of the ability to sense.

>>9924898
wtf is this logical fallacy shit.

>>9924962
Yes it does.

>>9924993
Christ, you're retarded.

>>9924993
Are you retarded? Rocks don’t have sensory organs or even a basic nervous system you’d see in nematodes.

>>9924997
Christ, you're retarded.

>>9925003
Yup, they're not conscious.

>>9925009
Then they don’t “sense”.

>>9925010
Yes. Are you confused?

>>9925004

This >>9924803 is a tautology.
This >>9924898 is a contradiction.

>>9925015
Then stop saying rocks “sense”.

>>9925026
That's not me, brainlet.

>>9925003
The idea that you need a nervous system to sense is unsubstantiated.

>>9925020
>This >>9924803 # is a tautology.
You are confused, a tautology can't be false.

>>9925036
Like, you morons: this is exactly the problem at hand.
The nervous system and sensory organs are made from (ordinary) matter. The fact that matter exhibits mental properties is therefore an established fact.
The problem is then to determine whether these mental phenomena are somehow unique to these specific organisations of matter.
If they're not unique, everything is consistent. and you get panpsychism.
If they're unique to these organisations of matter, you're left with the problem of explaining why that is so, for which there is no non-circular or non-nonsensical solution.

>>9925036
Except for everything we understand about sense perception, biology, anatomy, neuroscience, etc.

>>9925072
Nope. Wake me up when you prove your claim that nervous systems or some other analogous system of data collection and processing is not necessary for consciousness. Neuroscience disagrees, so the burden of proof is yours.

>>9925082
>>9925084
>. Neuroscience disagrees
You're a moron.

>>9925072
Everything is made of matter and energy. Therefore everything is a property of matter and energy. Therefore all matter and energy have all properties.

Spot the fallacy.

>>9925094
There is no fallacy. You're implicitly assuming that matter (and energy, but they're the same thing) only have physical properties. That assumption is unsubstantiated.

>>9925104
No I'm not. The argument I gave says that matter and energy have all properties that things made of matter and energy have. It does not say they lack any properties.

The fallacy comes from inverting "all properties are in matter and energy" to "all matter and energy have all properties." The fact that some matter is yellow does not imply that all matter is yellow.

>>9924756
Hello Berkeley. Stop shitposting your idealism from the grave.

>>9925093
Cool. Please cite a peer-reviewed study that claims that a physical substrate isn’t necessary for consciousness in its conclusions. You’re failing to meet your burden of proof. Cute.

>>9925120
Colour is not an irreducible property. We're talking about irreducible properties here.

>>9925132
>a physical substrate isn’t necessary for consciousness
Are you dyslexic? I never claimed this.

>>9925144
Cool, then a physical substrate is necessary until you prove otherwise.

>>9925135
Which irreducible property are we talking about?

>>9925163
I don't need to prove otherwise. Matter has mental properties.

>>9925168
Encapsulation and exchange of information.

>>9925171
No we're not. A rockslide transfers information, don't mean rocks sense or are mental. You are just conflating information with mentality, brainlet. You probably think consciousness causes collapse too. Go read a textbook, retard.

>>9925135
So all matter has all irreducible properties? This is false too, since emergent properties are irreducible yet specific.

>>9925181
Mentality literally is the property of acting as a medium for information. Rocks exchange information with their environment, so they can almost "sense". Your CPU almost has "emotions". You're "conscious". The difference between these three as mediums for information is merely structural and relative (the latter are more complex than the former, allowing for more complex interactions, i.e. more complex mental phenomena).

>>9925184
Strong emergence doesn't exist, Bob.
Weak emergence is emergence in name only.

>>9925169
When it’s arranged like a brain, sure.

>>9925260
This view is unsubstantiated. What's so special about brains?

>>9911972
>205 replies.

Yes, the very fact that it's controversial to my mind indicates it poses a problem, whether or not it's an insoluble problem is another matter.

>>9925194
>Mentality literally is the property of acting as a medium for information.
No, it's not. Thinking is not the same as the movement of information.

>Rocks exchange information with their environment, so they can almost "sense". Your CPU almost has "emotions".
Tell me when you want to start discussing things seriously instead of poetically.

>>9925380
>Thinking is not the same as the movement of information.
Except it literally is.

>>9912092
This.

>>9925128
>Mr Billy Big Bollocks Mr Scientist Man can't even prove the phenomenal world exists
Nice 'method' you've got there

>>9912179
These are things we need to achieve through reason.

But a question contra to you: What properties does the brain have that consciousness emerges from them? It cannot emerge if the properties of the substrate do not allow it to do so.

>>9924801
Motherfucking creatio ex nihilio.

>>9925527
I cannot identify the properties but I know that properties in the brain allow mind to arise. If the brain is damaged, the mind is impaired. If the brain is destroyed, the mind is no more. A blind person takes psychedelic and the person remains blind even in the so called hyperspace. The mind is just what the brain does.

>>9925589
>I cannot identify the properties but I know that properties in the brain allow mind to arise

>I don't know I just know tho.

What the fuck.

>If the brain is damaged, the mind is impaired.

No one's denying there's a relationship between the mind and the brain, people just disagree that the relationship is one of emergent property to physical substrate.

>If the brain is destroyed, the mind is no more

Not necessarily, we literally don't know this. And it's the million dollar question.

>The mind is just what the brain does.

Brainlet-tier reductionism. At least acknowledge and engage with the arguments that your beliefs are not the case, because they are legitimate and strong, and right now there is no experiment that can actually lend credence to either of our conjectures.

And don't say "Hurr brain-damaged people change" like I said, no one is denying that there is a relationship, they're just questioning the NATURE of that relationship.

>>9925262
>What's so special about brains?
They're brains.

>>9925397
No it literally isn't. Learn basic physics.

>>9920662
ayy hook me up with some

inb4 this is chris

>>9917913
>>9918090
>>9922594
Saying consciousness effects matter doesn't mean that you can do whatever YOU want. I am saying that God is all that exists and creates matter not that YOU are a god who can do whatever he wants you fool. You are still subservient to God's will ultimately.

>>9912064
the economy isn't a real "thing", it's a process, just like consciousness.

>>9924787
My Problem with panpsychism is that while it is possible all of the conscious components of matter have to be invisible to our perception or else subjectivity won't work. It seems to just lead to dualism which has tons of flaws. The ideology that makes most sense to me is idealism because physical things do not actually have any traits that require their existence. They can all be totally accounted for through consciousness (not through one human's consciousness but through universal consciousness). Every other ideology either relies on mystical things or on a rejection of consciousness.

>>9925854
I'd say to look up Integrated Information Theory, it's the only formalized theory of consciousness and happens to imply panpsychism as a byproduct

>>9925895
I will look into it. I honestly wish people would debate panpsychism versus idealism more than just circle jerking about ordinary physicalism.

>>9925902
With all due respect you're on a /sci/ board right now. The sciences as we know them are the product of an empiricist materialist worldview and have been since Newton or before, arguably since Aristotle. What kind of opinions did you think you'd get?

>>9925915
Good point I guess I meant in general not specifically on /sci/ I actually come here when I want to argue with physicalists lol.

>>9925919
Physicalism is done, IMO.

It's just taking a while for us to stop the corpse spasming.

>>9925845
There is no separate god to create matter. God/consciousness is matter at rest, matter is god/consciousness at play, thus the apparent dualism. Mind born out of matter cannot grasp god without ceasing, yet from this god/consciousness it is made of. Consciousness is not an object, but an activity.

>>9925771
I know far more than just the basics of physics. You're a dualist in denial.

>>9925854
> It seems to just lead to dualism
No it doesn't.

>>9926284
You're delusional. You don't know shit quack.

>>9926461
Stop talking about yourself in the 2nd person.

It all starts to go so very wrong when you say
>consciousness is
It actually isn't. It's a clever trick your brain does but none the less it is a trick.

>>9925380
mentality = conduit for information
thinking = extremely complex form of info transfer (mediated by extremely complex brains)
atoms = comprise matter
brains = comprised of atoms
human brain = consciousness

I mean are you really saying that something has to think in order to be conscious? a snail is conscious bro

>>9925895
it doesnt imply panpsychism at all. i think if you asked the author he would say it doesnt imply anything metaphysical. if it did, it would imply that consciousness is an emergent product of matter more so. the author says nothing to support panpsychism and if he was panpsychist, he wouldnt even be suggesting a theory to explain consciousness.

>>9926493
This "it's an illusion" shit is by far the most retarded idea of them all. Begging the question on steroids.

>>9926493
This. Humans don't perceive reality as it is, so why should we assume we perceive our own existence properly?

>>9926727
You're begging the question.

>>9925638
>>The mind is just what the brain does.

but what is your evidence that gives you skepticism? id say theres more evidence the mind is just the brain than there is to be skeptical of such. people as skeptical as you should be skeptical of other peoples minds too, no?

surely the mind and matter are both just mental concepts of our own mind. they are just like observing the same thing from different cameras.

>>9924787
Panpsychism is a turd. Read Terrance Deacon. It's Peirce all the way down baby.

>>9924794
*snap*

>>9926723
This

Daniel Dennett should be publically executed for holding meaningful discussion back and giving retards more ammunition.

>>9926740
>but what is your evidence that gives you skepticism?

No known properties of the brain that can justify it, I've thought over and over about WHAT potential properties and I can never concieve of any. It doesn't mean they aren't there and simply beyond my understanding, but it makes me at least a little skeptical of the arguments for emergent consciousness.

When it comes to water and waves, water has properties that allow it to form waves when interacting with other bodies, so the analogy to other emergent properties falls flat IMO.

>id say theres more evidence the mind is just the brain than there is to be skeptical of such.

No, there just isn't. There's just wild speculation based on a so far very scientifically fruitful materialist worldivew.

>>9926673
You don't know what you're talking about.

>>9926765
I dont think there are either but at the same time, the evidence seems that the relationship between mind and brain is in a 1 to 1 mapping.

I think the mind is an emergent property but maybe its qualia that can't be.

>No, there just isn't.
I guess not. All that there is is a one-to-one mapping.

Ultimately i think the hard problem can never be solved. Maybe that's how it should be. Ill have to be an agnostic idealist.

Also i think even if us as beings didn't have qualia there would be a problem in that we would be still having this debate and asking "why do we have experience" even though we have none. Now that is almost a weirder paradox, no?


>>9926768
Tell me where the integration theory says or suggests anything about panpsychism.

>>9927222
>I guess not. All that there is is a one-to-one mapping.

I'm not sure that it means anything for the question of qualia, though.

>>9927222
>"why do we have experience" even though we have none.

I'm not sure that's possible, but it's total speculation on my part.

>>9924803
>To deny that rocks sense is to deny that you sense
lmao no it isn’t retard

>>9927234
what do you mean?

>>9927234
>>9927314
oh i see, no i think thats what i mean; qualia maps 1-1 to the brain processes.

>>9927234
you know what, no, mind cannot be an emergent property from brain and we dont define the brain materialistically. its same as qualia. But functions of the mind are emergent properties of neuronal networks. but yes qualia still maps 1 to 1 with brain activities.

>>9926762
You may not like him but he's the last real scientist

Everything is information, physical models for carrying information are one thing. The question is where does the fluency for that information exist so that the experiences arise?

I know that if the information attempts to transit to a space where there is no force carrier it is lost, but the physical properties that carried it still exist.

>>9927710
>it is lost
Try again

>>9927726
Define lost? I think you lost track of the syntax from misreading the radix of lost.

>>9927314
>>9927388
>>9927394

My point is that I'm not certain that just because qualia and brain activity correlates, that the brain activity produces the former.

I'm not certain it's meaningful.

>>9927540
>The last real scientist

No.

>>9927747
Correlation does not equal causation, absolutely right. The brain surely carries information, but qualia is about fluency of the information being carried. Disrupt information, and your fluency will be effected, just like in language. Of coarse if the physical transit of the information is disrupted it is experienced within the fluency.

>>9927745
I understood your sentence. Information can not be lost. It can not be created or destroyed. This is one of physics' most basic ideas

>>9927768

energy not information.

>>9927237
i think it would be if p-zombies were possible.

>>9927747
i think if it doesnt produce the former though you need to introduce something else otherworldy. like god. not for me.

what the hell is physicalism?

>>9927794
Mostly thought like this

>>9927797
I dont get it, then no I guess

>>9927801
These are the foundational texts of the entire area of thought. I recommend trying to find a good reader's companion

>>9927808
What does this have to do with consciousness?

>>9927810
Julianic texts are notable for welding form and content together, freely intermingling both, to attack at the much deeper points trying to be addressed. They work on a very abstract level of analysis and standard written English is often incapable of fully portraying the more subversive concepts. It is only through deep study and a degree of disbelief suspension that one can start to really get a feel for the general topology of Julian's domain, and the respective domains of his more worthy students/scholars.

>>9927819
Mhm... right... so nothing to do with it then?

>>9927822
To a layman, at first glance, perhaps. Julianistic schools of thought have had their fair share of accusations of obscurantism, to be sure. But these accusations miss the broader point. There is real substance to his arguments, once you know where to look.

Note his continual usage of simplistically sexual imagery: vague notions of the Girl and the Body are explored through more traditionally vulgar vocabularies ("sweet and sexy," "pon ya case"). These sentences are issued as commands: move the body as I say and as I like. By nature, this calls to attention the roll of the narrator in these sentences. The attention is met with ample reward: he refers to himself as King Julian; this is one of the biggest clues into the meaning of these texts
Through reading these texts being presented as commands, we are forced to approach the construction of a King we developed internally and without thought upon first glance over these sentences. The Sign calls attention to the Signified, "flipping" the relationship in a highly Lacanian turn of fate. Now we are presented with ourselves: who is the Internal King?

>>9927822
More on the "simplistically simple" (Michael Codgewin's term, not mine):
The King and, logically, the Internal King at the same time, issues commands here to all women, all girls, all female humans. His voice bellows throughout history and across our globe, reaching the very edges of mankind's path throughout space and time: what must necessarily echo back, and does, is a perfectly distilled notion of the Girl, purely abstracted into the basic form that comprises the very soul of our interpretation of the Girl.
The power dynamic here is as obvious as it is intentional: through his revivification of the historical (pardon the pun) feminine form and immediate commands of will upon it, he forms lockstep with her: a perfect and eternal symbiotic relationship of creating and commanding, becoming and obeying. It is sexual—it must be. This is the nature of negentropic existence. But it simultaneously pure: it falls apart when robbed of any of its constituent parts, leaving us no choice but to continue it indivisible and eternal. This is the Spirit of the Physical, and hence where most physicalistic thought sprang from.

>>9927854
>Julianistic
Clearly

>>9926673
It absolutely does and he's actually been criticized for it due to some implications.
t. a guy going to the university where Tononi is and attended a lecture by his researchers on an overview of the theory.

The way they put it, phi is a measure of a system's consciousness and according to them the actual calculation of phi is ungodly complicated due to it taking into account the state space of a system it gets infinitely more complicated as you scale up. Current measures of phi are done by proxy such as by perturbing the brain. By panpsychist, they clearly clarified that your table or rock does not have some sentient will of it's own but it may have "experience". As far as why we don't experience just the cells or particles of our bodies is claimed to be due to local phi values. For example, if two independent objects have their own phi value and then are joined in such a way that the global phi value of the total system is higher then that higer phi overrides the two lower ones and for lack of a better term results in the lower two objects to "lose their experience/identity" and is instead determined by the global phi. On the other hand, when two objects interact in such a way each of their own phi values are higher than the system, each retains their identity which is why you still remain yourself even if you communicate with others; experimentally, the Tononi found that the splitting the corpus callosum results in two local phi maxima instead of one global one which seems to tie into alien hand syndrome and other split brains phenomena. Medically, it's been accurate in predicting whether or not patients are locked in or actual veggies based on proxy measures of different areas of the brain.

>>9926673
Criticisms: Being a panpsychist theory, a major criticism has been the error correcting code argument. That a sufficiently large circuit of logic gates could eventually have more phi than the human brain thus making a circuit more conscious/experiential than a human brain. In my opinion, it's not super strong since there's no indication as to how large or feasible such a circuit would even be and even if it were it does not imply any kind of "human" experience; the state space of a circuit's experience may resemble nothing like a human's.

Implications for artificial intelligence: right now the theory (correctly imo) predicts that even the smartest machines have nowhere near the consciousness of living beings like humans or even dogs or rats, it does not conflate intelligent behavior with experience.

>>9927790
>otherworldy. like god

Nah, just a new ontological framework. One of the advantages of non-physicalism is that if it refutes physicalism it'll answer a great many ontological questions, IMO.

I don't see it like many do, as an opportunity to introduce spiritualism.

>>9928002
well this is a non-statement... nonphysicalism has its own criticisms just as complicated.

DEFINE
DEFINE
DEFINE

>>9927963
Doesn't that also mean you could just create a specialized consciousness circuit to have a completely different type of computer?

>>9927957
its not panphysicist. just because you have some measure that can predict when something is conscious doesnt mean that measure defines consciousness and all sytems have it. it doesnt logically follow. its non panpsychist. its emergentist because it depends on information integration. consciousness is an emergent product of that.
also id say tononis thing is irrelevant to the thread anyway because its about easy problems. i think one thing is that because consciousness for most people is strongly about our own qualitative identity and we cant imagine others, tononis idea when pushed to logical extremes about other systems becomes essentially meaninglessly alien. it gives some conditions for consciousness but it doesnt predict them and it wdnt help answer any interesting philosophical problems about consciousness (perhaps even emphasising certain problems). it gives some description but i dont think it delves into anything fundamental about us. im also not convinced the foundations of his theory can be seen as objective. hes just found some measure that might be able to predict certain things in certain contexts like the vegetative state thing. obviously its still too early to make conclusiona on it, especially concerning what it would do empirically.

>>9927963
http://romainbrette.fr/modern-panpsychism-about-the-integrated-information-theory-of-consciousness/ agree with him i think,

>>9928074
>about our own qualitative identity and we cant imagine others
That's because there aren't any.

>>9928074
The researchers I talked to stated themselves that the theory indeed says that even things like electrons would have some qualia of "electroness", you are right though that at some point the qualia become so alien that it either becomes impossible to conceive what a system would actually experience and of course whether it actually measures consciousness or just a correlate.

>>9928074
Bitch, you have no idea what you're talking about. Stop posting.

>>9928128
criticise it then

>>9928106
but surely if an electron is an elementary particle it wouldnt have consciousness? Then we can say consciousness would be an emergent property of matter no?

>>9928149
Emergent properties don't exist.

>>9928154
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

>>9928149
Yes, the integrated part means it's partially emergent in that more integration would result in a higher phi; however, the phi of an electron would be so low that it would nearly be zero and of course if were a part of a system with higher global phi, it would lose any electroness. The researchers say that consciousness is fundamental, not just emergent.

>>9928157
A bullshit concept having a wikipedia page doesn't mean make it real. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn
Besides, even the wikipedia page notes that emergence is a tendentious idea.
We literally know of no emergent property in a strong sense. All emergent properties thus classified are reducible to their underlying processes and natural laws. The only purported (strongly) emergent phenomenon is consciousness, but that is exactly the point of contention.

Once again: emergence is not real. It never happens. Something can't come from nothing.

>>9928165
but my point is that for there to be any consciousness under the iit definition, the thing in question needs to be subdivided. if an electron cannot be subdivided then it cannot have any degree of consciousness no?

>>9928174
all my life ive only ever meant it in the weak sense.

>>9928195
So why say stupid shit like

>Then we can say consciousness would be an emergent property of matter no

then?

>>9912035
>considering matter exists and non-matter doesn't I think we can safely say the components of the universe are at play here..

>>9928201
because its not the same as panpsychism... i think youre the one memeing off philosophy without even understanding it to be honest.

also how can you say strong emergence wouldnt exist then say this
>The only purported (strongly) emergent phenomenon is consciousness, but that is exactly the point of contention.
>point of contention

the way you write this suggests that you should actually argue that consciousness isnt a strong emergence thing.

so what is your evidence anon?

maybe strong emergence is illusory and is a product of an epistemological gap?

>>9928487
>also how can you say strong emergence wouldnt exist then say this
I fail to see where the problem is. Consciousness is not an emergent phenomenon. That's what the "purported" is there for: some people claim consciousness is an emergent phenomenon (and they are mistaken to do so). And consciousness is the only phenomenon which, it is claimed, arrises by way of "emergence".

>the way you write this suggests that you should actually argue that consciousness isnt a strong emergence thing.
D'uuuhhhhhhhh.

>so what is your evidence anon?
That's not how it works nigger: where is your evidence of emergence? You're the one who claims emergence happens, so you're the one who has to provide evidence of it.

>>9911972
I think i've solved it. The answer is that physical properties don't really exist. They're all derived from mental properties/ are abstractions emergent from them (which is not necessarily different from mental properties being emergent from other ones). When we look at it this way, the real question is why does the mind exist... why does it "be" per se.

But that question is identical to, in a physicalist standpoint, why does the universe exist. How did it come from nothing? How did it begin? The point being that we don't know and more so, we cannot know anything past the cosmological horizon of the mind where information and causality become conceptually extinguished/intangible.

Some other issues is that qualia is not so simple as qualia. To know we even have qualia relies on the structure of the mind as relates to the easy problem. E.g. we cannot even know we have qualia without things like metacognition.

Descriptions from which we derive explanations are about mappings between concepts and between modalities. Qualia as a fundamental particle of the mind cannot be mapped or described outside of experience/to itself but this doesn't make it an ontological problem. Ontology itself is illusory and epistemologically vapid. But we have to live and act like it isn't.

When we look at things this way, the mind is also not the same as the brain. The relationship is more complex.

>>9928515
but why isnt it emergent? can you explain it to me.

>>9928515
please explain it to a yung brainlet

>>9928551
Ex nihilo nihil fit.

>>9928575
>Ex nihilo nihil fit.
yeah but if something is emergent from something else thats not ex nihil nihil bitch.

>>9928674
Then that is not emergent in any strong sense of the term. Strong emergence = an entirely novel property pops into existence within a system, one that is irreducible to the underlying processes and laws that govern that system, i.e. you get something out of nothing, since the underlying processes are still at work, this being something extra within the system summoned from beyond the void, as it were.

>>9928674
I think you're very confused about the technical meaning of "to emerge/emergence".

>>9928195
No, it does not have to be subdivided to have phi, but how it behaves in a system does affect the overall phi of the system; again, another criticism of it has been how exactly one creates the boundaries for a system considering everything in the real world is an open system.

>>9928699
Well if you define strong emergence like that then you're making it into an impossible concept from the start. It's kind of like saying everything is natural therefore non-natural stuff doesn't exist. Surely it's not the proposition of strong emergence proponents that the emergent property comes out of nowhere. It's only in respect to KNOWN underlying physical processes that something new is created.

Thus, you can posit some unknown property of matter, UP, and this UP is what is driving the emergence. It would work on a level beyond reach of scientific investigation. The reason you would say that something strongly emerges out of the known physical properties is only because how the UP reacts is very dependent on how the known physical processes act.

>>9912134
>it has properties that can't be explained linguistically which means...

I don't even know where to begin. Why does the failure of language to describe or explain mean ANYTHING related to the fundamental nature of consciousness?

>>9917647
> Insofar as science is an objective process of discovery, it is, and must be, metaphysically neutral. Insofar as science is not metaphysically neutral, but instead weds itself to a particular metaphysical theory, such as materialism, it cannot be an objective process for discovery.
That's some metaphysical damage control. An obsolete discipline trying to stay relevant, a lot of work but ultimately inconsequential to reality.

>>9928881
>Well if you define strong emergence like that
It's not I who defines it like that. That's what emergence, in the strong sense, is.

>>9928910
>I'm not defining it like that, but I'm gonna define it like that.

>>9912132
>Nuclear forces a metaproperty now
>>9918382
There are physical properties that must apply to a God, even one that exists outside our universe (which, being a perfect being and therefore immutable, it doesn't), if it so wants to interact with our universe at any given time.
Yes, in order for a God to exist, it must have physical properties, even if they are different from ours.
But thanks for you lack of insight.

>>9928881
>Thus, you can posit some unknown property of matter, UP, and this UP is what is driving the emergence.
Well, then you just get panpsychism and consciousness isn't an emergent phenomenon at all. Maybe you should read up on the subject before you talk about it. Just a thought.

>>9928911
Are you retarded?

>>9928918
You're telling me that strong emergence is things appearing out of nothing, but then I tell you it's probably not what proponents of strong emergence mean if you would force them to guess where the emergence comes from.

Did you just read my first sentence or something?

>>9928916
This UP wouldn't entail panpsychism. Nothing about the UP has to be conscious or even protoconscious, it's just what grounds the emergence such that it wouldn't "appear out of nothing".

>>9928016
It has its own criticisms, but I think it has some advantages in terms of explanatory power if it's true.

>>9929010
Like what?

Panpsychism isnt appealling. I prefer agnosticism.

>>9929112
Idk, first of all you'd resolve the hard-problem, whereas if materialism is true we're a long way from an explanation. If it is true maybe I'm a million miles off but it'd probably go a long way to explaining which interpretation of QM is correct (Lending credit to the standard model and it's variants, like the Wigner-Von Neumann model)

>>9929161
Im a non-physicalist. Whats your brand?

>>9928966
>but then I tell you it's probably not what proponents of strong emergence mean
That's exactly what they mean.

Hey Rick. Do you still have dogs?

>>9929184
I'd like to be panpsychist, but I'm not sure. Not agnostic because I believe the problem is soluble and will be solved in my lifetime.

>>9925895
The axioms are all a load of crap and none of them even touch the actual hard problem.

>>9929555
Hope?

Well i'm a generative transcendental instrumentalist.

>>9928914
>Yes, in order for a God to exist, it must have physical properties, even if they are different from ours.
then it's not a physical property if it's different than ours. You could take any property and define it as "physical" according to you. What's stopping you from saying God's personality is a physical property that's "different than ours[physical properties]"... Nothing. The word loses all meaning when you create this idea of a property "being physical but different than our physical".

Heck I can even come up with a blatant counterexample that proves your idea wrong. What if gravity had a consciousness? Gravity is not a physical property now is it? If you define God as a consciousness that can direct matter via gravity, many people would, then he has no physical properties. You can't just redefine gravity and claim it's a "physical property but different from ours"

>>9930045
desu i bet none of us knows what mental and physical properties are... and when we consider it. then the whole ontology breaks down.

ontology is a myth.

subjective idealism is the way.

via generative transcentental instrumentalism.

its also compatible with buddhism for basedbois.

>>9930108
>only costs $2224 for the ultra premium philosophical package.