/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15921609]

Is the hard problem of consciousness a smart question or a stupid question?

[Anonymous No.15921615]

Depends on how you phrase it.
If you're trying to figure out how neural communication creates the phenomenal parts of mental activity, it's a smart question.
If you're trying to prove/disprove various preconceptions (e.g. "consciousness is just an illusion, let's go find out why") then you're a faggot.

[Anonymous No.15921703]

>>15921615
>how neural communication creates the phenomenal parts of mental activity
It doesn't.

[Anonymous No.15921809]

>>15921609
>sir this is a plane to India we buttrape boomers on this airline
>sir is that an iPad? Wow! You must be a genius! Have a nice day sir!

[Anonymous No.15921833]

I prefer the over easy problem of consciousness.
With a side of cole slaw and garlic spinach.

[Anonymous No.15921846]

>>15921615
>figure out how neural communication creates the phenomenal parts of mental activity
Correlation does not equal causation chud

[Anonymous No.15921905]

>>15921609
Consideration is the difference between right and wrong.
Existing between life and death.
Judgement over right and wrong is time.
The collection of decisions we make are our soul.
The earth brings into fruition souls making decisions between right and wrong.
Adam and Eve became aware of their mortality trough accumulating sin because they're not perfect and so they had genealogies.
We are still the same situation understanding our own way creating our souls.

[Anonymous No.15922009]

Is the vertiginous question a smart question or a stupid question?

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

[Anonymous No.15922014]

>>15921615
>If you're trying to figure out how neural communication creates the phenomenal parts of mental activity, it's a smart question.
This is basically the binding problem, in other words how neural communication generates a single unified experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0YID6XV-PQ

[Anonymous No.15922117]

>>15921609
It's not a stupid question since it asks for the relationship between observable phenomena (consciousness and observables).
However, there is no definite verifible answer to this question since antiquity and the schism between "consciousness is a product of observables" and "observables are a product of consciousness" plays out to this very day in the form of /sci/ autist dogma vs /x/ schzio woowoo.

[Anonymous No.15922142]

>>15922117
I like the guys who get really hostile over the question because they believe in a soul but can't admit it.

[Anonymous No.15922266]

It's a stupid question because it is unsolvable, it's a smart question if it matters in the context of engineering artificial life.
To take the problem practically, it would probably be a bad idea to make conscious artificial intelligence and then cause it harm.
I think the hard problem is defining what "conscious" or "harm" means in this hypothetical in the first place. The hard problem stands in the way of a practical question that is on many people's minds, science-fiction isn't science but it's all anyone has because the entire argument is nonsense.
For a sample of how stupid this discussion can get see this thread >>15913050

[Anonymous No.15922280]

>>15921609
Oh no he has to turn off the tablet for approximately 15 minutes out of a 12 hour flight
Clearly a single book is superior to a devices that can store millions of them simultaneously!

[Anonymous No.15922379]

>>15921809
This literally happened to me

[Anonymous No.15922480]

>>15922009
According to your 2 paragraph link, it is a stupid obvious question that they answered in half a sentence.
>an embedded view from the perspective of a single subject

[Anonymous No.15922481]

>>15921846
Causation is a type of correlation.

[Anonymous No.15922484]

>>15922014
When the neurons are all confined to a single unified interconnected body why wouldn't they contribute to a single unified experience?

[Anonymous No.15922486]

>>15921609
why would he need to turn off his tablet? 1. most tablets don't even have a sim card but 2. they literally call it airplane mode it's like 2 clicks.

[Anonymous No.15922515]

>>15921609
>sir turn that off
>ok
>doesn’t
it’s that easy

[Anonymous No.15922608]

>>15921609
Hard problem is created by dualists. (How do you bridge the gap between physical and mental)
Its a non problem for physicalists. (because consciousness doesnt exist)
Its a non issue for idealist. (everything is a product of consciousness)

[Anonymous No.15922616]

>>15922608

[Anonymous No.15922645]

>>15922486
It's so you pay attention to the safety briefing.

[Anonymous No.15922663]

>>15921609
The hard problem is why people larp as a view from nowhere.

[Anonymous No.15922674]

>>15922608
You just explained why both physicalists and idealists are wrong and retarded.

[Anonymous No.15922679]

>>15922674
No, thats just your opinion.

1) Physicalist dont see evidence for consciousness floating in some ether realm. Dualists cant show that evidence. All they claim is "well its apparent we have consciousness"

2) Idealists dont need evidence. Because the apparent consciousness is all there is, and evidence of physicalism is not there.

[Anonymous No.15922687]

>>15922679
>Dualists cant show that evidence. All they claim is "well its apparent we have consciousness"
NTA but I'm dying from laughter.

[Anonymous No.15922688]

>>15922679
Neither consciousness nor the physical world can be denied without being dishonest.

[Anonymous No.15922692]

>>15921609
>>15922515

Did someone who never rode on a plane drew this? You don't need to turn off your device, just the network (which you won't have anyway while in the air). That's why we have airplane-mode on all the devices.

[Anonymous No.15922698]

>eh? Ha! Heh heh.

[Anonymous No.15922839]

>>15922692
Most airlines used to make you turn off all electronic devices for takeoff and landing, my underage friend.

[Anonymous No.15922843]

>>15922839
When?

[Anonymous No.15922848]

>>15922843
Up till about ten years ago.

[Anonymous No.15922954]

>>15922692
>>15922839
guess what happens if you don't turn on airplane mode

>fucking nothing

it's a hypothetical issue, like phones exploding gas stations or interfering with ICU equipment. it doesn't hurt anything other than your battery to leave it on

[Anonymous No.15922998]

>>15922009
The vertiginous question is a stupid question because it is only raised in the context of David Chalmers' philosophical system, and ascribing validity to Chalmers' philosophy of mind is a stupid thing to do.
btw
>>>/sci/?task=search&ghost=false&search_text=vertiginous
fuck off already

[Anonymous No.15923024]

>>15922688
>>15922679
Idealism, at least as propagated by modern figures like Kastrup is dissatisfying and basically just physicalism that's arguing semantics. Claiming things like "there is a world out there, but it's not physical" or "well of course you can't move an asteroid flying through space with your mind, just like you can't influence someone else's thoughts" have no explanatory power.
It seems like dualism is inescapable, with physicalism you either move back towards it or turn into ludicrous shit like illusionism.

[Anonymous No.15923058]

>>15921609
stupid
We can only meaningfully discuss things which objectively exist. consciousness does not objectively exist.

[Anonymous No.15923063]

>>15923058
>you cannot discuss morality, truth or love
Sad.

[Anonymous No.15923069]

>>15923058
Objectivity is a concept within multiple subjectivities

[Anonymous No.15923085]

>>15923058
>objectively
Only people who don't know what this word means use this word. One definition is: independent from the observer. There you have it: the root of all idiocy called trust the science.

[Anonymous No.15923119]

>>15922679
>Dualists cant show that evidence
P-zombie detected
>Idealists ... consciousness is all there is
Seems lazy, this is effectively just the reverse of the physicalist, instead avoiding explaining the material.

[Anonymous No.15923232]

>>15921609
If somebody call conciusness a problem, you should hit him in the face so much he will lay to ground unconsciouss, then you can argue you solved his problem.

[Anonymous No.15923233]

>>15921615
You just insulted whole faggotery, even normal faggots aren't as stupid as that.

[Anonymous No.15923242]

Is it over? It seems like no one has any refreshing insight to add anymore.

[Anonymous No.15923277]

>>15923024
>Claiming things like "there is a world out there
Pseud idealist outted before even first sentence.
Next.

[Anonymous No.15923929]

>>15923119
>seems lazy
Well its a short sentence summary. If you want to differentiate, There's ones that say that with reason alone, we can know the physical reality outside of perception. Even when they acknowledge perception is of error. Then theres those that say perception itself is always part of the larger cognitive work which can never truly establish anything outside. The errors and structures do not explain a real thing outside as the conscious mind can do the reverse on its own without anything corresponding to external world. Like a bald man believing he has hair or a man believing hes a woman.

[Anonymous No.15924103]

>>15923119
>this is effectively just the reverse of the physicalist
It is indeed a complete reverse from the very epistemological root.
On seeing things, Physicalist postulates there are "something out there" that's independent from his consciousness projecting said graphics in question.
Idealist on the other hand postulates there are internal distortions in his consciousness causing said graphics, like seeing two lights when there is just one as you squeeze your eye.
Physicalists believes there is a real/independent objective world out there everyone is in whose eternal nature is knowable through the senses.
Idealists believes since all observables are effectively illusions created through distorations in one's own consciousness, each individual is occupying his own subjective world and changing one's inner states changes his projected world.

[Anonymous No.15924203]

>>15924103
>Physicalists believes there is a real/independent objective world out there everyone is in whose eternal nature is knowable through the senses.
This is bit wrong. Its not that physicalists believe there's a real/independent objective world out there, its that world we see is the only real one. There's no "inward" position for physicalist for which they argue there's something out there. This is a position that thinks consciousness is non-existent or fake, either explicitly or implicitly.

The dualist however believes there's an inward position for which they can argue there's a physical world external to them as well.

Certain dualists will believe that the world is independent of the mind and errors of mind can be solved with a communal/consensus understanding/reason/logic/etc.

Ideals also have divisions where one can believe in single united consciousness, multiple consciousness, even more radicals are those that dont believe consciousness at all and is all part of framing/transposition issue with regards to conscious holds on conscious reality.

[Anonymous No.15924239]

>>15924203
>This is bit wrong. Its not that physicalists believe there's a real/independent objective world out there, its that world we see is the only real one.
I don't see the distinction.
Objective reality apart from one's mind is the hallmark of modern science. Even if the current world we see is not the only real one, so long as there is observable evidence of other worlds that's independent from your mind (aka not something seen as imagined up), then the acknowledgement of said world would still be in line with physicalist principles.

[Anonymous No.15924241]

>>15924239
>Objective reality apart from one's mind is the hallmark of modern science
Right. And modern science isn't physicalist, its dualist. Our society has largely been a dualist one. Most people dont go around saying that we dont have a mind/consciousness. Physicalist position is philosophical position, just like all monist positions are. Its not a common sense one.

[Anonymous No.15924258]

>>15924241
>And modern science isn't physicalist, its dualist
That's interesting. Modern society and scientists' individual beliefs might be dualistic, but how do you figure science as a discipline via the scientific method presume dualism?

[Anonymous No.15924264]

>>15924258
Clockwork notion of the human was explored back in the 17th-18th-19th century understanding of the world. The leading scientists of the time accepted that our common view isn't such mechanistic. The scientific exploration was done so with the understanding that human minds existed, and such human minds were incredibly fallable to the point that the scientific community decided and understood that we needed a structured mechanism for our minds to understand any of the science that would be primarily experiential and needed a way to repeat that process with a disciplined mechanism to extract those same experiences. They understood the necessary to filter our brain. Its not just a random scientific discovery, but its how the entire scientific/philosophical discource developed as such. From descarte to kant to hegel to schopenhaur to husserl to etc. Modern philosophical foundations developed the modern science and its reflected in the philosophical understandings of the great minds of the time who did both science and philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15924284]

>>15924264
Nice history lesson but look, I'm not saying any of the 3 positions is true or false here, but the scientific method (hypothesis, experimentation, adjustment) presumes an objective real clocklike world "out there" independent of our mind. The very excerise is the modeling (as close as possible) of our mind to a percived clockwork external reality so as to predict (as close as possible) what's going to happen in the said external reality.
Now unfortunately this method cannot verify it's own axiom to shed light on Physicalism vs Dualism vs Idealism, hence the "unsolvable" Hard Problem among other things. So who the hell knows, maybe the schizos are right and are on their way to apotheosis/enlightenment while we are chasing our own shadows here.
But there is no way the scientific method itself as it stand today is not build purely on the theoretic foundation of physicalism.

[Anonymous No.15924286]

>>15924284
>objective reality
Yes, thats what dualists also argue for. Particularly an objective reality that exists outside and independent of the mind.

The correct term for the type of dualism that science argues for is "transcendental realism". With a perfectly rational/scientific means to explain away the errors of human mind.

[Anonymous No.15924288]

>>15924284
>>15924286
Also, a purely physicalist reality is one where what we see is what we get. The errors of perception however is then attributed to errors of physical body, not of mind, as that doesnt exist.

[Anonymous No.15924314]

>>15924286
>The correct term for the type of dualism that science argues for is "transcendental realism"
Real nice, some lab-coat is going to burst a blood vessel hearing that schzio sounding name they are supposedly arguing for.
You philosofags sure knows how to name them.

[Anonymous No.15924321]

>>15924314
Kant defines it. He's not a transcendental realist tho. The current gen of scientist today do not have any understanding of science, what science implies, how its established, what the science is establishing, etc.

Basically current day scientists as a whole do not know they use microsope let alone understand how to use one. They were born with a world that had microscope as a natural extension and dont understand there exists a microscope infront of them.

[Anonymous No.15924326]

>>15922954
It was an issue for a few years due to signal interference but all planes were retrofitted with shielding to prevent it.

[Anonymous No.15924338]

>>15921609
It's a question for people who are braindead

[Anonymous No.15924448]

>>15924241
It is really funny to see idealist and dualist spammers here insist that NPCs deny free will or believe that consciousness isn't special. Nope, your typical NPC normie is a naive dualist even if they're atheists, that's why they say shit like "my brain tells me X while I do Y" as if those were separate things. True non-NPCs recognize that they're automata no more special than an inchworm wiggling left and right to find a surface to cling to, just much more complex. There's more to read out there than Dennett you know.

[Anonymous No.15924482]

>>15924241
>>15924264
Modern science can afford to be dualist only insofar as it doesn't directly deal with the brain. In psychology it's easy to say "we can't look inside someone's head" because for all intensive purposes you can't, doesn't mean it's a metaphysical judgment, just a practical limitation. Guess what discipline is the most physicalist and non-dualist w.r.t. the brain: neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.15924486]

>>15924482
100% of neuroscientists are dualists. No one writes as a physicalist. Do we have any evidence of any physicalist neurosciensts who believe everyone else is a mindless drone?

Even Dennett isn't that stupid.

[Anonymous No.15924493]

>>15924486
???
what the hell does physicalism have to do with "believing everyone else is a mindless drone"?
That's a supposition on your part and a retarded strawman of physicalism.

[Anonymous No.15924497]

>>15924493
Physicalism don't believe there's a thing called a mind or a consciousness. It's all robotic world. A mindless world.

[Anonymous No.15924511]

>>15924497
>Physicalism don't believe there's a thing called a mind or a consciousness.
Yes they do, they just believe it is a physical thing or process.

[Anonymous No.15924558]

>>15924448
>True non-NPCs recognize that they're automata
Your understanding is incomplete. Once you realize that you are an NPC you have to look for transcendence. Why are you so eager to end the quest for understanding at a particular destination?

[Anonymous No.15924570]

>>15924558
bro this is /sci/ not /deepakchopra/

[Anonymous No.15924574]

>>15924284
>>15924286
>>objective reality
You're both completely missing the main point of contention. Trust the science is a meme because some believe science discovers ontological reality and others believe science discovers consensus reality. In philosophical terms: is there a distinction between noumena and phenomena and how do we know?

[Anonymous No.15924580]

>>15924570
You are a closet gay man hating homosexuals. That's what your position represents: an inverted image of the strawmen you seek to defeat.

[Anonymous No.15924804]

>>15921609
No point is asking a philosophical question here. Stemcels are only good with numbers, not language or concepts. Engineering majors have the same language skills as social workers

[Anonymous No.15924807]

>>15922009
For what it's worth, Ray Kurzweil has been mystified by this question. https://youtu.be/pb3zsuHwqvY?list=PLFJr3pJl27pKtdiD0lfzbzG8ShFPz-1rD&t=790

Up to you to decide whether that's evidence for it being a smart or a stupid question...

[Anonymous No.15924819]

>>15924807
circular reasoning stemming from the mistake of thinking
>but I create what I am
which only shows how silly free will is to begin with. all of them wipe this way. come up with nonsense and then say
>so I don't know
fucking morons
you are you because that's what your experience forms, not your "choices", but experience. it's not the choice itself that affects you (which it does in a sense), it's the repercussions of that "choice". it's basically everything that you experienced, with that set of genes, that make you you.
this is simpler and more easily understood with the thought experiment of a world made of only genetically identical clones, all "born" at the same time, or not. either way, in a world full of genetically identical people (upon "birth") whenever anyone of them asks "but why am I me and have no experience of someone else" you can smack their head and say nothing.
>ok but explain why not telepathy or soul travel'
gee I wonder what the fuck stuck those ideas in your head.

[Anonymous No.15924820]

>>15924482
>for all intensive purposes
Instantly filtered kys pavement ape

[Anonymous No.15924821]

Hey guys the universe is deterministic and none of you have free will.

[Anonymous No.15924856]

Hey guys the universe is deterministic and none of you have free will and you should know that you are the decision-making model black box between stimulus and response and you are the storytelling language model that has no access to the decision-making model and you should vote but whatever you vote you can't prove that you could've voted otherwise and you should be judged by your actions that you have no control over because you should take responsibility for everything you did not choose to do.

[Anonymous No.15924895]

>>15924821
>>15924856
no free will and no determinism. random shit does happen, and is enough

[Anonymous No.15924926]

>>15924574
>because some believe science discovers ontological reality
Okay, first of all, nobody seriously doing science actually believe this.
"It's just a mathmatical model" pretty much sums it up. Science strives to plot a consensus reality that's close as possible to the presumed objective ontological reality.
>In philosophical terms: is there a distinction between noumena and phenomena and how do we know?
There is a distinction but obviously there also exist a logical, not random, translation from noumena to phenomena, else you'd be wondering around the world like a blind person won't be able to predict anything about reality. Because of this logical translation, you would be an able to know somethings about noumena through phenomena in your own mind, just not everything.

[Anonymous No.15924934]

>>15921609
I honestly don't quite understand what kind of answers they're looking for. To me it seems like one of those cases where you keep asking why until no meaningful answers can be given anymore.

[Anonymous No.15924947]

>>15924934
To elaborate on this, I think it's interesting and meaningful to ponder about what sorts of biological phenomena cause qualia and consciousness. It's natural to follow that up with the question "why do those phenomena cause qualia and consciousness", but honestly I don't see how it could ever be answered.

[Anonymous No.15924956]

>>15924482
>for all intensive purposes you

[Anonymous No.15924959]

>>15924947
>I don't see how it could ever be answered.
i.e., you got filtered

[Anonymous No.15924974]

>>15924926
>translation from noumena to phenomena
Isn't that translation a logic prior to the logic we currently know?

[Anonymous No.15924996]

>>15924974
Since the moment you come out from the womb you need to utilize the phenomena in your head to navigate the noumena "out there", I'm not sure what this "prior logic" would be.

[Anonymous No.15925036]

>>15924996
We differentiate, compare, measure, determine and decide in ways that can be described with logic. That is happening. When we learn to code one of the first things we notice is that nothing ever happens until we push the button to execute. Now who / what is the thing that runs all the things and isn't that thing of a different logic than the logic it executes?

[Anonymous No.15925098]

>>15925036
Maybe, if you are going to go all dualism on me and say there is a player inhabiting this video game world.
But what does that have to do with the original noumena/phenomena question? You can't directly see the source code in game but you sure as hell can model aspects of it from the gameplay.

[Anonymous No.15925129]

>>15925098
I'm not arguing for God or soul. The same problem exists in physicalism: there is a game and a source code but no player or reality outside the computer. We are a character that the computer is playing just like the computer is playing everything else. The source code is the platonic realm and the game is the cave. We can imitate ideals but these imitations miss the secret sauce until we learn to build from the source code.

[Anonymous No.15925152]

>>15925129
>We can imitate ideals but these imitations miss the secret sauce until we learn to build from the source code.
>these imitations miss the secret sauce
Why does it matter..
The models might be imitations but the resulted technology sure as hell works.
Besides, you philosofags got a better idea on how to "REALLY get to know the REAL world aka noumena" other than the scientific method?

[Anonymous No.15925166]

>>15925152
>The models might be imitations but the resulted technology sure as hell works
Of course that's amazing but don't claim that AI is as conscious as I am and check your morality: do you build AI to be conscious or do you build AI to function as effectively as possible for a specific purpose?
>philosofags got a better idea
Study science, meditate and take a heroic dose of psychedelics.

[Anonymous No.15925177]

>>15925166
>but don't claim that AI is as conscious as I am
And how would you be able to tell when the imitation get as good if not better than the original, will a heroic dose of psychedelics help in that regard?

[Anonymous No.15925182]

>>15925166
>Of course that's amazing but don't claim that AI is as conscious as I am and check your morality: do you build AI to be conscious or do you build AI to function as effectively as possible for a specific purpose?
evolution didn't build us to be conscious either but to have cognitive capabilities that were useful for propagating our genes. consciousness, as in the inner experience, in and of itself is completely useless for evolutionary purposes, yet it still evolved. without anyone or anything trying to create it. suggesting that it naturally goes side by side with certain useful cognitive capabilities.

[Anonymous No.15925195]

>>15925177
Burden of proof? This has been discussed a million times. I know I'm conscious, I don't know about you and then you call me an ad hominem and so on.
>>15925182
This has been discussed a million times so you at least have to admit that it's debatable regardless of your personal opinion.

[Anonymous No.15925203]

>>15925195
>I know I'm conscious, I don't know about you
that makes you jackass anon.
>I don't know and it's impossible to convince me as I specifically chose this because can't be proven. it's comfy.
it can and it will. you will still be a jackass.

[Anonymous No.15925211]

>>15925195
>I know I'm conscious, I don't know about you and then you call me an ad hominem and so on
Yes it has been discussed a million times. So in case you missed the memo while there is no way to verify/experience another's consciousness directly, what you can and do experience is their functional intelligence, which is presumably the cause of all your qualia about them.
And unlike consciousness, functional intelligence is something very much susceptible to science. So the question is are you really gonna give a shit when your dream waifu becomes a reality that if they are actually conscious when in fact you can't even tell if your neighbour is conscious?

[Anonymous No.15925226]

>>15921609
It was solved on an this very imageboard a few days ago, so a pretty stupid question:
>>15913050
What's different about this one, is that many academics understand it's a solved problem, while simultaneously others pursue it seriously.

[Anonymous No.15925236]

>>15925211
>are you really gonna give a shit
We've already discussed ethics and established that racism and violence is independent from how conscious the victim is.

[Anonymous No.15925243]

>>15925211
>Yes it has been discussed a million times.
most people are fucking retarded. this means absolutely nothing as an argument.
>ad hominem
motherfucker your whole philosophical position is a fucking ad hominem to literally everyone but you

[Anonymous No.15925247]

>>15925236
I don't know what you've established in your moms basement while whispering to your cum-soaked mattress.
Morality comes from a mixture of instincts and social norms. These instincts were created, because evolution optimized social behaviors in alignment with the mathematical realities of game theory. Social norms were added on top of that for practical reasons. You can try to put human morality into a "philosophical framework", but it's a futile exercise for the normies, that has nothing to do with science or logic. You're just creating a suiting narrative for internal experiences. This is why something like abortion is (and will remain) so controversial in many societies. There is no evolutionary blueprint for that, so we extend our instinctive thinking and stretching it thin.
I'm not being edgy and saying "I don't care", this is simply the reality.

[Anonymous No.15925250]

>>15925236
>racism
>violence
>victim
Oh I can already see how this one is going to play out.
"Nerds owning AI waifus are sexist and oppressive."
There's really no frontiers you ethicfags won't profane.

[Anonymous No.15925277]

>>15925247
>vague
Make a short and clear statement. Support your statement with a short and clear argument. Then refute my statement with a short and clear conclusion.

For example: morality is either objective or subjective. In other words: God or darwinism. I'm agnostic about God and observe two darwinistic strategies: predatory or symbiotic. Neither of these strategies involve discriminating consciousness from not consciousness. Therefore neither of these statements
>>15925211
>are you really gonna give a shit
>>15925247
>"I don't care"
are relevant in a debate about what is consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15925285]

>>15925277
Direction of the conversation from this and other thread have already down-graded consciousness to a sociology discussion.
If you have the means to tie consciousness down to any discernable physical characteristics please do share it.
Otherwise yes, "I do/don't care" is the standard of debate now.

[Anonymous No.15925309]

>>15925285
>"I do/don't care" is the standard of debate now.
No because I've just demonstrated that
>"I do/don't care"
is of no consequence therefore that debate is closed unless you provide a counterargument that there are consequences for
>"I do/don't care"

[Anonymous No.15925318]

>>15925309
>unless you provide a counterargument that there are consequences for
>"I do/don't care"
The consequence is more enjoyment and less worrying about things of no consequence.
Aka your "morality".

[Anonymous No.15925338]

>>15925318
The motivation of a system is not necessarily reducable to pain/pleasure, cost/benefit, risk/benefit mechanisms. This system would not have replied if that is the case. Love for a reason is not love at all.

[Anonymous No.15925348]

>>15921609
I actually believe that I am the only conscious specimen in the entire universe and by experience, is provably true.

[Anonymous No.15925358]

>>15924820
>>15924956
hello newfriends

[Anonymous No.15925360]

>>15925338
>Love for a reason is not love at all
So then why do you care about what other people do?
If you are truly operating unconditionally here, you wouldn't be preaching your morality to others.
Ethicsfags are such hypocrites.

[Anonymous No.15925375]

Is Is the hard problem of consciousness a smart question or a stupid question? a smart question or a stupid question?

[Anonymous No.15925754]

>>15924448
>>15924819
>>15924821
>>15924856
>>15924895
Ways it might be possible for free will to scientifically exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8EkwRgG4OE

[Anonymous No.15925797]

>>15925754
microtubules are a complete joke
electromagnetic field theory of consciousness is the best one imo because it means
>consciousness is epiphenomenal
>digital electronic computers aren't capable of being conscious

[Anonymous No.15925828]

>>15925375
The fixed point of the clickbait operator is a stupid question. Just like >>15922142 said about souls, atheists also make a mess when they talk about God.

[Anonymous No.15925977]

>>15925360
>why
Some Anons concerned with morality conflate morality witth ontology. I'm concerned with ontology and I've demonstrated that morality is of no concern in this ontological debate. Now is any concern and any answer to why contradictory to replying without reason or morality?

Look: when a collision happens on an intersection there is at least one chain of seemingly infinite causes for each party involved. These causal chains intersect on the background of another seemingly infinite causal chain, for example: such collision would not happen without there being a universe at all, nor would it happen without the extinction of the dinosaurs allowing mammals evolve, nor would it happen without homo sapiens building intersections.

I consider myself such an intersection where collision happens between seemingly infinite causal chains. Therefore there is no cause to point to at all.

[Anonymous No.15926001]

>>15922843
To add as well, when the plane landed everyone would switch on their Nokia 3210's and they'd all be going off at the same time with messages etc. and everyone on board would have a little chuckle with one another. We all thought we were oh so clever back then (just 20 years ago). Look at us now, how far from the path we have strayed.

[Anonymous No.15926050]

>>15925977
>I've demonstrated that morality is of no concern in this ontological debate
Good luck trying to "demonstrate" that to the SJW/Christian crowd that thinks morality is magically hardcoded into the fabric of reality itself.
With the advent of AI one group will think you are birthing demons while the other will see another victim group under oppression.
AI, in conjecture with VR, is the sort of technology that can bring every imaginable fantasy to life however base or noble. Moralists, leverging the subject of consciousness, would attempt to control your very thought on what you can and cannot be allowed to experience in the coming days.

[Anonymous No.15926064]

>>15925375
Its a mid wit question. Midwits understand we have a consciousness for which we understand the world through. But midwits also understand that we have a physical body and the physical world which is out there. The problem then is how does subjective consciousness work. Its not asking how the consciousness work with physical body, that can be explained as neurons/electrical chemicals/etc but the the "hard" part is why subjectiveness rather than objective consciousness?

[Anonymous No.15926087]

>>15926050
>morality is magically hardcoded into the fabric of reality itself.
That's obviously true: where else does everything and everyone come from? There may be God outside reality. If so then christians find themselves in a double-bind: either they know God's will or they don't know God's will. If they claim to know God's will then a mind-blowing cascade of incoherency will ensue. Unfortunate /x/ demonstrates that christians don't see the irony of claiming authority in the name of God.

SJW's find themselves in a similar but inverse double-bind: if there is no objective knowledge then morality is relative, a point of view, whatever is most beneficial to any particular subject, a darwinian competition. Therefore any argument a SJW makes is but an exercise of power. However I've already argued:
>>15925277
>two darwinistic strategies: predatory or symbiotic. Neither of these strategies involve discriminating consciousness from not consciousness.

However: christians and SJW's have no problem with contradicting themselves and neither do I. This reaffirms that we're all in a power struggle but pretend not to because without the pretense of religion, morality, debate, politics, law and reinforcement we would be at eachother's throats literally.

[Anonymous No.15926099]

>>15926087
>>morality is magically hardcoded into the fabric of reality itself.
>That's obviously true: where else does everything and everyone come from? There may be God outside reality.
That is obviously NOT true, because even if arguing from a Creationist position, under what logic does a video game dev magically dictates how players ought to play his game?
Religion is a mindless excerise on every level.

[Anonymous No.15926148]

>>15926099
>what logic does a video game dev magically dictates how players ought to play his game?
It's funny that you don't see the irony of this statement. The logic of the game reflects the logic of the dev regardless of his intention. Any way the game is played is an extension of that logic. The starting conditions of the universe made possible the physical laws, the development of planet Earth, life, evolution, consciousness, anime, AI waifus and so on.

Everything that has happened, is happening and will happen is a consequence of the foundational logic of the universe including religion, morality and darwinism. As a part of the universe and that foundational logic there is no way we can think or act independent from it. That's why christians are hell bent on the existence of God, souls and morality outside the universe or else morality is such as this Anon describes:
>>15925247
>Morality comes from a mixture of instincts and social norms. These instincts were created, because evolution optimized social behaviors in alignment with the mathematical realities of game theory.

Religion and morality are supposed to counteract darwinism from the religious point of view and are part of game theory from the darwinist point of view. Now what's funny is that religion, morality and darwinism are all part of the universe so it appears that it's in the nature of the universe to question its own decision-making.

[Anonymous No.15926180]

>>15925318
>>15925247
Finally to clarify in reaction to this criticism: what is the difference between morality and not-morality? None: there is only decision-making so it seems. We contradict ourselves when we say: you and I should make other decisions because we can not find an independent standard or being outside the loop.

I decide that you should decide differently but on what basis do I decide that and on what basis do I decide what the basis for decision-making should be? How is the I independent from the decision-making anyway?

[Anonymous No.15926293]

>>15926180
Society helped make you so it has a claim on what you do. If you ruin your life other people feel bad about it too. Objective morality expresses this claim. You're allowed to blaspheme and be an immoralist, but if it changes your actions, consequences will never be the same.

[Anonymous No.15926319]

>>15921609
>pic
kek, that seems like a Kelly cartoon

[Anonymous No.15926336]

>>15925797
>>15925797
>electromagnetic field theory of consciousness is the best one imo because
because you need to find a reason for consciousness to be non-computational and can't accept that is possible inside a complex, but computable system.
not science, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15926339]

>>15926064
Because the modeling of self and how self relates to the world is a computation that ACTUALLY, PHYSICALLY HAPPENS INSIDE OF YOUR BRAIN, not an objective reasoning that you have about another.
Your brain is mid, the question is dumb.
Let me explain this again: plenty of smart physicists and mathematicians already understand, that the hard problem is a cognitive mistake, nothing more. Moronic philosophers still "ponder" the question.

But who the fuck am I talking to, a bunch of brainlets that believe consciousness would imply moral right, even if a said conscious system only cared about producing paperclips.

[Anonymous No.15926340]

>>15926336
why do you think it's non-computational?
you can absolutely come up with an appropriate algorithm since spatiotemporal patterns in the electric field can, in turn, affect the underlying neural activity
it's obviously controversial, but this has already been demonstrated to occur in vivo
(cortical neurons in up states are near threshold, and the electric fields produced by the brain are strong enough to impact spiking)
any theory of consciousness has to take these facts into account

[Anonymous No.15926347]

>>15926339
>the hard problem is a cognitive mistake, nothing more. Moronic philosophers still "ponder" the question.
many such cases
>>15926339
>a bunch of brainlets that believe consciousness would imply moral right, even if a said conscious system only cared about producing paperclips.
to me it looks like our morals are sort of baked into the realization of who we actually are. and what.
if you consider yourself as being conscious, and don't refuse extending it to any other human, that implies you accept they have the same weaknesses as you do.
now, here's the trick with solipsism, it allows to NOT do that. it's not only about purely not being sure others are not conscious as they are, it's about the fact that once you accept they can indeed not be conscious, that would make it ok to have a horrible behavior towards them. "they're just npcs bro, they don't care".
and the fact that they do this is at least a solid piece of evidence that morals are sort of baked into the understanding of who/what we are.

[Anonymous No.15926351]

>>15926340
Then you seriously should do your homework, because you have no idea what are you talking about. If it's "computational", it can be done by classical computers. Or a commodore 64. Or a dude with pen and paper. It's just a matter of sufficient time and sufficient memory.

I thought you believed that electromagnetism would somehow introduce a non-computable aspect through it's quantum nature.

You don't understand studied perfectly noncontroversial aspects of the problem.

[Anonymous No.15926358]

>>15926351
nta but human brain and consciousness can be run on digital hardware as simulation, the issue indeed is the horrendous inefficiency of such a system. makes more sense to be ran on equivalent function hardware, efficiently.
this unless we get some surprises and we find that spirit molecule in our brains, and measure it to weigh 21 grams or some shit.

[Anonymous No.15926381]

>>15926351
>intractable problems don't exist

[Anonymous No.15926450]

>>15926293
You provided no argument for objective morality. It is still a subjective cost / benefit calculation to harm others and deal with the boomerang effect. The more power a subject has the better the cost / benefit ratio especially in the modern day environment where the cost of harming others is way less than the reward for doing so.

[Anonymous No.15926459]

>>15926347
>that would make it ok to have a horrible behavior towards them. "they're just npcs bro, they don't care".
Are we just going to be stuck on repeat? Psychopaths harm conscious beings right now and they don't care.

>that would make it ok to have a horrible behavior towards them. "they're just npcs bro, they don't care".
Are we just going to be stuck on repeat? Psychopaths harm conscious beings right now and they don't care.

>that would make it ok to have a horrible behavior towards them. "they're just npcs bro, they don't care".
Are we just going to be stuck on repeat? Psychopaths harm conscious beings right now and they don't care.

>that would make it ok to have a horrible behavior towards them. "they're just npcs bro, they don't care".
Are we just going to be stuck on repeat? Psychopaths harm conscious beings right now and they don't care.

>that would make it ok to have a horrible behavior towards them. "they're just npcs bro, they don't care".
Are we just going to be stuck on repeat? Psychopaths harm conscious beings right now and they don't care.

>that would make it ok to have a horrible behavior towards them. "they're just npcs bro, they don't care".
Are we just going to be stuck on repeat? Psychopaths harm conscious beings right now and they don't care.

>that would make it ok to have a horrible behavior towards them. "they're just npcs bro, they don't care".
Are we just going to be stuck on repeat? Psychopaths harm conscious beings right now and they don't care.

>that would make it ok to have a horrible behavior towards them. "they're just npcs bro, they don't care".
Are we just going to be stuck on repeat? Psychopaths harm conscious beings right now and they don't care.

>that would make it ok to have a horrible behavior towards them. "they're just npcs bro, they don't care".
Are we just going to be stuck on repeat? Psychopaths harm conscious beings right now and they don't care.

[Anonymous No.15926588]

>>15926148
>It's funny that you don't see the irony of this statement.
>The logic of the game reflects the logic of the dev regardless of his intention.
>Any way the game is played is an extension of that logic
You are the one not seeing the picture here.
Yes, the dev designed the programming interactions, the "if-then's".
But AGAIN, these interaction programmings would only logically determine your intermediate goals, not the end goals. In another word they would dictate only the means not the ends.
And also like any game, if you don't like it, there is always the option of afk or alt-f4.

[Anonymous No.15926650]

>>15924486
>100% of neuroscientists are dualists
I'm not.
Your move, anon-kun.
>inb4 no true scotsman

[Anonymous No.15926660]

>>15926650
>fell for the neural identity meme

[Anonymous No.15926663]

All systems experience something, prove me wrong in 200 words or less.

[Anonymous No.15926674]

>>15926663
>systems
>experience
that's quite a bit to unpack/make clear

[Anonymous No.15926681]

>>15926674
Any situation that has any interaction between any amount of elements experiences qualia of the same fundamental type as we human beings experience, the bell rings because it knows it is a bell, and it knows it has been struck, and to be a ringing bell is a certain type of experience, experience does not emerge, all of reality is already super-saturated with experience.

[Anonymous No.15926682]

>>15926681
that sounds like a bunch of unfounded dreamt up military grade bullshit

[Anonymous No.15926687]

>>15926682
Any attempt to explain why a human being experience his own life that does not conclude that all matter has experience will inevitably fall into either unfounded dualism, or hand-wavy unspecified notions of 'emergence', it is the only path.

[Anonymous No.15926688]

>>15926358
>human brain and consciousness can be run on digital hardware as simulation
lol imagine writing out such an obvious lie.

[Anonymous No.15926690]

>>15926687
>or hand-wavy unspecified notions of 'emergence',
heh

[Anonymous No.15926695]

>>15926688
>lol imagine writing out such an obvious lie.
it isn't a lie. since you are information, you need only look in a fucking mirror and realize the chunk of matter you are. we can absolutely run all of that in digital space, as emulation, but will cost a fuckton in compute power.
your opinion of this is completely irrelevant to what is. your mind cannot change that at will, it can only obey reality.

[Anonymous No.15926700]

>>15926381
>>15926381
>intractable problem
>physicalists believe people are NPCs
>you believe in a soul, but can't admit it
It's like you can't even introduce the computational theory to you people, let alone try to convince somebody. It's one thing to have an opposing argument. It's another thing to constantly gaslight the other side, and fail to acknowledge the walls of texts they produce in good faith.
You want to have your magical, extra component for consciousness? It's almost Christmas, so I can provide it to you. The magical component is time. Time flowing forward allows the information in the brain to be integrated, and for something like consciousness (or any emergent structures really) to arise in the universe.
What you "dualists" fail to understand is that when someone talks about consciousness being computational, it actually implies
>computing
Information is being processed in the brain as time moves forward, same as a digital computer can extract information from RAM / HDD and perform operations on abstract objects, like 3D models, programming languages etc.
People who subscribe to reductionist theories of the brain and subscribe to computational explanations don't claim consciousness is not real or other humans are "NPCs". They will not start claiming that, even if you repeat it a thousand times.
The problem is that as we talk about computational explanations, you think of them as abstractions of the mechanism of the objective world, like a mathematical formula on a piece of paper. You fail to comprehend that the computations performed in the brains of other humans actually imply COMPUTATIONS. Information moving through the neurons and being integrated over the distance separating the neurons, thanks to time moving forward.
When you think about a p-zombie, you animate a fantasy creature in your head. What proponents of computational consciousness try to explain, is that other humans are not p-zombies, because their brains compute.

[Anonymous No.15926724]

>>15926700
you're literally arguing with ghosts
take your meds

[Anonymous No.15926729]

>>15926724
I'm referring to one post and quoting multiple anons, referring to the common sentiment. It's a coherent discussion and not a shitpost bread on /b/, so you understand what and who I'm addressing perfectly well.

[Anonymous No.15926739]

>>15926588
>In another word they would dictate only the means not the ends.
Are possible ends known or not known to the dev? In other words: can possible ends be calculated from the start or not? If not: what evidence do you have? The burden of proof is on you because even on a small space-time scale genetic determinism is evident: the choices we have and the choices we make are derrived from our body in comparison to other bodies. If you are not blackpilled about looks, personality, IQ, competence, money and status we have no common ground for further discussion.

[Anonymous No.15926777]

>>15926700
>The magical component is time.
Holy hell I've been pointing in that direction since a million replies before in these threads. I wrote suggestions like:
>from where does the self-referential network arise?
>What is the logic and reason that governs the logic and reason?
>Who / what computes the program?

First you physicalists call me a schizo, a Deepak Chopra fan and what not. Now you've finally come out of the closet. Time is movement which relates to the nickname of God. While you accuse dualists of sneaking ghosts into consciousness you hide your own religious beliefs with atheistic words. Is time in the room with you now schizo? What if-then statements code for time? Have you considered the possibility that consciousness does not happen in time but is time itself?

[Anonymous No.15926784]

>>15926777
meds

[Anonymous No.15926793]

>>15926784
Thanks Anon my brain was foggy but after meds it is much more clear to me now that you are a faggot.

[Anonymous No.15926797]

>>15926777
>>15926777
Jesus fucking Christ in heaven.
>Have you considered the possibility that consciousness does not happen in time but is time itself?
No. Because "time itself" has no magical way of transferring it's supposed consciousness to your mental processes, that would further move your fingers and produce your schizo posts. However, time is required for the computation to happen, so that the compression in your brain can operate forward.
tl;dr meds.

[Anonymous No.15926799]

>>15926793
you sure think about fags a lot
not that there's anything wrong with that but still. Weird obsession. Got something to tell us anon?

[Anonymous No.15926800]

>>15926739
>If you are not
>discussion
It is truly ironic determinists who attempt to argue against free will invokes it at every turn.

[Anonymous No.15926814]

>>15926450
It seems like we agree it can look like rule utilitarianism. But there is a deontological flow state. When actually playing, "the rules" and "(non-)cheaters" are more efficient ideas. That is, we both eject or become the cheater, but you have an extra moment of indecision to solve the cost-benefit without emotions.

[Anonymous No.15926821]

if some choices happen in the background and what you need to do "pops" up that is not free will, it is not your spirit choosing or some shit. or are you implying that there's no way ANY decision is taken at deeper levels, or out of your "conscious" field? are you also consciously running your lungs?

[Anonymous No.15926828]

>>15926800
Fuck off to /x/. If you want to pretend you don't understand what "free will" implies and how it's different from "humans making decisions" you are simply trolling. Troll elsewhere, you childish fuck.

[Anonymous No.15926844]

>>15926828
The reason the jannies don't ban the trolls is because they are the trolls.

[Anonymous No.15926916]

>>15926828
>how it's different from "humans making decisions"
If I'm trolling you right now it's because I'm pre-determined to do so, I can't not not troll you.
Please show me an universe where I'm not trolling you to prove otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15926931]

>>15926828
>Fuck off to /x/.
>If you want to pretend
Are you asking him to excerise his free will to fuck off to /x/ because you are presuming he's excerising his free will now to pretend he doesn't understand X?

[Anonymous No.15926932]

>>15926828
>Fuck off to /x/.
>If you want to pretend
Are you asking him to excerise his free will to fuck off to /x/ because you are presuming he's excerising his free will right now to pretend he doesn't understand there is no free will?

[Anonymous No.15926986]

>>15922266
It's solvable and has been solved. You just can't comprehend that it can be solved and you don't know who solved it nor how.
Some might say it's not even a hard problem.

[Anonymous No.15927005]

>>15921609
People think that human consciousness is more than just computation. They think that because they "feel" conscious, and say things like "I am conscious", that they are somehow different from even the AI that exists now. The things you say based on your "feelings" are the product. There is really nothing deeper than this. To assume that you are something independent of your mechanical actions and thoughts, a "conscious" being, is where people go wrong. They think something is true because they can say it. They think something is true because they can think it. "I sense that I am doubting, therefore I am doubting", when in fact there is no "you", just an automaton, a zombie with tons of nuanced programming.

[Anonymous No.15927531]

>>15927005
Build picrel model first before mouthing off.

[Anonymous No.15927585]

>>15927005
Neat but you still have those thoughts/feelings/etc that cannot be mapped to the physical world. The explanation gap is the "hard" part.

Even harder part is that we have to acknowledge that everything we feel, think, know, learn, perceive, cognize, imagine, hear, etc is through the primacy of our conscious mind. Such that we dont even know if anything external can be established at all.

Take for example, what a bike is. Its a set of wheels, seat, frame, chains, tires, handle, arranged in certain way. If you arrange them in another way, you wont get a bike. So where did the bike go when you arranged them differently? What is rearrangement? The conscious mind creates/re-arranges/everything, gives form/shape/structure/etc.

The conscious mind has a tendency to create something a "solid" structure out of nothing. It creates a sense of permanance as a reference point for the mind to grasp/manipulate/etc. So what is the house, the car, a person, a dog, etc with these in mind? Its all the mind moving.

Is it the flag moving in the wind?
Or the wind moving the flag?
Or the mind moving?

[Anonymous No.15927597]

>>15927585
>Neat but you still have those thoughts/feelings/etc that cannot be mapped to the physical world.
Please, next time write
>I don't understand how a computer works, I don't understand how a computer uses processing and memory to create and operate on objects different from immediate reality, I don't understand what awareness and self-awareness is, I can't conceptualize how a sparse and highly distributed neural network would look like and I don't understand the established hardware advantages of the human brain; so for me this problem is where it was 200 years ago.

[Anonymous No.15927598]

>>15927597
Nice, but what I know or not know about computer filters through from my conscious mind. Same with yours. The problem still stands.

But fyi, I'm well versed in neural nets, computer programming, etc. I worked on computers for living and program as hobby. I'm well aware of nn.

[Anonymous No.15927615]

>>15927598
"the problem" stands to the extent it will always stand, and it's solved to the extent it can be solved. You can conceptualize a system that would have a model of itself and reality, have the passage of time mapped onto that model, and be smart enough to figure out that "I am a subjective model observing myself". You can account for everything that consciousness actually does on a computational level and achieves in the real world. Once you gather that information and let it sink in for a bit with an open mind, you can figure out how that model would have internal phenomenology, since it's an existing system and not a p-zombie fantasy. You can even map specific senses and individual sensations to specific ahead of the brain, sometimes neurons. And we are possibly close to understanding cognition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EVqrDlAqYo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1KwkpTUbkg

We can't put a stick into someone's brain and pick up some "yellow", "loud" or "vanilla" though. So all the point for you, motherfucker. Take you trophy. I give up.

[Anonymous No.15927617]

>>15927615
>specific AREAS of the brain

newfag test

[Anonymous No.15927627]

>>15927615
Again, you're just stuck with physical explanations, which we can do partially with modern neuroscience. However thats a big leap from physical explanations to subjective one.

Computational theory nor any other system has completely explained or has any mechanism to understand the subjectiveness of the conscious mind.

There's also a huge competition to the computational theory of mind, its embodied cognition which has a very strong counter arguments and workarounds to problems of computational mind.

[Anonymous No.15927629]

Do antibiotics work on viruses, ever?

[Anonymous No.15927632]

>>15927629
They are being often administered for viral infections, I believe it's for possible "coexisting conditions", you should ask a proper medfag. But they should not affect viruses directly.

[Anonymous No.15927666]

>>15927615
>unironically citing jeff hawkins
you're living proof that p-zombies are real

[Anonymous No.15927700]

>>15927666
OK intellectual edgelord. I understand he claims to "know how to build a human brain" and didn't "build a human brain". But what he talked about a few years ago now aligns with what is successful in AI systems. So I will unironically cite him, because I have some knowledge, and you have a strong opinion.

>multimodal systems -> they work incredibly well
>systems that allow for distributed computation with individual cores/nodes being able to communicate with each other, unlike GPU cores -> they are being pursued on a hardware level by multiple companies
>localized, in memory computation -> already implemented on a hardware level, works very well with low power consumption
>systems that simultaneously pursue multiple approaches and are able to detect what gets them closer to a solution -> being implemented and further improved, A*, Q* etc.

So do you have something to contribute, or just wish to sound smart on the internet? If anything, ideas of Jeff are wildly underrated, but probably have inspired some more tech-oriented researchers.

Do you actually know his ideas? Or did you just take a blind shot here or spent 7 minutes researching him online, because it's so important to you to appear smart under an "Anonymous" nickname on the internet?

[Anonymous No.15927709]

>>15921809
wait is this why all the indians in america I meet have an overly high opinion of themselves? They think they're geniuses for using an ipad?

[Anonymous No.15927957]

>>15927005
>t. doesn't know Penrose-Lucas argument

[Anonymous No.15928017]

>>15926814
To me it seems like you're conflating what is and what ought to be. What is: a birds' eye and boots on the ground game theorethical view of an ecosystem. Certainly we can (un)consciously observe that there are rules, cost / benefits of decisions and so on. I'm not going to nitpick possible differences between ideas and reality because there is regularity as sensory impression independent from thought.

From the birds' eye view we can also see that everything and everyone moves together instead of any particular organism acting independently from its environment. However this is a rather static view. Pantha rei: interaction (rules and decisions) change over time. That's because rules and decisions are ''negotiable'': there are patterns that replicate themselves again and again but can also deviate for numerous reasons.

There is no one and nothing neither inside nor outside the ecosystem who / what dictates what the rules and decisions should be. There is a dance but no choreographer. That's why there is no objective morality because objective means independent. On a side note: this is also why /pol/ is low IQ because master and slave are a codependent dynamic.

[Anonymous No.15928031]

>>15926800
>>15926828
>>15926916
>>15926932
To be clear: another Anon took over our discussion. Let's continue clarifying the relationship between decision-making, free will and determinism in an adult manner. I've argued that the actor is embedded in an environment. From here we can take inspiration from this Anon:
>>15927585
>Is it the flag moving in the wind?
>Or the wind moving the flag?
>Or the mind moving?

The relation between actor and environment is such a koan / superposition. I'm leaning on the side of unifying actor and environment because I've seen no evidence of the actor existing outside the known universe. I insist that your reply to this post is relational not independent.

[Anonymous No.15928063]

>>15928031
>decision-making
>I've argued that the actor is embedded in an environment
Your original argument made and contended to was that if there is a Creator to this video game, this hypothetical fact would "somehow" spell out a set of objective morality baked into said video game. My reply to which it would not >>15926588.

As for Determinism, while it also incidentally lead to the conclusion there is no morality, the position itself is observably false.
Whatever the cause (if there is even a prior cause), outside actor or not, free-will itself is an observable phenomena. One's inability to explain said phenomenon does not take away from its reality.

[Anonymous No.15928092]

>>15928063
>"somehow" spell out a set of objective morality baked into said video game.
Compare Grand Theft Auto with Pokémon: do these games lead to different sets of possible end goals or not, by design?
>Whatever the cause (if there is even a prior cause), outside actor or not, free-will itself is an observable phenomena.
No. The observable phenomenon is that everything and everyone exists in relationship with eachother: the direction of cause / effect is in superposition and a false dichotemy.

[Anonymous No.15928297]

>>15927700
his work isn't taken seriously by neuroscientists
he's not quite crackpot, but definitely more in that direction (his basic premise about cortical columns is flat out wrong)
stop sipping the techbro flavor aid and read some actual neuroscience literature

[Anonymous No.15928310]

>>15928092
>free-will itself is an observable phenomena.
this has two ways of confusing you. once you have no idea what made you decide something, it comes to you, from the deep, so you having no fucking idea what made you decide that is pretty easy to attribute to some soul thing. but just like you have no fucking idea where your choice came from, the same way you have no clue how tf you are breathing, it happens.
the next contributing thing to your confusion is your inability to know what made someone decide something. you usually have some clues, and get a sense of what they will do, but no matter how well you know it, you can't ever be SURE. an it happens, people choosing something completely unexpected for someone on the outside.
to anyone on the outside, without full access to the whole information, the reasoning behind that particular person's choices is basically random.
in this respect, humans, in a rather primitive way, developed the concept of free will. it's primitive observation that "somewhat" fits whatever they observe.
and there's more of these misinterpretations of concepts based on simple observation

[Anonymous No.15928367]

>>15928310
Well said. I almost completely agree. To nitpick a little bit:
>you have no idea what made you decide something
My whole life I've been surrounded by people who don't understand this. People strongly identify with their story and want me to strongly identify with a story as well. Society is organized on the basis of explaining our motivations to eachother while it's so obvious to me that we're confabulating a mythology. This practice correlates with much suffering.
>developed the concept of free will
I'm still open to anyone who can offer a good definition and argument refering to my intersection analogy:
>>15925977
The world is a web and the body and the mind are intersectional parts of that web. Even if a soul exists outside the web it still is interacting with the web. I characterize that relationship as actor / act similar to I in front of the screen relating to my Anon avatar on this board. The actor forms the mask and the mask forms the actor. How then can there be a completely independent free willing soul?

[Anonymous No.15928473]

>>15928092
>do these games lead to different sets of possible end goals or not, by design?
They do, but these end goals do not automatically necessitate you to reach them.
In another word you can run around in circles at your spawn.
>No. The observable phenomenon is that everything and everyone exists in relationship with eachother: the direction of cause / effect is in superposition and a false dichotemy.
Interesting hypothesis.
Method of proof?
>>15928310
>you aren't sure
Nor are you, and nor do you have a way to experimentally verify.

Free will is synonymous with consciousness. The p-zombie verification Hard Problem applies equally to free will. People can conjecture all they want, but at the end of day there is no proof either way, and the closet possibility of getting any proof I've seen is >>15927531, which none has been able to pull off yet.

[Anonymous No.15928484]

>>15928473
>Free will is synonymous with consciousness. The p-zombie verification Hard Problem applies equally to free will. People can conjecture all they want, but at the end of day there is no proof either way, and the closet possibility of getting any proof I've seen is >>15927531, which none has been able to pull off yet.
this is you positioning your story in an yet unproven spot, just so you can sell your bullshit.
literally no one on this board is eating that bullshit, why do you even bother?

[Anonymous No.15928511]

>>15928484
>yet unproven
When you see a red apple, do you also need to wait for proof before you can acknowledge it is indeed red, or can you acknowledge it's red.
Your impotent rage betrays the absurdity of your position.

[Anonymous No.15928512]

>>15928511
no I mean you do not have the brain structures necessary to support the understanding of what we are. you have no choice but to not see it. if you can't see it you'll think you are right and the rest are wrong.
such is that shit condition. I also have it most likely with other various shit that smarter anons can understand. there's no shame in it, but there is shame is not considering it.

[Anonymous No.15928527]

>>15928512
>>no I mean you do not have the brain structures necessary to support the understanding of what we are
I do not accept conclusions without proof and I do not entertain hypothesis without a method of proof.
Yes I'm a bit scientific that way, call me old school.
But you kids go ahead and have fun believe whatever you want. You want pretend you are a mindless NPC whose every action, including whether to study or not, have been pre-determined since the beginning of the universe, who am I to say otherwise.
I can't peer into your mind after all, only my own.

[Anonymous No.15928559]

>>15928473
>In another word you can run around in circles at your spawn
You have the burden of proof against you. The game is set up to discourage that choice and such choice is rare. To attribute that choice to an independent factor rather than low rate of occurence by design is an unwarranted bias.
>Interesting hypothesis.
>Method of proof?
You can't demonstrate any action that is not related to anything.

[Anonymous No.15928577]

>>15928527
>Yes I'm a bit scientific that way

[Anonymous No.15928619]

>>15928559
>The game is set up to discourage
What is encouraged or discouraged is based entirely on one's own subjective preferences.
If I like running around in circles at spawn and the game allows me to, then to me the game very much encourages running around in circles, at spawn.
>You can't demonstrate any action that is not related to anything.
And you do not know what the universe can and cannot do.
Limited observations do not justify intellectual overreach.
>>15928577
Did I stutter? Or did you think I meant soiyence.

[Anonymous No.15928678]

>>15928619
>What is encouraged or discouraged is based entirely on one's own subjective preferences.
My subjective experience is: I need food, water, clothes, shelter, I am scared of dying and therefore I need to take action to secure those needs. Is that your experience as well? If so then maybe different subjects share at least in part a similar experience or maybe you are an npc in my subjective experience. It could perhaps be the case that many others (subjects and / or npc's) in my subjective experience claim to have a similar experience.

Regardless: the basic needs and fear of death compel me to play the game beyond the starting point. Perhaps I could make another choice but the fact that I and many others in my subjective experience don't make that choice leads me to doubt my ability to do so.
>And you do not know what the universe can and cannot do.
Possibility is unfalsifiable indeed and the hallmark of sophistry. When you can free me from the constraints of basic needs and mortality I'm all ears. Then I will unplug from the game and stay happily NEET forever.

[Anonymous No.15928716]

>>15928678
>Possibility is unfalsifiable indeed and the hallmark of sophistry.
That's only case if I'm trying to convince you there is an invisible apple on the table with the argument you can't prove there isn't.
The case right now is people to trying to convince me the apple I'm seeing isn't red with the argument it's because every other apple on the table is green.
>When you can free me from the constraints of basic needs and mortality I'm all ears.
>Then I will unplug from the game and stay happily NEET forever.
You will unironically get no judgement from me if you choose to stay happily NEET forever.
Afterall, my position is there is no objective morality to this video game on how you should excerise your free will.

[Anonymous No.15928724]

>>15928716
>Afterall, my position is there is no objective morality to this video game on how you should excerise your free will.
as long as you consider everyone else a NPC, which is why you took that position, it permits you to adjust your morals according to your needs.
>I don't agree with you, so you are a NPC.
>the apple I'm seeing isn't red
you are not seeing an apple. you have no idea what you are seeing and chose that it's a red apple, just because you see its deformed shadow at an awkward angle so might as well call it a red apple. nobody else can tell it isn't so why the fuck not, it's the most convenient thing anyway.

[Anonymous No.15928774]

>>15928724
>as long as you consider everyone else a NPC
>which is why you took that position, it permits you to adjust your morals according to your needs
By all means, please put forward an argument why others having consciousness/free-will automatically inscribes objective morality into the very fabric of reality - a contention other anons have already brought up.
>you are not seeing an apple. you have no idea what you are seeing and chose that it's a red apple
No I'm pretty sure I'm seeing an red apple. I just have no idea why it's red and don't pretend I do.

[Anonymous No.15928777]

>>15928774
>No I'm pretty sure I'm seeing an red apple. I just have no idea why it's red and don't pretend I do.
well this is just further proof of what I said here: >>15928512
you don't need many neurons to figure out other people have the same general weaknesses that you have. you get punched in the face and kinda know what any human will experience if they go through the same experience, you know...more or less. there is a set of morals emerging from the understanding of who and what we are. your response to that is to adjust your understanding of what we are such that it permits the set of morals you are craving for. you literally choose whatever philosophy justifies your shittyness, when it should be the other way around.

[Anonymous No.15928781]

>>15921609
it's a stupid question, because it presupposes that consciousness is created by the brain, and asks how exactly why that happens and why consciousness exists at all if it's just epiphenomenal
in reality consciousness is fundamental, and the brain is just a symbolic representation of cognition itself, so there is no hard problem at all

[Anonymous No.15928791]

>>15928774
not that anon, but objective morality is derived from the existence of sentience
sentience refers to the existence of specific states of consciousness that are either, below, at, or above hedonic zero, i.e. suffering, neutrality, or joy respectively
these terms by their very definition refers to sentient states that for a sentient being is either undesirable, neutral, or desirable
as such the very existence of sentience comes with certain states of being that by its very definition is undesirable
furthermore there is a clear asymmetry between suffering and joy, with a lifetime of heavenly bliss not necessarily weighing up for even an hour of the worst torture imaginable (although the limit remains to be established, e.g. a trillion years of the most blissful experience imaginable would be worth a single second of feeling an itch)
this is why objective morality is derived from minimizing suffering, as suffering by definition is undesirable
exactly how suffering should be minimized is another question entirely, but the objective moral basis is absolutely there

[Anonymous No.15928793]

>>15928716
>Afterall, my position is there is no objective morality to this video game on how you should excerise your free will.
Your position is: (1) to ignore the constraints wherein you exercise your free will which is a contradiction in terms, (2) to claim any decision you make as independent which is another contradiction to what your decisions depend on and (3) to ignore that your definition of free will is contradictory.

In summary: your position is that you have free will because you say so and you don't need to follow the rules of debate, logic and reason that others expect from you. If that is the game you want to play then I don't want to play with you. Game over.

[Anonymous No.15928794]

>>15928777
You have absolutely no grasp on concepts and logics. Your immature mind dwells purely on feelings.
>you get punched in the face and kinda know what any human will experience if they go through the same experience,
The kind of moral guideline you are alluding to is a consensus based on self-interests. If self-interests change, so do the consensus. You'll find the moral guideline in a BDSM club regarding punching and pain quite different.

[Anonymous No.15928805]

>>15928791
>objective morality is derived from minimizing suffering, as suffering by definition is undesirable
Yet suffering is subjective. What one find enjoyable another find miserable, and vice versa.
Morality in reality is always based on consensus of self-interests, not some objective "thou shalts".

[Anonymous No.15928810]

>>15928805
>Yet suffering is subjective.
all conscious states are subjective, but the existence of sentience itself, and thus suffering, is an objective fact
>What one find enjoyable another find miserable, and vice versa.
that's not relevant, what's relevant is just that both the sentient beings in question have the capacity to suffer, even if different things cause them to suffer
>Morality in reality is always based on consensus of self-interests, not some objective "thou shalts".
incorrect, as I just proved conclusively above
suffering by its very definition, rooted in the existence of sentience, is undesirable
thus objective morality consists of minimizing suffering
like I said, how exactly to go about this is a separate discussion, but the objective morality of minimizing suffering itself is an established fact

[Anonymous No.15928816]

>>15928791
I took this position before in another thread and received a challenging counterargument: frame of reference. What is suffering in one frame might be desirable in another frame of reference and with endless frames to consider it can not be known what action optimizes the ratio between total suffering and total joy in the world.

This argument might be counterintuitive at first when you have a strong sense of absolute good and evil but think about it: the evil winning today might be the set up of the good winning tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.15928817]

>>15928810
>all conscious states are subjective
And suffering is a state of consciousness, thus subjective.
Case closed.

[Anonymous No.15928821]

>>15928794
you're not going to consider people are conscious by default because you might run into a BDSM enjoyer so therefore everybody is NPC?

[Anonymous No.15928822]

>>15928821
You are unironically retarded.

[Anonymous No.15928823]

>>15928822
quite possible, but at least I know I'm not a piece of shit

[Anonymous No.15928826]

>>15928816
see: >>15928810
it's not a problem or a counterargument at all, due to the asymmetry between suffering and joy
in other words, eliminating suffering is always a priority over maximizing joy
thus why objective morality is based on minimizing suffering, not on maximizing joy
>This argument might be counterintuitive at first when you have a strong sense of absolute good and evil but think about it: the evil winning today might be the set up of the good winning tomorrow.
there's nothing counterintuitive about it, it's just wrong, because accounting for the passing of time is implicit in what I said (see my explicit statements about it where I explained the asymmetry between suffering and joy)
>>15928817
>And suffering is a state of consciousness, thus subjective.
first of all, technically speaking suffering is a quality that a given state of consciousness has, it's not the state of consciousness itself
secondly, that's ultimately just repeating what I said, doesn't change anything
the existence of suffering itself, rooted in sentience, is still objective fact, as is the fact that suffering by definition is undesirable
thus objective morality consists of minimizing suffering

[Anonymous No.15928834]

>>15928826
>thus objective morality consists of minimizing suffering
Fine, if you want to say objective morality consists of finding subjective consensus to minimize suffering in a group.
Just don't start whining when another group agrees on something between them you personally find unappealing.

[Anonymous No.15928836]

>>15928834
>Fine, if you want to say objective morality consists of finding subjective consensus to minimize suffering in a group.
no, objective morality consists of minimizing suffering as a general principle
like I said, how exactly you go about doing that is a separate topic, but the underlying objective morality is what it is
the ideal outcome, objectively morally speaking, would be the elimination of all suffering, i.e. freeing every single sentient being that exists from experiences that have the quality of suffering
>Just don't start whining when another group agrees on something between them you personally find unappealing.
what I'm stating is just an objective principle of objective morality, its objective truth remains unchanged regardless of what any given group of anything does or says
they can act in a way which is not rooted in attempting to minimize suffering, but that would be objectively immoral

[Anonymous No.15928838]

>>15928826
>accounting for the passing of time is implicit in what I said
I don't think it is. If maximizing suffering today leads to minimal suffering long term then your asymmetry argument is unconvincing. We then need values and calculations to prove who's right which already proves the weakness of the asymmetry argument.

[Anonymous No.15928850]

>>15928838
>I don't think it is.
it is
read what I just referred you to
>If maximizing suffering today leads to minimal suffering long term then your asymmetry argument is unconvincing.
like I said, that is covered
that depends entirely on where the limit I discussed is established
in other words, that's a separate issue, and not at all relevant to the underlying objective moral principle itself, which remains a fact
>We then need values and calculations to prove who's right which already proves the weakness of the asymmetry argument.
there's nothing "weak" about it at all, it's just a basic fact of reality
and yes, when implementing solutions for what actions to take to minimize suffering you're of course going to need to plan and calculate, that's something sentient beings have to do for any action they take
but the underlying objective moral principle remains true regardless

[Anonymous No.15928853]

>>15928838
>>15928850
think about it this way, in very simple terms to make it easier to understand for you
>what to do: objectively speaking, minimize suffering
>how to do that: up for discussion and subject to countless variables that need to be accounted for
you and the other anon (if it's not just the same person) are just addressing the "how" part, whereas my point is that the "what" part is what's objectively true regardless, which indeed it is

[Anonymous No.15928856]

>>15928838
>If maximizing suffering today leads to minimal suffering long term
depends on details.
if I am immortal and I get to live "long term" and the longer term damage reduction is more or less clearly quantized then it's a pretty simple choice. not the simplest but pretty simple.
if I am not immortal, and I don't have children for whatever reasons, you are asking me to have a shit life so your kid will have a nicer life, in which case respectfully fuck you.

[Anonymous No.15928861]

>>15928836
>no, objective morality consists of minimizing suffering as a general principle
If suffering is subjective, then you are minimizing a subjective variable.
If you are not going to argue against above then you have no case.
Objective morality hedges on suffering been objective, that "X" would be found miserable by any and all individual in existence under any and all circumstances.

[Anonymous No.15928863]

>>15928853
>you and the other anon are just addressing the "how" part
You can't seperate the what and the how because if the what is taken to its logical conclusion / ideal then we should genocide all conscious beings right now so I can't agree with minimizing suffering as the leading principle of decision-making.

[Anonymous No.15928864]

>>15928861
>Objective morality hedges on suffering been objective,
how subjective is it tho? because you present it as pretty fucking unclear, who knows, fucker might enjoy that shit.
ok, but how often tho? if 99.999% of humans don't enjoy it, then it's pretty fucking objective with few exceptions rather than "totally unclear bro, I don't know, might run into anything"

[Anonymous No.15928874]

>>15928861
>If suffering is subjective, then you are minimizing a subjective variable.
the existence of suffering itself, rooted in sentience, is objective
thus the objective principle is to minimize suffering, not to specifically minimize suffering experienced by yourself only
that wouldn't be a moral principle, that'd just be run-of-the-mill self-interest
I'm talking about an objective moral principle that exists due to the very nature of sentience itself
>Objective morality hedges on suffering been objective
it exists due to the objective fact that suffering, rooted in the existence of sentience, does exist
you seem to be unable to understand the difference between the subjective experience of states that have the quality of suffering, and the objective fact that suffering exists
>>15928863
yes, you can absolutely separate the "what" and the "how"
you can know where the goal is before you've even started laying a plan for how to get there
objective morality, which is to minimize suffering, is the goal
everything you're talking about just pertains to the plan, it's totally irrelevant to what the goal itself is
>taken to its logical conclusion / ideal then we should genocide all conscious beings right now
that would be one possible implementation of a plan, but one could have objections to this on many different grounds
still just a plan, and has nothing to do with the objective nature of the goal itself

[Anonymous No.15928876]

>>15928864
>fucker might enjoy that shit
here you're making a fundamental categorical mistake
you can't "enjoy suffering" by the very definition of those words as contrasts
you could say "he enjoys pain", where "pain" refers to a certain feeling that most people tend to associate with an experience they'd classify as having the quality of suffering, but you can't say "he enjoys suffering", because suffering by definition is undesirable
in other words, if someone enjoys something, that's not suffering
and likewise, if someone suffers, that's not enjoyment

[Anonymous No.15928877]

>>15928876
>here you're making a fundamental categorical mistake
sure but it matters none to the argument, which you failed to address.

[Anonymous No.15928883]

>>15928877
it's not particularly relevant, but still a mistake
also, I addressed everything above in the other post, I didn't "fail to address" anything at all
what I'm stating is just objective fact anyway, so it's not really up for discussion, I'm just trying to explain it to you in as simple terms as possible

[Anonymous No.15928885]

anyway, those are the facts, feel free to ignore them and rationalize your own immoral behaviors, they will still be immoral
off to sleep now, closing the tab, so won't be reading those rationalizations anyway
cheerio

[Anonymous No.15928908]

>>15928883
>it's not particularly relevant, but still a mistake
you keep boasting how much you read how well you understand logic, keep picking up on small shit and constantly fail to justify your position in any way. weak evasive arguments.
you completely missed the point of study.

[Anonymous No.15928973]

>>15928874
>the existence of suffering itself, rooted in sentience, is objective
But what CAUSES suffering is not objective, and is subject to personal preferences.
This fact by extension makes morality subjective.
If your group all dislike durian and would suffer upon eating them, which while is an objective fact, does not somehow magically make banning durian an objective moral law that would universally minimize suffering everytime.
What happens if it's applied to a group of durian lovers?

[Anonymous No.15929063]

>>15928908
That's not even me you underdeveloped retard, that's moralfag who's trying to argue vs me. But thanks for chasing him away dumbass.

[Anonymous No.15929077]

This discussion has now degenerated to confusion about the meaning of the word morality. Regardless there is decision-making and inherent to decision-making is measurement of value which proves that decision-making is a consequence of the premise that at least one part of the game has a different value than at least one other part of the game. That is inherent to the game no matter how you view and play the game.