Dualism, consciousness

[Anonymous No.10646981]

What does science say about consciousness ?
There are tests aimed at measuring intelligence even if they may do it imperfectly,
is there any test measuring consciousness ?
Are there proofs for/against dualism ?

[Anonymous No.10647023]

Consciousness is just the term we use for the data processing that our brain does which is capable of meta-analysts of some parts of its own process.

[vexelBlunt+++inf/inf !!9ZxRhK76o3k No.10647097]

>>10646981
He think he find Russel linn penrose magnetic beamer quadrent from the zwartzball WAS mothstones flowerpot doom graves that are aren't arre so >>10647023<<<<<<
-LIFE+

[Anonymous No.10647173]

>>10646981
Science can't even into consciousness and never will. Materialism is a lie and so is dualism. Only idealism makes any sense.

[Anonymous No.10647559]

>>10646981
Quantum mechanics is a proof of physicalism. It states that mind obeys schrodinger equation, which dualists usually can't accept.

[Anonymous No.10647582]

>>10647559
*blocks path*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX-_G_9kww
http://cogprints.org/6613/1/Dualism0409.pdf

[Anonymous No.10647601]

>>10647173
Based Idealist poster .

[Anonymous No.10647644]

>>10647173
How do idealists explain this?

[Anonymous No.10647696]

>>10647173
>Materialism is a lie and so is dualism. Only idealism makes any sense.
What about Neutral Monism?

[Anonymous No.10647699]

>>10647644
>Replying to Berkley poster
> Doesn't take count of theistic idealism .

[Anonymous No.10647703]

>>10647699
>needing to invoke a magic man in the sky to make your philosophy work, when theistic explanations of scientific phenomena have been repeatedly been refuted, when you could just use the simpler explanation and admit that reality is real

[Anonymous No.10647710]

>>10647644
That's is solipsistic leaning idealism, a idealist would say that from subject's point of view, the object doesn't exist. It isn't the truth though, it's the rappresentation of the subject.

[Anonymous No.10647724]

>>10646981
>is there any test measuring consciousness
Sort of. There's a test given to measure animal intelligence where you put them in front of a mirror and see if they can understand it's a reflection of themselves. Very few animals do. If an animal can do this it must be aware of it's own existence.

[Anonymous No.10647738]

>>10647710
Yet Idealists still need to explain why it is that the object "comes back into existence" when the cup is removed. The object reappearing is perfectly consistent with the object existing independently of consciousness. If Idealism were true, there's no reason why we wouldn't be perceiving a completely chaotic reality where nothing appears consistent at all.

[Anonymous No.10647823]

Objective idealistic monism is the only true view.

[Anonymous No.10647908]

>>10647724
Yeah but this isn't really measuring, I was thinking of some test able to tell if one person has a higher "consciousness quotient" than someone else

[Anonymous No.10647910]

>>10647703
You don't need to invoke it . You can prove it .

> Have been completely refuted

Citation needed

[Anonymous No.10647916]

>>10647644
Maybe it does disappear sometimes, how'd you know?

[Anonymous No.10647973]

>>10647696
Unnecessary and wrong. Mind is fundamental, matter is derivative.
>>10647644
The object is real but mental.
Anyway persistent objects in idealism are nothing compared to materialism's hard problem aka complete failure to even start describing mental phenomena at all.

[Anonymous No.10647993]

>>10647973
>Unnecessary and wrong. Mind is fundamental, matter is derivative.
Why?

[Anonymous No.10648070]

Not a single one of you can make a compelling case against materialism. Mind is matter and it’s retarded to believe otherwise.

[Anonymous No.10648092]

>>10648070
We can argue though that the physical world is an empty concept beyond the mental. Tell me young anon, what is the intrinsic nature of matter. You may win yourself a nobel prize!

[Anonymous No.10648261]

>>10647173
I get that adopting other people's meaning is kinda comfy, but creating your own meaning really isn't something you have to be afraid of, you know?

[Anonymous No.10648274]

>>10647724
Sapience and sentience are not the same thing, and passing the mirror test is actually something a lot of non-human mammals are capable of.

[Anonymous No.10648515]

>>10647916
But why does it return?

[Anonymous No.10648545]

>>10648092
>We can argue though that the physical world is an empty concept beyond the mental.
There's a pretty extreme difference between the events reported in dreams vs. the events reported in consensus reality. When you check the findings of one person against another's, and/or check these findings against the findings of artificial diagnostic systems, and/or check all of that against the predictions of abstract models for the phenomena you're interested in, your results move more and more towards perfect compliance with natural constraints that don't belong exclusively to any one person's mind.
That in a nutshell is why most people tend to implicitly operate in terms of the premise there is a physical world independent of any one specific person's sensory organs.

[Anonymous No.10648896]

>>10648545
Theres something that causes our perceptions but it is not important what it is.

[Anonymous No.10648898]

Scientists are too intimidated to say much about consciousness. If anything is said it's a vague statement about the mind being a computer, nothing committal

[Anonymous No.10650621]

>>10647582
He starts by assuming that dualism is true.

[Anonymous No.10651185]

>>10648896
I don't know. Absence of supervenience would be a big problem, so those whatever-they-ares are pretty important.