How can consciousness exist without physical properties?

[Anonymous No.10969126]

Is panpsychism a viable theory?
Or is consciousness (subjective experience) an illusion?
Or is everything an illusion besides subjective experience?

>inb4 /x/

[Anonymous No.10969151]

>>10969126
>Is panpsychism a viable theory?
no
>Or is consciousness (subjective experience) an illusion?
no
>Or is everything an illusion besides subjective experience?
no

[Anonymous No.10969305]

>>10969126
Think about it. How can wave, air, water exists?

[Anonymous No.10969618]

>>10969126
Define physical properties

[Anonymous No.10969623]

>>10969126
Mind isn't physical in nature and that's obvious to anyone with actual intelligence.

[Anonymous No.10969719]

>>10969623
Brains don't produce consciousness.

[Anonymous No.10969735]

>>10969151
>>10969623
Based

[Anonymous No.10969750]

>>10969126
>How can OP be such a faggot without ever having sucked a dick?

But honestly, care to explain what "physical properties" mean to you? If you're implying that consciousness can exist without a physical brain, you're retarded. We have no reason to assume that. Your conscious experience (including personality, etc.) is directly affected by your neurological condition. See cases like Phineas Gage.

[Anonymous No.10969751]

>>10969126
My consciousness exceeds possibility itself, for whatever that's worth. (Probably not much, since an indefinite morphic pocket is beyond reach by other morphic fields.)

[Anonymous No.10969752]

>>10969623
Show me a mind without a body.

[Anonymous No.10969783]

>>10969750
Just wait for the ">muh hard problem" response.

[Anonymous No.10969826]

>>10969126
Or is consciousness (subjective experience) an illusion?

Yes. There is nothing special about "consciousness." There is no "soul."

[Anonymous No.10969899]

We don't know how the brain binds things together into a seamless experience.
But its obvious consciousness is related to learning and attention.

[Anonymous No.10969944]

>>10969126
Reaction time is 200ms, that's your physical property.

[Anonymous No.10969960]

>>10969783
>muh hard problem
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-successful-artificial-memory-has-been-created/
Hard problem BTFO.

[Anonymous No.10970063]

>>10969151
Ok retard

[Anonymous No.10970068]

>>10969826
Then its fine if youre killed?

If no soul than any value on existence is arbitrary

[S. Vagus No.10970096]

Isn't the question ultimately where does memory get stored/created and when does that memory require others to subscribe? Is it only for authority or the ability to describe to others how/what/why for a given event?

If there is no inherent 'constant time interaction rate' then ALL can be injected/forced into the process queue of other intellectual processes. Meaning we could all think with RAM style interactions of the universe, accept that physical matter (including our body) is stored/retrievable memory (we eat food grown in soil, as did our parents that gave us birth) from some 'other' process but the divine us is just a shared hive mind.

HDD would be for brainlets that think 'retrieving fact from storage' = 'winner IQ'

[Anonymous No.10970103]

>>10969960
>Smart enough to solve your prof's exercise sheets
>Still too dumb to think independently.
>Also posts anime so socially retarded.

[S. Vagus No.10970115]

>>10970103
You can only think 'independently' up to a point if you want to be a share-node on an establish network of communication. Other egos get involved when one 'starts thinking for everyone'.

>Starts thinking for every human born and to ever be born

[Anonymous No.10970415]

you cant have the physical without the mind and without the physical the mind cannot experience, and would remain in deep sleep forever.

[Anonymous No.10970461]

>>10970415
>deep sleep forever
There's nothing wrong with that.

[Anonymous No.10970526]

>>10970415
>you cant have the physical without the mind

[Anonymous No.10970586]

this argument is 100% pointless. science can only deal with what's observable. if the mind is a non-physical phenomena then we can't observe it and it's unsayable.
if you're interested in what we understand about the brain then study neuroscience. if you're interested in philosophical ideas about the mind I recommend zen buddhism.

[Anonymous No.10970604]

>>10970586
We can observe consciousness directly as consciousness. That's basically what defines the astral plane. It's not even that hard. The idea that we can only observe physical phenomena is contradicted by the fact that you just understood anything I said.

[Anonymous No.10970641]

>>10969126
Saying that consciousness is an illusion doesn't resolve anything. Basically it's either trivially true that it isn't an illusion or that it is an illusion. I think illusion is a perception that is somehow deceptive to somebody, and I don't understand how I could be deceived thinking I'm conscious. Or what it would even mean. But you could also think that since consciousness isn't a part of the objective world but just a subject's inner experiences it is by definition an illusion. Either way you haven't explained how we get from the objective description to subjective experience.

[Anonymous No.10970695]

Brains = complex computers. We believe that people are conscious but simple programs are not. So the central argument is that a difference of amount is a difference of kind.

Begging the question: at what level of computing power can a computer be deemed ‘conscious’?

I highly doubt theres some magical number N of logic gates that introduces consciousness, where N-1 does not qualify a system for being conscious.

So, are there levels of consciousness? Where N-1 compared to N is a different level, rather than being a binary ‘no’ or ‘yes’ to the question “is it conscious?”. If this is the case, how do you distinguish between levels of consciousness by measuring the output of a system rather than looking at it’s internal makeup. Similar to say a Turing test, seeing whether you can differentiate between the nature of two beings by what they say, rather than just looking at what they are.

If you suppose you can test for levels of consciousness, at what point do you introduce ethics? Are some consciousness’ too primordial to expect the same moral treatment, or do all levels of consciousness deserve equal treatment? Unless you believe that an insect deserves to be treated under the same system of ethics as a human, the answer is very obviously no. So, differing levels of consciousness’ are deserving of different treatment, with more complex systems being more deserving of better treatment.


— So, definitively, believing in consciousness means you believe that smarter people are entitled to better treatment than stupid people, and tards dont deserve rights.

[Anonymous No.10970708]

Scientifically speaking, consciousness is inconsequential/effectively does not exist
Phenomenologically, it’s the most real thing there is and far precedes science and objectivity.

We will never understand it scientifically, we will never even begin to approach it scientifically. It can not be verified, can not be tested, can not be understood, it can’t even be adequately described

Panpsychism seems retarded to me though

[Anonymous No.10970712]

Also, intelligence is not consciousness, it’s not even in the same category

[Anonymous No.10970716]

>>10970641
But people are continuously deceived. We talk as if there is some strict separation between perception and perceiver but this cannot be justified. The brain may be modelling a physical organism with sensory recepticles and motor behaviour interfacing with its environment, though that is mere content. In terms of the simulation itself there is no dissociation.

[Anonymous No.10970720]

>>10970695
>— So, definitively, believing in consciousness means you believe that smarter people are entitled to better treatment than stupid people, and tards dont deserve rights.

No, because there's no straightforward relation between intelligence/complexity and consciousness. Our most intense conscious experiences, like physical pain can be, are often very simple. Meanwhile there isn't necessarily anything particularly intense about the conscious experience of doing complex math simple animals have no hope being able to do.

[Anonymous No.10970736]

>>10970716
>perception and perceiver but this cannot be justified
So what reason is there to be biased towards the perceiver? You could just as equally posit that perception is real and the perceiver is an illusion

[Anonymous No.10970748]

>>10970720
I think i incorrectly assumed that

More intelligent = more ‘circuitry’

When its more closely correlated with the size of cells and the speed of impulses in the human brain that dictates intelligence.

However, for machines the system holds. I imagine for an AI inhabited world, they’d construct a morality system based off of intelligence - due to the earlier assumption being true in this circumstance

[Anonymous No.10970768]

>>10970068
Yes it's totally okay if I die.

[Anonymous No.10970805]

>>10970768
>>10969826
>materialists

[Anonymous No.10970811]

>>10970736
Well theyre both deceptive arent they. Same for all of them.

[Anonymous No.10970813]

>>10970068
I have arbitrarily decided that it's not okay if I'm killed :)
t. memeist

[Anonymous No.10970819]

>>10970805
>woah dude magic is real man you really are more than the sum of your parts
No.

[Solivagus No.10970856]

>>10970768
I concur. If I die nobody will be able to validate the event of my death as the event I truly experienced, because for me to even be told would go against the basic tenet of what being dead would mean.

If a meat sack falls to the ground, is there any human consciousness around to give a shit about it?

>God posts on 4chan

[Anonymous No.10970874]

>>10969126
It can't. Think about brain damage, if someone's brain is damaged, part of their consciousness doesn't just go to fairy land.

[Anonymous No.10971029]

>>10969750
I’m asking if it’s possible that there is a tiny unit of consciousness in atoms. If Galen Strawson is right.
Or is Attention Schema Theory more appropriate?
The fact that I feel the experience of pain is mind blowing

[Anonymous No.10971036]

>>10969752
Show me a mind in a body. You can’t eliminate solipsism

[Anonymous No.10971046]

>>10969944
It is only us who have the illusion of a past present and future

[Anonymous No.10971070]

>>10970526
Does a universe exist if no one is there to perceive it?

[Anonymous No.10971287]

Panpsychism seems inevitable because there are no viable explanations of consciousness. Unless you want to believe a PHILOSOPHER like Daniel Dennett!!

[Anonymous No.10971305]

consciousness is a physical property. it's just a physical property we don't understand yet

[Anonymous No.10971756]

>>10971029
Once again, we don't have reason to assume that. Atoms each having a little consciousness is analogous to transistors in a CPU each running a very tiny program. Consciousness is most likely an emergent property from interconnected neuron clusters firing.
As for AST, it's a plausible hypothesis, but we have no evidence to conclude that. Maybe advances in AI research will help us find out more about ourselves.

[Anonymous No.10971995]

>>10969126
How can adder exists without physical properties?

[Anonymous No.10971997]

>>10971036
Literally everybody.

[Anonymous No.10971999]

>>10971756
That analogy doesn't seem right. What about merging? Think two magnets, both have a magnetic field of their own but when you bring them close you get a new field.

[Anonymous No.10972005]

Consciousness is predetermined by the laws of physics. You can't ask why it exists any more than you can ask why prime numbers exist. The answer wouldn't be satisfactory. You just need to accept it.

[Anonymous No.10972020]

>>10971036
me.

[Anonymous No.10972337]

christianity explains it

[Anonymous No.10972349]

>>10971036
When "it just appears that everyone has a body, but that may be an illusion" is your best argument, you're really grasping at straws.

[Anonymous No.10972355]

>>10969305
Quantum Sperm

[Anonymous No.10972358]

>>10969126

There's a bit of irony in the presumution that mind cannot exist without body, inso far that the presumution seems justified given what humans know, but that many refuse to admit that it simply is that, a presumption.

>How can a mind exist without a "body" to store the memory patterns of engrams of transpired events?
>It just does.
>Or to put it another way; in 4th/5th dimensional existance the geometry of what you've expirence is/always exists even when it no longer does, thus your "memory" of existance is in the hyperdimensional state of the very fabric of space time itself, especially since you're the creator of said fabric in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10972368]

>>10972358
Mind materialism is the least uncertain of all the possible explanations. Every little bit of our knowledge and experiences is either straightforward evidence for it or still incompletely understood. All the other explanations require elaborate excuses for the evidence.

[Anonymous No.10972404]

Both physicalism and immaterialist views have tough problems but honestly think the problems in physicalism are more reasonable than those immaterialism.

[Anonymous No.10972701]

>>10969126
>How can a virtual machine exist without physical properties?
This is the question you're asking.

[Anonymous No.10973114]

>>10971999
We can measure the magnetic field strength of moving charged particles, something we cannot do with consciousness. Furthermore, magnets "merging" is the result of different magnetic fields interacting and aligning with eachother, which isn't the case for different conscious experiences. If that were the case, thoughts would interfere based on the inverse square of the distance two brains are apart from another.

It is a pretty hypothesis, but we currently have zero evidence to support it. Materialism is the most rational explanation.

[Anonymous No.10973179]

>>10973114
In addition, whether or not large atom complex forms a large magnetic field depends on the crystal lattice of the element. A single atoms magnetic field is dependent on the electron configuration of the element. Half filled electron shells (meaning one electron for each orbital) are the most magnetic, while full shells (two electrons with anti-parallel spin) cancel each other out. Whether or not large complexes of atoms can form a magnetic field depends on the ferromagnetism of the element. Most crystal structures don't have their atoms lined up, which is why there are only three ferromagnetic elements: Iron, nickel and cobalt.

[Anonymous No.10973204]

>>10973179
Well, there's more, Gadolinium for example. But yeah, you get the point...

[Anonymous No.10973441]

just throwing this into the fray

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piHkfmeU7Wo

[Anonymous No.10973449]

>>10973179
Interestingly, the modern neural network is more or less an adaptation of ising models of ferromagnetism.

[Anonymous No.10973453]

>>10969719
They don’t they receive conscious

[Anonymous No.10973468]

>>10970819
What preceded matter?

[Anonymous No.10973653]

>>10973468
When you assume something had to have preceded matter, you assume the infinite.

[Anonymous No.10973768]

>>10973468
Dimensional creation

[Anonymous No.10973770]

>>10973768
Gotta have hard light first.

[Anonymous No.10973778]

>>10973770
Hard light? An object cannot be defined if it doesn't have a dimensional starting point. Gotta have a bud light.

[Anonymous No.10973784]

>>10973778
Well, consider the big bang and the common notion of replicators. It's not wrong to think of the object existing in pure vacuum, then being summoned to this world. We'd just need the math for it.

[Anonymous No.10973809]

>>10973441
dang

[Anonymous No.10974345]

>>10972349
not body, mind*

[Anonymous No.10974347]

>>10972701
So the mind is an OS?
In the same manner, the GUI is an illusion

[Anonymous No.10974353]

Anyone else feel like we're living in a dream world?

Something extraordinary could happen and I wouldn't even be surprised anymore.

[Anonymous No.10974454]

>>10973449
That's actually a rather elegant way to describe it; the resulting magnetic field strength being analogous to the predictive capability of the output layer.

[Anonymous No.10974514]

>>10969126
>How can a steam exist without physical properties?
>How can music exist without physical properties?
>How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?
>How can posts be posted if they don't bump the thread?