/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11447120]

What's the correct theory of consciousness, /sci/?

[Hypertumor NPC No.11447132]

>>11447120
Offering sexual scenarios/encounters OR resources ASAP upon starting any new communication vector and always including as much predicate as possible.

[Anonymous No.11447151]

>>11447120
>no psychophysical parallelism

[Anonymous No.11447165]

>>11447120
>no idealism

[Anonymous No.11447171]

>>11447120
>eliminative materialism is a higher tier than reductive materialism

[Anonymous No.11447188]

Whatever the fuck this is

[Anonymous No.11447207]

>>11447171
Whether or not you agree consciousness can be an illusion, you have to admit it's a more satisfying answer than just to shoehorn qualia into our normal physical world where nothing but structure and function exist. It's like trying to build a computer out of lego. Deny that consciousness exist and the argument is at least valid.

[Anonymous No.11447211]

>>11447188
this guy know what's up

[Anonymous No.11447217]

>>11447120
what does this fucking jargon mean though? at least provide us with the definitions.

[Anonymous No.11447221]

>>11447151
The biggest problem for epiphenomenalism (and parallelism alike) is explaining how P can have any sort of knowledge or insight about the very qualities of M if M has no impact on P. Writing down "consciousness is so mysterious, how do we solve the hard problem" on a paper is clearly something done by P.

[Anonymous No.11447231]

>>11447217
All you need to know is the bottom one. Basically it says shit is so fucking weird that we will never know anything about its true nature. Woke as fuck.

[Anonymous No.11447267]

>>11447120
>What's the correct theory of consciousness, /sci/?
define "consciousness"

[Anonymous No.11447284]

Whilst qualia is something outside of the realm of science demonstrably, I think its also demonstrably self-evident that there is no ontological issue here.

The metaproblem of consciousness clearly shows this: how is it possible that a p-zombie would claim it has qualia? This problem really hints at the fact that the ontological issues of qualia is illusory.

My hypothesis? All ontological problems are illusions. We try to have these objectively definable views of reality that can be called ontic. But we are in denial of the constraints on our own minds and so cannot find these ontic categories we wish too in any logically coherent way; paradoxically and simultaneously as sollipsists in an external world and externalists in a mental world.

I believe these limitations are inherently related to the limitationson any formal system.

[Anonymous No.11447327]

>>11447284
cringe

[Anonymous No.11447331]

>>11447327
>t.

[Anonymous No.11447400]

>>11447120
Compatibilism

[Anonymous No.11447408]

>>11447284
>it's another borderline post-modernist word salad that attacks human dignity and self-determination
boring

[Anonymous No.11447429]

>>11447408
no its very sensical. the problem of consciousness is not a real problem. its nothing more than an issue of definition, of cognitivism, of how we explain things.

[Anonymous No.11447434]

>>11447429
The fundamental issue of mind body dualism isn't answered by any science. There is no doubt that the stream of consciousness is a very real thing and experienced by all healthy full grown humans, so why can we not concisely explain how humans experience it biologically except using broad clearly incomplete generalities and the claims of authority by specialists doing the same?

[Hypertumor Elder NPC No.11447488]

I wish I knew how to argue like all the fine Anon's ITT.

[Anonymous No.11447908]

>>11447207
This sounds like a cope

[Anonymous No.11447918]

>>11447120
you forgot hylomorphism

[Anonymous No.11447919]

poopism

[Anonymous No.11447943]

>>11447207
>you have to admit it's a more satisfying answer than just to shoehorn qualia
P-zombie detected

[Anonymous No.11447946]

>>11447120
Neutral monism is the best of all those I think. Once you claim that everything reduces "to the same kind of stuff", it becomes kind of meaningless to distinguish it as either "mental" or "physical". Though I think both of them are actually saying the same kind of thing when thought carefully through, Idealism has the problem of seemingly opening the door for all kinds of new age mumbo-jumbo and Physicalism the problem of apparently denying consciousness. Panpsychism postulates micro-subjects that are useless for explaining our macro-level subjectivity. However if you accept the bundle theory of self, a reductionist account of personal identity, you can already imagine how a subject can be created out of mere objects, mental objects thought hey may be. All that then is to get rid of the baseless idea that there's anything about the nature of physical that's contrary to qualia, for all we know about the physical is it's potential to bring about things that either experience or can be experienced.

I think Epiphenomenalism is easily the worst, with the possible exception of Eliminative Materialism, despite it's initial appeal for not fucking with the causal closure of physics yet respecting our intuitions that consciousness doesn't reduce to third person facts. It's a theory that demands its proponents believe in it for reasons independent of it being true. For it doesn't allow the "feeling" of consciousness being something over and above third person facts to influence our actions to advocate for the position. Even if we didn't have this feeling, we would make the same arguments according to Epiphenomenalism.

[Anonymous No.11447973]

>>11447221
One possible solution is combining epiphenomenalism with the Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Other realities exists where consciousness doesn't "do anything", but you can only perceive the realities where it appears consciousness is causally potent, giving the illusion of interactionism.

[Anonymous No.11448038]

Going by what we know, consciousness is fundamental and creates physics, not the other way around.

We know the mind can create the appearance of physical substance through imagination. This is enough to match reality because we don't know physical substance is real, we only know that it appears real.

We do not know if physical substance can create the mind. Seeming to facilitate or host it doesn't count because that does not imply creating it. There are no theories that don't have a magical missing step from integrated information or whatever to subjective experience.

[Anonymous No.11448083]

>>11447946
neutral monism has the exact same criticisms as panpsychism. goes in the bin for me. its a philosophy in denial. a fad trying to ram square pegs into circular holes

[Anonymous No.11448157]

>theory
what testable predictions do they make?

[Anonymous No.11448254]

>>11448038
>Going by what we know, consciousness is fundamental and creates physics, not the other way around.
Bullshit. No physical model requires consciousness, so how can it be fundamental?

>We know the mind can create the appearance of physical substance through imagination. This is enough to match reality because we don't know physical substance is real, we only know that it appears real.
So test your imagination vs. what appears real and see which one wins. Hint: your imagination won't do shit.

>We do not know if physical substance can create the mind.
Then you won't mind if I bash your brains in, right? It's only physical substance.

>Seeming to facilitate or host it doesn't count because that does not imply creating it.
How would something fundamental require a host or facilitation of its own creation? Show me consciousness without a host.

>There are no theories that don't have a magical missing step from integrated information or whatever to subjective experience.
God of the gaps fallacy. You claim to know something yet your only argument is based on ignorance.

[Anonymous No.11448276]

>>11448083
>neutral monism has the exact same criticisms as panpsychism
? neutral monism doesn't say there's anything that it's like to be an electron, since it doesn't have a sense of self. it doesn't say there's micro-subjects all the way to the bottom. so what are these "exact same criticisms"? what is the mind-body problem to you, why is there even a problem (at least an apparent one) and what is your solution if any?

[Anonymous No.11448277]

>>11447165
>punches you in the head and makes you retarded

[Anonymous No.11448281]

Just read Whitehead and James

[Anonymous No.11448306]

>>11447488
Yeah, too bad you are genuinely schizophrenic and are unable to form coherent sentences

[Anonymous No.11448329]

>>11447120
If somebody's torturing you in the idea you want to get better, you say you are better and you feel good, not tortured and locked away which would lead to more torture as psychiatrist thinks.

99% percent of psychiatrists are sociopaths.

[Anonymous No.11448388]

>>11448306
you are just vile

[Anonymous No.11448403]

>>11448254
>Bullshit. No physical model requires consciousness, so how can it be fundamental?
No physical model accounts for it, so they don't hold much weight.

>So test your imagination vs. what appears real and see which one wins. Hint: your imagination won't do shit.
>Then you won't mind if I bash your brains in, right? It's only physical substance.
pic related

>How would something fundamental require a host or facilitation of its own creation? Show me consciousness without a host.
Humans create video games and need a ui to experience them.

>God of the gaps fallacy. You claim to know something yet your only argument is based on ignorance.
God of the gaps is valid when the gaps are as big as they are, and the original argument explicitly states that it's based on what we know.

[Anonymous No.11448407]

>>11447973
That still leaves us with the unsatisfying reality where all the statements we make about consciousness is ultimately unjustified, because it hinges on the person uttering those words existing in the correct world for it to be true.

It's conceivable in principle, but when you think about it it becomes absurd. There is a non-conscious world where zombie-versions of ourselves are writing these exact words in this thread. Why are they doing that? Why are we doing it? How can the physical side of us know anything about the mental side? If we're just guessing, shouldn't we be guessing wrong in almost every world?

[Anonymous No.11448787]

>>11448254
>No physical model requires consciousness, so how can it be fundamental?
I have never once encountered any physical phenomenon except through my awareness of it in my conscious perception.

[Anonymous No.11449967]

>>11448306
Pretty sure he meant being able to casually post like this pic, that's not to say he was right in saying a lot of nigs ITT were very well spoken.

[Anonymous No.11450298]

Integrated Information Theory

[Anonymous No.11451976]

Something can't be a problem if it doesn't exist. Checkmate.

[Anonymous No.11451988]

>>11451976
I'll believe you Dennet if only because this one lecture of yours has such a kino intro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFTTn-Co5F8

[Anonymous No.11451997]

>>11447120
unironically a flat earther got it right

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlRt3MwZi0c

[Anonymous No.11452016]

>>11447165
>idealism
>theory
Idealism is not a theory, it's an emotional temper tantrum.

[Anonymous No.11452017]

>>11447165
Idealism is schizophrenia.

[Anonymous No.11452019]

>>11447171
>anything is a higher tier than reductive materialism
ITT: The emergent properties of neurons converge on "cope"

[Anonymous No.11452040]

>>11448787
>I have never once encountered any physical phenomenon except through my awareness of it in my conscious perception.
That doesn't make physical phenomena dependent on you. It just means you're a creature who gets information about the world through your sensory organs. Also all information isn't the same. You might use your eyes in seeing a celestial body follow a particular path, in seeing the mathematics that predicts the celestial body will follow that path, and in seeing a written account of someone else viewing the same path. You also of course have more than one sensory organ and can check the results of one against the others e.g. If you think you heard some unexpected noise in your home the first thing you'll probably do is try to see what made it. The entire general notion of a scientific method is predicated on how the more independent agreeing parties you have to check results against the more plausible it is to tentatively go with your apparent explanation as the working answer for how the phenomenon you're investigating operates.

[Anonymous No.11452044]

>>11448038
>consciousness is fundamental and creates physics, not the other way around.
Subjectivism is gay, what's your proof of this? Because your conciousness can't uncreate or change the laws, therefore it did not create them. QED

[Anonymous No.11452056]

>>11451997
Massive cope. Spiritualism is just infantile emotionality. Cope-central.
Classic physics explains consciousness: it's an emergent property of electrical signals in your brain.

[Anonymous No.11452060]

>>11451988
>intro

WTF I LOVE ELIMINITAVISM NOW

[Anonymous No.11452071]

>>11452056
you didnt watch the video sir

[Anonymous No.11452074]

>>11452056

so can we emulate it with a modern computer?

[Anonymous No.11452087]

>>11452074
We can emulate a human yes, but the key here is that WE are creating this emulator, through our origination of imagination

[Anonymous No.11452096]

>>11452071
>makes huge claim about something
>n-no I c-can't g--g-giv-ee y-you the r-reasoing mys-self! W-watch the 3 hour l-long v-video!!!!11!1
Classic pseud tactic, nobody is watching a flat earther babble about spirit who thinks a valid critique of newton and darwin is that their ideas hurt his feelings

[Anonymous No.11452099]

>>11452074
It's even easier than that. You can emulate it by getting a baby incubator and sticking your penis in it. 9 months later a new material consciousness pops out!

[Anonymous No.11452118]

>>11447120
definitely not any of the supernatural ones

[Anonymous No.11452121]

>>11452040
>It just means you're a creature who gets information about the world through your sensory organs.
But there is no possible way to prove this.

[Anonymous No.11452136]

Why do philosophers make shit up to make themselves relevant?

All of these terms are meaningless horseshit

[Anonymous No.11452145]

Dreadnaut meta

[Anonymous No.11452146]

>>11452136
>Why do philosophers make shit up to make themselves relevant?

Meanwhile in scientist land:
>spends billions of particle accelerators that accomplish next to nothing
>string theory

[Anonymous No.11452158]

>>11452146
The LHC has discovered more than literally the entirety of post-enlightenment philosophy

I don't get why this upsets you, particles actually exist, they aren't a concept scientists just made up out of whole cloth

[Anonymous No.11452163]

>>11452136
When you've never learned a language every word looks meaningless.

[Anonymous No.11452168]

>>11452163
This is different though, this is philosophers making up terms solely to argue about them. None of them are based on anything real

[Anonymous No.11452174]

>>11452158
Little did he know that justifying whether or not something exists is in the domain of philosophy.

It's true that particle accelerators HAVE been used to make a lot of discoveries, but it doesn't look like we'll get much use of of them in the future, unless we want to spend a fuckload of more money building much bigger ones.

[Anonymous No.11452176]

>>11452158
None of the particles the LHC has "discovered" have even been directly observed.
It's literally all statistical inference operating on the tiniest signal to noise ratios with dubious noise reduction algorithms, and everything designed and tuned with the goal particles they want to find in mind. Kind of a mockery of the scientific method if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.11452180]

>>11452174
>Little did he know that justifying whether or not something exists is in the domain of philosophy.
Only in the sense that technically everything is philosophy, but this is not a meaningful way to explain things

[Anonymous No.11452181]

>>11452176
still more than philosophy has done in the last 200 years

[Anonymous No.11452188]

>>11452174
I'm not here to say the LHC was definitely worth the cost, but at least they are doing something, learning stuff, which is more than you can say for any money or time put into philosophy today

[Anonymous No.11452190]

>>11452096
okay m8,

1. material clockwork universe, newtonian physics
2. quantum mechanics universe, new physics
3. what exactly is matter? nothing, a state of potential
4.a watched quantum pot never boils, the observer effect
5. non-locality, everything is entangled
6. Everything is the same thing.

Conclusion:
The universe doesnt happen without your consiousness in it, therefore the consious creates the entire universe.

Basically, consiousness is God and God is having a laugh.

[Anonymous No.11452212]

>>11452180
But that's just because you've presupposed what is a meaningful way to talk about things. That is a statement that also has to be justified. There are tons of claims made by scientists about the existence of all sorts of things that can't be justified empirically. Dark energy, interpretations of quantum mechanics, ontology of time, etc etc. Those have to be justified with logical arguments, and thus you're in the realm of philosophy. Scientists will always stumble onto questions which they will need the help of philosophers to solve in one way or another.

Both of them are needed.

[Anonymous No.11452234]

>>11452121
>But there is no possible way to prove this.
Either it's true or you're in a ridiculous situation where some Cartesian demon is deliberately and maliciously going out of its way to misrepresent multiple avenues of corroborating information.
And if it's the latter then all your information and beliefs are trash. Even "I think therefore I am" isn't beyond doubt.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4363/4363-h/4363-h.htm
>The people on their part may think that cognition is knowing all about things, but the philosopher must say to himself:
>"When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking—that I KNOW what thinking is.
>For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps 'willing' or 'feeling'? In short, the assertion 'I think,' assumes that I COMPARE my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further 'knowledge,' it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me."
>—In place of the "immediate certainty" in which the people may believe in the special case, the philosopher thus finds a series of metaphysical questions presented to him, veritable conscience questions of the intellect, to wit:
>"Whence did I get the notion of 'thinking'? Why do I believe in cause and effect? What gives me the right to speak of an 'ego,' and even of an 'ego' as cause, and finally of an 'ego' as cause of thought?"

[Anonymous No.11452237]

>>11452212
>There are tons of claims made by scientists about the existence of all sorts of things that can't be justified empirically
No, no there really isn't. There are early theories and speculations sometimes, by scientists do not make claims of certainty about unempircal things

but still, you do not need to be a professionally trained philosopher do understand systems of logic or make logical arguments, like the entirety of relevant philosophy to be up on that can be learned in a day. While yes this is technically in the broader set of things claimed to be philosophy, it is just distracting from the previous point that people who work as and consider themselves philosophers contribute nothing to our understanding of the universe, they only argue amongst themselves about shit they made up