/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11665494]

>mfw the hard problem of consciousness makes followers of scientism seethe
let's tackle it once and for all

[Anonymous No.11665495]

[Anonymous No.11665496]

>>11665494
Pseudoscience belongs in >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11665500]

>>11665496
hpoc is not pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.11665507]

Could someone who actually read the CTMU in this board summarize it for us?

[Anonymous No.11665511]

>>11665494
>>mfw the hard problem of consciousness makes followers of scientism seethe
define "consciousness"

[Anonymous No.11665515]

>>11665511
experience of qualia. mind itself may be a qualia and not merely a substrate through which qualia is experienced

[Anonymous No.11665517]

>>11665511

[Anonymous No.11665522]

>>11665511
define science.

[Anonymous No.11665526]

>>11665507
http://infolab.ho.ua/Langan_CTMU_092902(1).pdf

You should get a pretty good idea from the first 10 pages or so. My understanding is that it is saying the universe is basically self-determining, meta-darwinian

[Anonymous No.11665601]

>>11665511

[Anonymous No.11665623]

>>11665522
got his ass

[Anonymous No.11665667]

>>11665522
Pretty sure that measurements should be involved. How much consciousness do you have?

[Anonymous No.11665675]

>>11665601
>order
>chaos
Very scientific choice of words

[Anonymous No.11665718]

>>11665500
It is clearly pseudoscience, presupposing that qualia can't be explained by explaining how the brain works. It's essentially an argument from ignorance.

[Anonymous No.11665730]

>>11665507
>obfuscate a bunch of pre-existing metaphysical concepts with unnecessary lingo that no one can understand
>claim everyone's lack of understanding as proof of your own superior intelligence
>retards who also want to pretend to be intelligent pretend to understand the gibberish
That's the gist of it.

[Anonymous No.11665731]

>>11665601
So cold water is conscious?

[Anonymous No.11665753]

>>11665731
yes

>>11665675
you are an idiot

[Anonymous No.11665785]

>>11665753

[Anonymous No.11665819]

>>11665753
Get in the freezer, and report back in 24 hours how much your consciousness has increased.

[Anonymous No.11666212]

>>11665601
Lol a coin sorter is conscious now?

[Anonymous No.11666232]

>>11665526
I'm reading this now and it's amazing. I had the same idea, although leagues less articulate because I'm a brainlet, on an acid trip 2 years ago. This man knows what's up.

[Anonymous No.11666246]

>>11665494
>hard problem
it’s only a problem because we don’t have enough resolution to look at neuropathways in the brain.
Behaviour and reaction to stimuli can be predicted using brain activity, there’s no reason we can extrapolate to an interplay in more abstract thought, besides wishing for a higher power that doesn’t force you to accept that you are going to die.

[Anonymous No.11666260]

>>11665515
define qualia, you’re just swapping one loaded concept with another.

[Anonymous No.11666797]

>>11665494
did he finally release a theory that's actually testable as opposed to metaphysical concepts like some kind of religion?

[Anonymous No.11666806]

>>11666797
if he did do you think his schizo fanbase would still like him?

[Anonymous No.11666810]

>>11665494
chris langan is the strongest datapoint suggestive of IQ being total bullshit

if the metric was at all accurate, he would actually be smart. instead he's a pseud blowhard who gravitates towards philosophy because it's the one field where none of your bullshit can be falsified by actual experts

[Anonymous No.11667350]

>>11666810
IQ is a great measurement, but you need some education/cognitive training to actually make it useful. What he does is like living in 11th century europe with an M4 and bludgeoning his enemies to death.

[Anonymous No.11667353]

>>11665494
>let's tackle it once and for all
it's not called hard for no reason

[Anonymous No.11667358]

>>11665718
>presupposing that qualia can't be explained by explaining how the brain works
that's not the hard problem of consciousness

[Anonymous No.11667372]

>>11666246
that is also not the hard problem of consciousness
I've noticed many people on /sci/ mistake the easy problem of consciousness for the hard problem
here, from wikipedia
>The philosopher David Chalmers, who introduced the term "hard problem" of consciousness, contrasts this with the "easy problems" of explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, and so forth. Easy problems are (relatively) easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. That is, regardless of how complex or poorly understood the phenomena of the easy problems may be, they can eventually be understood by relying entirely on standard scientific methodologies. Chalmers claims that the problem of experience is distinct from this set and will "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained".
at least educate yourself on the subject a bit before you spout some irrelevant stuff

[Anonymous No.11667414]

>>11667372
>"hard problem" of consciousness, contrasts this with the "easy problems" of explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, and so forth.
this is grammatically unclear, so let’s go with these aspects defining the “hard problem” first.
If we have enough resolution in imaging, we can map neuropathways and correlate them to every aspect of thought and describe precisely how brain structure and stimuli create a perception of consciousness.

Assuming the cited examples constitute the “easy consciousness”, your quote lacks any indication what the problem supposedly is. It merely states the “hard consciousness” to be “muh show how consciousness works physically, but you can’t use anything you could show in principle, therefore it is magic, gotcha”

>educate yourself
not, I’m not gonna waste hours reading up on random philosophy bullshit because you are unable to define your problem.

[Anonymous No.11667425]

>>11667414
No neurological pathway could explain why consciousness exists instead of acting as a p zombie

Try reading this
https://opentheory.net/PrincipiaQualia.pdf

[Anonymous No.11667432]

>>11667414
>If we have enough resolution in imaging, we can map neuropathways and correlate them to every aspect of thought and describe precisely how brain structure and stimuli create a perception of consciousness.
that does not solve the hard problem of consciousness
>It merely states the “hard consciousness” to be “muh show how consciousness works physically, but you can’t use anything you could show in principle, therefore it is magic, gotcha”
no, that quote states that that is precisely the easy problem of consciousness and shouldn't be confused with the hard problem
if you can't comprehend it then maybe don't jump to conclusions, ask questions instead
>not, I’m not gonna waste hours reading up on random philosophy bullshit because you are unable to define your problem.
then why are you talking about it at all? lol
just because you can't understand the matter of the problem does not mean it's bullshit, it's very legitimate and taken seriously by very many reputable philosophers

[Anonymous No.11667433]

>>11667358
It literally is.

[Anonymous No.11667437]

>>11665601
Didn't know that sorting algorithms were conscious.

[Anonymous No.11667456]

>>11667433
no, that's the easy problem
see >>11667425

[Anonymous No.11667459]

>>11665526

I read the first three sentences and knew immediately that this guy is a self-aggrandizing pseudointellectual with no idea about how real science works.

The point of it is to bring your ideas down to a level where it reaches as large an audience as possible. I'm not sure if he's using this word choice for "scientific flair," or just to be able to cover his ass by implying his interlocutors (see what I did there?) don't understand the definitions of the unnecessarily complex words he's using to explain simple concepts.

Either way, he fails.

[Anonymous No.11667470]

>>11667456
You just stated exactly what I said was the hard problem.

[Anonymous No.11667478]

>>11667470
no, you stated the hard problem is explaining how the brain works
and I stated that it is not that, that explaining how the brain works is the easy problem
go read up the definition of the hard problem if you have trouble understanding it

[Anonymous No.11667482]

>>11665511
The assumption is "consciousness" = driver in inside a brain. The so called "hard problem" is a fraudulent exercise in trying to convince there's a a little man driving the body. Its another retarded nonsense.

[Anonymous No.11667483]

>>11667482
>The so called "hard problem" is a fraudulent exercise in trying to convince there's a a little man driving the body. Its another retarded nonsense.
no, that's not what the hard problem is
lmao /sci/ is literally incapable of understanding philosophical problems

[Anonymous No.11667485]

>>11667483
Explain it without that assumption.

[Anonymous No.11667486]

>>11667478
>no, you stated the hard problem is explaining how the brain works
No, are you incapable of reading? I said the hard problem is the idea that qualia are not explained by explaining how the brain works.

That is exactly what you claimed here >>11667372 and >>11667425

I thought philosophers could read.

[Anonymous No.11667497]

>>11667486
>I said the hard problem is the idea that qualia are not explained by explaining how the brain works.
no, the hard problem is asking why there is qualia at all instead of all of us being p zombies without any qualia
it has nothing to do with explaining how qualia arise, that's the easy problem
>>11667485
from wikipedia:
>Other formulations of the hard problem of consciousness include:
>"How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?"
>"Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?"
>"Why do qualia exist?"
>"Why is there a subjective component to experience?"
>"Why aren't we philosophical zombies?"
personally I think the last one makes the problem the clearest, the problem is basically asking why we have subjective experience at all (qualia) instead of being zombies/robots/npcs who just react to stimuli
solving the easy problem (i.e. how qualia arise) might only make the hard problem more confusing

[Anonymous No.11667510]

>>11667497
>no, the hard problem is asking why there is qualia at all instead of all of us being p zombies without any qualia
And why is this problem called "hard?" Because:
>Chalmers claims that the problem of experience is distinct from this set and will "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained".

>it has nothing to do with explaining how qualia arise, that's the easy problem
Why are you contradicting yourself?
>No neurological pathway could explain why consciousness exists instead of acting as a p zombie

Please explain how explaining how qualia arise is not an explanation of why they exist. Scientifically, there is no difference.

[Anonymous No.11667531]

>>11667510
>Why are you contradicting yourself?
where do you see a contradiction in those statements?
>Please explain how explaining how qualia arise is not an explanation of why they exist. Scientifically, there is no difference.
do you know these boston dynamics robots? let's take them as an example
when they decide do to something, you can inspect their electrical circuits and come to the conclusion that it is those electrical circuits producing their reactions, but because of the fact that they have those circuits would you expect them to have qualia, a subjective experience, even if they did? obviously not, it makes no logical sense for them to have any qualia
and it is precisely the same with humans and other organisms, just inspecting how they react and what gives rise to these qualia does not explain why they have it, why can't they just react to stuff without having qualia?

[Anonymous No.11667639]

>>11667497
>"Why aren't we philosophical zombies?"
Philosophical Zombies is a dumb exercise in assuming there is something more than the body. There isn't. Its just the assumption of a soul entity controlling the body. So I don't see why the last one makes the problem the clearest when that's exactly that I highlighted as the main problem of this stupid "hard problem."

[Anonymous No.11667693]

>>11667459
he probably spent most of the time googling for ways to make sentences sound more complex than they are are went to the bottom of synonym lists for every other word.

[Anonymous No.11667716]

>>11667483
no dude
you are clearly incapable of conveying what you want to tell.
One could in principle explain every aspect of conscious thought with the workings of the brain. You just keep babbling like a kid that this is merely the easy problem, not the hard one.
Any functionality that has no physical mechanism is by definition not physical and belongs to /x/.

[Anonymous No.11667730]

>>11667531
>where do you see a contradiction in those statements?
You say it has nothing to do with how qualia arise and then you say it's about explaining qualia.

>and it is precisely the same with humans and other organisms, just inspecting how they react and what gives rise to these qualia does not explain why they have it
That doesn't make any sense. The robots have circuits and don't have qualia so there is nothing to explain. Humans don't have circuits but have qualia. One has nothing to do with the other. All your doing is repeating the same dogma over and over in different ways, that qualia are somehow magic like the soul and can't be explained.

[Anonymous No.11667806]

>>11665730
>it assumes that everything in science or metaphysics has to be deduced to the bare minimum so brainlets need to understand
not everything is made for equal use

[Anonymous No.11667904]

>>11667806
Ah right only non-brainlets can understand it. So please point out one philosopher that has said something positive about CTMU.

[Anonymous No.11667937]

>>11667639
>>11667716
>>11667730
sorry but there is no clearer way to convey the hard problem of consciousness
if you deny its existence because you can't comprehend it, you may quit thinking about it
the hard problem of consciousness is one of the main topics of modern philosophy centered around many reputable philosophers for a reason, if it didn't make sense it would just be immediately dismissed
Chalmers who posed the problem secured a bronze medal in IMO, do you think he's not clever enough to see through your lines of reasoning? do you think other philosophers are not clever enough to come up with your ways of thinking and refute it?

[Anonymous No.11667942]

>>11667937
>he hard problem of consciousness is one of the main topics of modern philosophy centered around many reputable philosophers for a reason
There's a reason philosophy is looked down upon. Its because of hacks like these "reputable" philosophers who bring up half baked ideas and can't defend it.

[Anonymous No.11667966]

>>11667942
>There's a reason philosophy is looked down upon.
looked down upon by whom? some pseudointellectuals on /sci/?
>Its because of hacks like these "reputable" philosophers who bring up half baked ideas and can't defend it.
go ahead and solve the problem then, you'll make a very big name for yourself!

[Anonymous No.11668089]

>>11667937
If you're not clever enough to defend it, don't defend it in the first place. I'm sure you can find plenty of philosophers that say the problem doesn't exist so why not parrot them?

[Anonymous No.11668090]

>>11667966
You can't even show there is a problem. It's like saying science will never explain the soul.

[Anonymous No.11668145]

>>11667937
>if you don’t BELIEVE you will never understand.

[Anonymous No.11668167]

>>11665785
All the wojaks I'm the world can't fix stupid mate sadly

>>11665819
You are an idot

[Anonymous No.11668174]

>>11666212
Coin sorter doesn't create order of chaos moron it's machine that sorts coins. That being said, yes it is. It's atoms are anyway

[Anonymous No.11668186]

>>11667966
There is no problem to solve until you fix the stupid soul assumption from the argument.

[Anonymous No.11668190]

>>11667437
What created it dipshit? You think it created itself? All tools are created by consciousness. Everything is created by consciousness

[Anonymous No.11668310]

>>11668167
>You are an idot

[Anonymous No.11668314]

>>11668174
Are your almonds activated?

[Anonymous No.11668323]

>>11668190
>everything is conscious because I say so REEEEEEEE
So basically consciousness doesn't mean anything.

[Anonymous No.11668428]

>>11667350
shouldn't a smart person recognize that fact?

[Anonymous No.11668689]

>>11665601
rock is conciousness man is unconcious

[Anonymous No.11668835]

>>11668689
yess

[Anonymous No.11668937]

>>11665511
define “define”

[Anonymous No.11669999]

>>11668937
The purpose of defining key words is to prevent ambiguity and make sure we are all on the same page. Unless you don't know how to speak English, defining "define" is unnecessary. It is a commonly understood word and doesn't make or break the argument.

[Anonymous No.11670237]

>>11668428
not if you don’t know it or just want to chill

[Anonymous No.11670566]

>>11667942
>>11668089
>>11668090
>>11668145

Not the same anon, but let me try.

Can you can have qualia (it's such a shitty fucking term in my opinion btw) without subjective experience? When you touch something hot, your arm moves before you feel the pain.When you go into a dark room, your pupils dilate without the need of you experiencing darkness or a need for more light. A split brain patient can have the knowledge, memory, and ability to reproduce a text without the subjective experience of this text. A sleep walker can talk, move, and act in general without the subjective experience of communication or acting.
Does it not seem possible to you that you can act in life without subjective experience? Your brain and frontal cortex specifically can be a locus of control without the realization of any subjectivity. This would be a p-zombie.
Now, is this actually possible? I'm not sure. Perhaps in order to exist in a complex societal environment, you need the mechanism of consciousness. I don't know, nobody know. Some researchers speak about "global availability", that is the fact that consciousness makes it easier to draw conclusions based on multiple inputs of information. This seems reasonable, but it seems to me many things become globally available for the body without a conscious experience.
I tried to show you the hard problem in my opinion. I am not sure if it exists. Thomas Metzinger does an amazing job in deconstucting both consciousness as experience (the reality tunnel) and consciousness as subjectivity (the ego tunnel). Still, the locus of attention remains. I think he also realizes that it remains, as this is the opinion of researchers trying to define the minimum possible consciousness, and the opinion of medidators who understand that the ability to pay attention to something is the most rudimental thing left when you are able to get rid of everything else. Dennett explains consciousness in an amazing way and I am with him to a great extent.

[Anonymous No.11670583]

>>11670566
I'm with Dennett to a great extent, but I am not convinced about the necessity of subjective experience. The evolutionary necessity that is. And I am not saying necessity drives evolution, it is not teleological, of course. But still, you have to explain how suddenly a completly new phenomenon arose. Evolution uses what's there, it makes fins into feet, and so on. But those are not qualitatively different than what was there before.
I really like Dennett's argument: you think you're not a robot? Well, if you believe in evolution and believe an amoeba is more or less a biological robot - then your ancestors were robots. Fine. But what made them conscious robots, what happened along the way.
Btw, there are brainlets on both sides. The hard problem guys are obviously scared of death. I know it, because I am and see that they are trying to make the same realizations that I try to make when I'm scared. Still, this does not invalidate the existence of the huge gap that I tried to show.

[Anonymous No.11670602]

>>11667639
If were just NPCs, then that implies that actual NPCs have consciousness. Maybe different because of the lack of complexity of their behavior, but something significantly more than rocks.

[Anonymous No.11670630]

>>11670583
Why do you think it was sudden?

Consciousness arose evolutionarily as a computational shortcut. In ants its there but about the same level of consciousness exists in the computer youre reading this on. In rodents more so, in larger animals more so, in humans the most at least in regards to self awareness. Theoretically "deeper" consciousness could exist in animals others than humans, without language, until we can scan perception from the brain as it occurs, theres no way for us to know.

I think once we have full brain scanning, deeper reading, with things like neuralink, the hard problem of consciousness will become a serious race between researchers to see who solves it first or at least makes the most progress the quickest

[Anonymous No.11670655]

>>11670630
I absolutely agree that it is gradual. It is not an on/off thing, this is certain and I think all researchers agree.
I cannot understand how it is a shortcut though. Why does it make things easier? Why can't we exist without consciousness?
I completely disagree that there is the same level of consciousness in ants as in a computer. If there is no hard problem, as I take your opinion is, I also think the solution to consciousness is not pure computation. There is too much going on biologically, esepcially the desire to live - it is in no way inherent in any manner of computation but it is in the base of consciousness.

Don't you agree that as a phenomenon it is quite different than everything else? It is the only thing that has internal perspective, it is not just strange, but different.

[Anonymous No.11670673]

>>11670583
I like the idea that speech evolved prior to conciousness, which then developed in to non-conscious inner speech (voices in your head) which then evolved into conscious thought. If you read some of the first written stories available, non of the characters have their own thoughts, it's either a god telling them to do something or another character saying something. As consciousness developed, written texts gained character thought. This theory is from the "origin of consciousness" book, which I think alot of the neuroscience has been proven wrong, but the evolutionary theory still might hold.

[Anonymous No.11670682]

>>11670673
I also think free will and choice could just be an illusion. If the brain works on a quantum level, the the preception of choice could just be due to probabilities exsisting simultaneously in the brain.

[Anonymous No.11670703]

>>11670673
I know the book, but it really is nothing more than an interesting idea. I believe more than anything he confuses literary styles with actual thoughts.
It's a very interesting idea though, I am also exploring it.

[Anonymous No.11670772]

>>11670655
Its that the most efficient algorithms have the most qualia.

I believe qualia emerges as the expression of cause-effect at the objective level. The entire conscious experience is an object made of various parts, each made of further parts down to raw perception. But it seems the same objects that consciousness is made of are the same objects it models. We have self awareness because the brain observese its own existence and models itself in the world.

Everything processing information, or rather every bit of information that is caused by another or the effect of another his emitting some qualia. But only complex intelligent self aware objects emit qualia that involves modelling itself, allowing it to actually see itself. The qualia is a metaphysical substance, part of all information but basically the processing between. If you think of a computer simulation with timesteps, inbetween them, when the actual computing of the next time step is occuring, thats when consciousness is generated. But it must be "arranged" correctly to be interesting.
Another way of putting it as far as our own brains go, is that there is something it is like to be any object. There is something it is like to be your body, your limbs, muscles, etc. Any parts that are attached to the nervous system get high resolution live data, so can be modelled as a direct part of you. From just that, your mind is simulating the something it is like to be your body, and so now the qualia which would otherwise just go into the metaphysical void, now is the subject of your world model. This is the case with some animals which lack any sense of self awareness. This is what current ai is like too. Direct perceptions to actions, no deeper understanding. Intuitive understanding maybe due to repetition of things, but no contemplation. No coherent mind, just feelings, urges, drives.

[Anonymous No.11670775]

>>11670772
Cont.
So then you add your own mind into the world model, and now not only is qualia leading to behavior and decisions, but it can see itself doing so and as a result can actually report about its own internal state analytically. I think in terms of evolutionary benefit, most of it came with just instincts, with qualia naturally increasing as sense resolution and algorthmic simplicity increased. Self awareness exists in several animals on a spectrum, never to a deep enough degree to form language. With the ability to form language and have deep self awareness we blew other primates the fuck out of the water. It came from deeper consciousness though, with self awareness comes a lot more intelligence toolset as you can position yourself autonomously within the world.

Sorry if this is terribly written, im pretty high

[Anonymous No.11670868]

>>11670772
>>11670775

It show sthat you're high, man, because you could have just sayd that you think panpsychism is right while at the same time being a materialist. This is a contradiction, you have to choose, buddy, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.11672183]

>>11670868
Physicalism

All material has consciousness same way all material has an electric charge, except electric charge itself requires specific matter. Consciousness occurs at the most fundemental level, binary bits of information. You arrange things to organize what consciousness is made of (information) and it becomes stronger

Panpsychism is somewhat accurate to what I believe, but it implies ego accross the universe which is dumb bullshit. It doesnt mean everything is actually conscious like you or I, but it has the potential.

[Anonymous No.11672214]

>>11668190
Are you retarded? Unguided natural evolution produced molecular machines more complex than anything humans have made.

[Anonymous No.11672227]

>>11667639
WOW you're a fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.11672236]

>>11672183
I agree with this

[Anonymous No.11672239]

>>11668323
>Everything is matter because I say so REEEE
So basically matter doesn't mean anything

[Anonymous No.11672246]

>>11665753
wait hold on a minute
cold water is conscious?
You're going to have to elaborate on that

[Anonymous No.11672269]

>>11667497
I feel sorry for you bro. Thanks for trying but they just don't get it.

[Anonymous No.11672283]

>>11665494
Langan is a fuckin retard lol

[Anonymous No.11672385]

>>11672239
Nah, there's also energy and spacetime.

[Anonymous No.11672401]

>>11665511
>>11666260
Consciousness is subjective experience. Subjective, as in only observable in your point of view. Experience, as in the fundamental phenomena you observe happening all the time. This should be enough to explain it to you - if not, you don't have consciousness.

[Anonymous No.11672473]

>>11667459
>>11667693
the writing isn't even that complex, don't even know what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.11672760]

>>11665494
won't happen

[Anonymous No.11673034]

>>11667497
But we ARE zombies who only react to stimuli, just like any other neural network or computational system in existence.
>"How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?"
All organisms are subjects of experience, all react to external stimuli.
There is only a difference in capacity and capability, not in quality, between you and an ant.
May I remind you, the stimuli may have been a long time ago.

[Anonymous No.11673473]

>>11672283
He's based

>Throws you out of your own house

[Anonymous No.11673498]

>>11673034
Our relationship with stimuli is different from most other animals though. We don't just react to stimuli, we also contemplate it, and imagine it. We can imagine things that are not real at all.

We can picture in our mind something, and then begin to react to this picture as if it were stimuli. But it isn't, or if it is it is not yet explained how we our senses might be stimulated by our own mentally projected image, let alone where to find this image in the brain. Our relationship with mental objects is just as complicated with our relationship with stimuli as well. We can consider them, change them, play around with them in ways that we desire. It is certainly not an example of one way causation where stimuli necessarily creates a reaction.

[Anonymous No.11673544]

>>11670602
Its more that "having consciousness" is the problem in question. We can say I have an apple, and it could be in my hand or I'm taking a bite out of the apple. That's a coherent statement. But if I say, I have a "happy life", then there is bit of a trick to the statement. There is no "happy life" that can be handled, pointed to, isolated, etc. Happy life is merely a by product of everything that's going on with the body throughout the lifespan. In a sense, "NPC(or people) have consciousness" is merely talking ab out a function of the brain and not a entity itself. When you look at it from a proper approach like this, the "hard problem" of consciousness problem then becomes meaningless. Now look at the problem from that angle, "Why do beings have qualia?" The problem of the "hard problem of consciousness" should be immediately visible. The problem doesn't make sense unless you accept there's a "being" and "qualia" that's separate from the process the body goes through. You can look at it like the pretty videos/images that you see on the monitor. "Why does the monitor have qualia?"

[Anonymous No.11673585]

>>11673544
>"Why does the monitor have qualia?"

You misunderstand 'where' the qualia would be in this scenario

The apparent qualia of the monitor in this instance is just a judgment in the mind of the observer. The monitor is literally just pixels controlled by switches. The qualia in this case is the observer's perspective and understanding of the meaning of these pixels, and their beliefs/judgments/preferences about this understood meaning. The monitor can never know the personality of the Master Chief, for example, but the observer playing halo will feel like they know the character after playing a certain portion of the game. This belief or 'knowledge' of this character and his personality will be partly informed by the pixels on the monitor, as well as a range of other sources of information, including audio from the game, prior knowledge of the character, opinions from friends or other observers, etc. All of this information is processed by the brain to produce a variety of perceived knowledge of beliefs about the character of the game. The monitor is simply not capable of knowing this kind of knowledge, and holding these kinds of beliefs. The architecture and nature of the system does not allow for it.

[Anonymous No.11673627]

>>11673585
You're right.

The apparent qualia of the human in this instance is just a judgment in the pixels of the monitor. The human is literally just controlled by electro-chemicals. The qualia in this case is the monitor's perspective and understanding of the meaning of these electro-chemicals, and their various states of rgb states/frequency hz about this understood meaning. The human can never know the reactions of the neurochemistry, for example, but the monitor showing the videos/pretty pictures/etc.

[Anonymous No.11673646]

>>11673627
I still think you are creating a false equivalence here, between a human brain and a computer. Or not so much a false equivalence, but their equivalence is the literally the point that is being debated, the same as

>The human is literally just controlled by electro-chemicals

You are moving the conclusion to the place of a premise to support its own argument. It might be the case that the human is 'controlled' by electro chemicals, but you can't prove this by placing it next to the computer and drawing a handful of comparisons between them. This also does not address the existence of qualia itself. If you are already running on the assumption that a human and a computer monitor are functionally the same thing, then of course you can suppose that if one can experience qualia, the other can. But you are ignoring the argument that the ability to experience qualia is what marks a human as different from a machine in the first place. You are literally just dancing around the hard problem of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.11674082]

The only reason we have qualia is because we can immediately contrast the present with our memories of of slices of the past.

This happens in an endless "stream" of now vs then for most people.

If you are black-out drunk, for instance, you are basically a p-zombie and your brain is not recording any memories. You have experience, like an ant, but "no experience to remember". However anyone talking to you wouldn't know.


To think anything in this deterministic physical universe is outside of having a material cause is ridiculous.

t. 195 IQ

[Anonymous No.11674098]

>>11672214
>humans are the only conscious beings creating reality

[Anonymous No.11674105]

>>11672246
It will take you years to understand this article and you will think it is utterly preposterous at first but over time you will think you are having a schizophrenic break from reality as you slowly start to realize it is all true

http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

[Anonymous No.11674360]

>>11669999
>no definition
nice quads tho

[Anonymous No.11674362]

>>11665511
Sensation.

[Anonymous No.11674368]

>>11667459
>grug no understand big words
>grug angry

[Anonymous No.11674489]

>>11667486
>I thought philosophers could read.
Hey, don't blame this on us, we don't like this idiot anymore than you do.

[Anonymous No.11674677]

>>11665496
Another arrogant faggot who thinks hes got it all figured out.

[Anonymous No.11674718]

>>11674105
I understand immediately that this article is the wishful thinking of a schizo. Your ideas are bullshit no matter how much actual science you try to integrate. This is because you're taking the result you want and trying to work backwards instead of iterating on what is actually known. Theories which are not falsifiable are religious, not scientific.

[Anonymous No.11674758]

>>11674718
>Theories which are not falsifiable are religious, not scientific.
Out of the way, small brain pleb.

[Anonymous No.11674944]

>>11674082
t. someone who doesnt understand what a p-zombie is

[Anonymous No.11675002]

How about less name calling and more explaining.
What things are conscious?
Is a bacteria conscious?
Is a virus conscious?
Is a computer conscious?

[Anonymous No.11675046]

Easy.

A physical system is considered to be living if it can locally decrease entropy in a consistent manner over time. However, it does so in response to forces outside of the system.

A physical system is conscious if it can locally decrease entropy in a consistent manner over time and NOT NECESSARILY as a response to forces outside of the system.

[Anonymous No.11675061]

>>11674082
Nonsense. Don't conflate different things. During a blackout, when you are still awake, you experience qualia. You just don't remember them.

[Anonymous No.11675225]

>>11674082
>195 IQ
>of of

Sure anon.

All of you absolute clowns who think that the HPOC is implying that there is no physical basis for consciousness are literally arguing against a strawman. This is not what the problem implies. It's acknowledging that we don't currently know how consciousness arises given our current understanding of how the brain works. It's a problem - not an impossibility. Further research into neuroscience could well shed light on why we have the distinction between consciousness and the concept of p-zombies. As of now, this difference remains a mystery as we still don't have a firm grasp on consciousness.

My IQ is 145.

[Anonymous No.11675260]

>>11675002
Consciousness is imagined. It's cope to explain why you can't fully understand yourself. I don't think such a thing is even possible, but if you could then there wouldn't be any mystery.

[Anonymous No.11675273]

Consciousness = Imagination

[Anonymous No.11675318]

>>11674677
You're the one who thinks you figured out something about consciousness based on nothing.

[Anonymous No.11675321]

>>11674944

I do. It's an entity that is assumed to only have awareness and function but no "qualia". I describe what qualia is and how it manifests.

If you contrasts "subconscious" behavior vs "conscious" behavior the only difference is that the memory centers of the brain are actively tracking changes at a much higher slice rate.

Your "light of experience" or whatever they call it is this, and that is all.

Literally the only reason you experience what it is to be like you is because you have a memory. If you had no working memory, or say, amnesia, you wouldn't know much of what it is to be like you. If you had absolutely no short term memory your CNS would respond to pain of a needle prick, but you would definitely not have qualia of it. How could you? You wouldn't have an inner experience of anything.

As an along to persistence of vision, qualia is persistence of memory (including engrams that remember base brain hormonal response).

If you don't understand any of this, it's not your fault. Your IQ is just not great enough to put it together.


t. 195 IQ

[Anonymous No.11675325]

>>11675225

see

>>11675321

[Anonymous No.11675339]

>>11675321
What exactly has made you believe that qualia has something to do with memory?

[Anonymous No.11675356]

>>11675321
>I don't remember what happened on the 31st January 2014
>I wasnt conscioud on 31st January 2014

[Anonymous No.11675447]

>>11674718
Nah actually you are just stupid, that article is highest level CHAD brain there is which is why you will never understand it

[Anonymous No.11675449]

>>11675339

what makes you think it doesn't? You claim to not know the answer, so how could you possibly know if it's not?

Where do you think consciousness comes from?

[Anonymous No.11675458]

>>11675449
All qualia is is the subjective sensations of our mind. Memory doesnt come into it.

[Anonymous No.11675461]

>>11675447
Based retard.

[Anonymous No.11675469]

>>11675356

If you had no short term memory or were black out drunk then you weren't conscious any more than an ant is.

You were simply following the motions of cause and effect that have been wired into your behavioral system via experience (memory).

Take out all memories, immediate, short term, long term, and you have a p-zombie that is functionally aware and can respond to stimulus.

As a thought experiment, take a new born baby that has no memories to compare the present to.

You probably assume the baby has qualia because you intrinsically understand what it means to be human because you intrinsically understand that persistence of memory is (persistence of senses) what gives rise to experience and "what it feels like to be me" or "what it feels like to have my experience".

But. if this babies brain has no memory centers then it it nothing more than a hardwired genetic response automata.

t. 195 IQ

[Anonymous No.11675481]

>>11675458

Subjective sensations of the mind are the contrast of nonsensation of the mind.

If you can't remember sensation of the mind, then what do you have?

The answer is that you have no way to know that you are not a p-zombie because you aren't capable of a comparison between functional awareness and sensation of mind at all.

Meaning you ARE a p-zombie in that case.

Likewise, do you think I could be a p-zombie? Your assertion is that it is impossible to tell, which is what makes your argument invalid and non-scientfic philosophical bullshit.


t. 195 IQ

[Anonymous No.11675493]

humans arent special, qualia doesnt exist, consciousness is an illusion. youre no better or worse than anything else

[Anonymous No.11675502]

>>11675493
It's very hard for many to accept this very simple truth.

[Anonymous No.11675505]

>>11675461
drooling retard

[Anonymous No.11675550]

>>11675493
Illusion to whom? Do rocks have illusions?

[Anonymous No.11675559]

>>11675493
Very low IQ

[Anonymous No.11675573]

Even understanding what the hard problem is asking requires an IQ of at least 120 and the average /sci/ midwit has an IQ of 110.

[Anonymous No.11675581]

>>11675550
A program which attempts to make predictions with a bad model is under an illusion, and a CPU is a rock we tricked into doing computations for us. So yes.

[Anonymous No.11675604]

>>>/lit/15365133

Reminder that /lit/ tackles this question better and isn't full of dumbfucks like this board.

[Anonymous No.11675608]

I don't understand why /sci/ retards are so incapable of understanding what the hard problem is asking.
Whether or not there is free will has nothing to do with it, it doesn't change the hard problem.
Whether or not human beings are made out of matter has nothing to do with it, it doesn't change the hard problem.
Saying "humans are biological computers" doesn't nullify or solve the hard problem.
I don't understand the inability to understand from these morons.

[Anonymous No.11675632]

>>11675608
>Whether or not there is free will has nothing to do with it, it doesn't change the hard problem.
It's not directly related, but some other substance beside a materialistic one giving rise to consciousness would be an easy, very attractive answer to circumvent the determinist trap. That, or microtubules.

[Anonymous No.11675653]

>>11675608

It's because you are stupid, yet think you are the only Intelligent one. There are countless resources that describe this "problem". You and your lit buds sound like dumbasses.

https://youtu.be/C5DfnIjZPGw

Chalmers talks about it right "why is subjective experience?"

"how it is that all these processes give rise to subjective experience?"

Because you can remember it. That's it. That's all it is.

He is fallacious entirely because there is no such thing as subjectivity beyond individual experience. He also concludes "we won't describe it in a complely physical means".

He is a new age hack that literally thinks consciousness is an external field. He says consciousness is inside all physical processes. Panpsychism is what he attests to.

The fucker actually says "nobody has the answer to if an atom is conscious. but we will know in 30 years".

So, stop with the mental blocks of "nobody understands what I'm trying to say but I know I'm right"

You are just a hack.

T. 195 IQ

[Anonymous No.11675681]

>>11675653
the hard problem comes from the fact that we (yes literally everyone) finds the typical causal explanations to be unsatisfying
take nerves for instance, we can tell that certain types of nerve fibers correspond to certain types of pains and the degree, duration, location, and quality of pain can be reliably determined from what happens to which nerve (and in reverse we can diagnose ailments based on patient tesifying they have certain feelings)
the problem however with this type of explanation is that there is a discontinuity between the "space" in which nerve events happen and the "space" in which one experiences their feelings. this sense of discontinuity is not a technical problem in the explanation so much as a feeling that it involves a "black box" when the narrative shifts from one space to another. this is because we do not see our feelings as being situated / coordinated in the "physical" spatio temporal complex that houses all objects of the same type, and we do not see nerves as being situated in our "mental" spatio temporal complex that houses all objects of the same type. now you can say this is wrong but this is our paradigm and there are theoretical reasons why we prefer it over some bullshit that doesn't have this problem but which, for example, DENIES CONSCIOUSNESS

[Anonymous No.11675706]

>>11675653
Your IQ is not 195, you aren't actually smart, I am genuinely more intelligent than you, and you literally just reacted in the exact way I was describing in the post you replied to.
You are pathetic.

[Anonymous No.11675716]

>>11675653
>He is a new age hack that literally thinks consciousness is an external field. He says consciousness is inside all physical processes. Panpsychism is what he attests to.

And he is right and you are projecting you are a fucking retard hack

[Anonymous No.11675721]

>>11668190
Rock/sediment strata are natural sorting machina with gravity playing the role of the comparison function. Does that make strata conscious?

[Anonymous No.11675722]

>>11675321
>>11675469
>t. 195 IQ
>>11675481
>>11675653
literally you you spergy fucking cringe lord

[Anonymous No.11675725]

>>11675706

Says the guy that thinks consciousness is a fundamental proper of matter and/or space time.

[Anonymous No.11675735]

>>11675721

Yes, rock strata and even rivers are ontologically conscious from the consciousness field that permeates all matter.

The field of love also exists within all our hearts and you just have to accept that all the atoms are conscious.

t. hack

[Anonymous No.11675737]

>>11675681
or to illustrate the problem in the reverse, the type of explanation that will make us satisfied is one where there is a sense of "movement" from space A to space B, so that it doesn't feel like some quantum entanglement (i do not actually understand qm) where a physical event is "linked" to a mental event by a seemingly purely statistical, atheoretical explanation

or give a non dualist example, lets say we consistently measure that feeding kids some experimental drug cream causes them to respond to treatment significantly better than the control group, but nobody knows why the fuck this happens. in such a case we have two "physical" events linked by a logical connection but this connection seems to us as if mediated by a "black box". you input drug to the kid, and output is the response, nobody knows what happens "between" input and output, so there is an incomplete causal narrative. sorry if this makes no sense i'm just typing unedited

[Anonymous No.11675742]

>>11675721

That also makes gravity conscious.

and electricity.

I think this guy is on to something. How come when I stick a fork in an outlet it electrocutes me like it knows I just did that?

He is right! the only way the electricity would know what to do were if it were conscious!

t. not a retard.

[Anonymous No.11675749]

>>11675725
That's what all evidence and rational analysis indicates

[Anonymous No.11675751]

>>11675725
>lolcow.jpg
kys you fucking hack retard, go to /b/ you are way out of your league here even with the other morons here you stick out as extremely stupid

[Anonymous No.11675759]

>>11675749
what evidence

[Anonymous No.11675760]

>>11675759
you are too stupid to understand it don't worry about it

[Anonymous No.11675762]

>>11675760
don’t have any huh? figured

[Anonymous No.11675767]

>>11675751
>dude argument from authority lmao
we aren’t philosocucks here we’re not going to adopt a view just because a famous guy held it

[Anonymous No.11675775]

>>11675737
oh and one last thing. there is one case that defies the hard problem of consciousness and that is paradoxically other people. while we may be deeply unsatisfied by explanations that simply tie consciousness with brain activity, we are seamlessly able to communicate with each other without any feeling that it's strange, even though this involves multiple "transitions" from events from one's "private/mental" space to the "public/physical" and the opponent's own "private/mental" space in return, countless smooth transitions of this kind happen even in short interactions. "person" appears to be a special kind of merged or united entity, both physical and mental, basic and irreducible.

[Anonymous No.11675783]

>>11675759
The fact that every conscious entity is made from matter

[Anonymous No.11675786]

>>11675751

lol sure, keep your secret ontological or explanatory gap. It's the philosophical equivalent of God of the gaps.

I don't know how it happened? God! you cant explain god!

I don't know how consciousness is a physical manifestation? Durrr, it just exists as a fundamental thing. No need to even think about it anymore. it just is!

btw, how can you live with calling your own consciousness pathetic? we are all one in love and harmony bro. Just look at the water, it has feelings.

Is your favorite movie what the bleep?

[Anonymous No.11675787]

>>11675767
You aren't smart enough to be a philosopher

[Anonymous No.11675789]

>>11675762
>>11675767
I literally linked an article where I explain it in detail, an article I have linked been posting here for years, the very reason this thread and conversation even exists on this board in fact.

Retard number 1 in this thread already showed he couldn't understand it when he read it and the people on this board who do actually understand it, it took them about 3 years before they could process it as they used to act exactly like you are acting now. If you are too stupid to find the link in this thread why in the world would I think you would understand it especially when you are too stupid to know this isn't even a controversial position amongst people that are ACTUALLY smart while you are just LARPing like you are smart. If it wasn't in a textbook or pop sci article somewhere you have no idea wtf you are talking about in the realm of actual science. You just act a fucking fool whenever any knowledge or ideas you haven't been spoonfed is presented to you.

You are a fool, hack pseud and spergy jack ass. You are the absolute lowet tier intellect that has no business in science

[Anonymous No.11675790]

>>11675786
>Science will explain it one day!
>science of the gaps
>continuing to strawman the position and hasn't even answered the serious posts pointing out the flaw in your position.
You are seriously not smart at all it's really sad to see you posture

[Anonymous No.11675791]

>>11675789
Insofaras

I hope that guy is joking

[Anonymous No.11675794]

>>11675787
you’re right i’m far too smart desu

[Anonymous No.11675795]

>>11675783

ghosts and spirits aren't made of matter. Neither are souls.

How can you even explain a life force? There is a "gap" there, a "black box" of disconnect!

When does a body actually... die? nobody knows!

t. huge dumb faggot

[Anonymous No.11675796]

>>11675783
to add to what this post is saying. the fact that at least some matter, or matter arranged in some way, is capable of producing or being conscious, already means that we pay the ontological price of giving some matter or some arrangements of matter the property of consciousness. it's then no more expensive to give everything matter - if you can explain how some matter has it you can just use the same explanation to everything, if you can't explain it then you can't explain anything.

[Anonymous No.11675800]

>>11675789
>this isn't even a controversial position amongst people that are ACTUALLY smart
lol ok retard nice memes

[Anonymous No.11675804]

>>11675794
Saying "you are not smart enough" means your intelligence is too low to be a philosopher
You not being able to see this and thinking that your post is a witty retort just further proves you're not smart.
I can tell that your IQ is ~112. Seriously.

[Anonymous No.11675806]

>>11665494
You want us to prove conscienceness in this thread, with zero tools, zero further research, zero subjects.
Basically gonna Aristotle our way through this one, huh.

Well they don't call it "Pro"science

[Anonymous No.11675808]

>>11675796


this guy thinks pictures of people are conscious.

[Anonymous No.11675812]

>>11675795
You will never amount to anything in life, you aren't smart enough to make any lasting impact on the world and you aren't smart enough to understand very basic philosophical question.
You are worthy of pity.

[Anonymous No.11675816]

>>11675795
ghosts, spirits and souls don't exist you plebbiting fool

[Anonymous No.11675818]

>>11675804
nah it’s too high actually, philosocucks are dumb af

[Anonymous No.11675821]

>>11675818
Low IQ retort

[Anonymous No.11675822]

>>11675808
not pictures of people, people; who appear to me as a complex of both picture, sound, and other sensible qualities, as well as a feeling of mental presence. they are compound objects which consist of all of their properties, take one away and they aren't any more people than a car is a car without an engine.

[Anonymous No.11675823]

>>11675821
nah I’m right

[Anonymous No.11675824]

>>11675800
you are the biggest lol cow in this thread, you actually think just denying facts while calling other people retards is some kind of debate tactic. I mean you are a stone cold retard. You are literally the drooling brainlet meme

[Anonymous No.11675827]

>>11675816

Yeah they do, they tap into the same consciousness field that matter does bro. Your philosophical strata is eroding.

All of our experiences become part of this field and are bestowed upon matter.

How else do you explain ghosts, souls, lsd time travel, and past life experiences?

You cant, because of the "gap". There is a black "box" there bro.

[Anonymous No.11675832]

>>11675823
Pathetically low IQ, very sad to see.
I'm being serious right now anon, I feel bad for you.

[Anonymous No.11675834]

>>11675796
>it's then no more expensive to give everything matter
Nigger what. We don't give anything matter. We observe whether it's already made of matter or not

[Anonymous No.11675835]

>>11675824
>teslaposting
kek as if we needed more proof that you’re retarded. take it to >>>/x/ this is the board for science not schizos

[Anonymous No.11675836]

By trying to define consciousness we assign the values that we think consciousnesses has.
But that's what we think, not what we know.
In order to define consciousness we would have to find out how consciousness works.

[Anonymous No.11675842]

>>11675832
lol seethe more retard

[Anonymous No.11675845]

>>11675835
t, lolcow

[Anonymous No.11675846]

>>11675827
Stopped reading after the first

plebbit

spacing.

fuck

off

[Anonymous No.11675854]

>>11675834
you give in the same way that you attribute anything to anything. if i say that the number 6 is yellow, i will not be understood unless i've defined 6 as the sort of thing which can have color. on the other hand if i say that 6 is evenly divisible by 3 and this makes sense, then it will in principle make sense to say about any number that it is evenly divisible by any other number - it may be wrong, but the statement will not be nonsensical.
by the same token if some matter can in principle have consciousness or be conscious, then it requires no more explanatory work to say that all matter has it. and if some configuration of matter[...], then by the same token, all configurations of matter. this is what i mean by ontological price - the having to explain what even IS, this thing i claim to exist (a colorful number/a conscious material)

[Anonymous No.11675855]

>>11675842
Low IQ retort

[Anonymous No.11675860]

>>11675834
>>>11675796
>>it's then no more expensive to give everything matter
>Nigger what. We don't give anything matter. We observe whether it's already made of matter or not

Wrong. We give consciousness (which exists as a fundamental field) matter because consciousness is the fundamental subjective entity. Matter is merely what consciousness uses to express itself.

Consciousness is limited to the physical manifestation of that matter in which it arises and therefore the aforementioned integration of perceptual faculty thereby correlates the experiential subjectivity that a conscious organism relates to it's physical environment.

So you pathetic braindead machinations of consciousness are sad meatbags of the all pervasive consciousness. It is only I the greatest philosophical mind to come to /sci/ for the last three years who can attempt to illuminate you.

[Anonymous No.11675867]

>>11675860
Your IQ = Very Low

[Anonymous No.11675871]

>>11675855
cope

[Anonymous No.11675876]

>>11675871
Low IQ retort

[Anonymous No.11675881]

>>11675867
>>>11675860 (You)
>Your IQ = Very Low

But those letters are made of matter, so they are conscious.

What IQ does a letter have?

[Anonymous No.11675885]

>>11675876
cope

[Anonymous No.11675886]

>>11675860
>Matter is merely what consciousness uses to express itself
Okay so you're saying all matter is product of consciousness.
Where does that consciousness come from?

[Anonymous No.11675890]

>>11675860
>he doesn't think of matter as being an accident of a "physical" spatio temporal complex independent from his "mental" spatio temporal complex
do you admit that you're an anti-realist and are willing to face the ancient arguments

also read my posts if you want to see my opinion in case you have any intention of replying, starting from this >>11675681 and then i quote myself

[Anonymous No.11675897]

>>11675855
these morons are just trying to derail the thread why do you keep responding to them? It is probably a TALPIOT bot

[Anonymous No.11675905]

>>11675897
>derail a troll thead
que?

[Anonymous No.11675935]

Qualia is itself causal, so qualia is cause-and-effect neural activity.

To think otherwise is to assume, with no evidence, that consciousness is external. That is the lynchpin of the hard problem: The assumption that consciousness is independent of physical mental states.

You know the science is bunk when you have terms like "nonphysical processes of the brain".

[Anonymous No.11675953]

>>11675935
>with no evidence
I want to say this for everyone on this board just one time for al;l the morons on this thread.

Just because you don't know about it doesn't it mean it doesn't exist you ego maniacal hack. Just because you never had a class on it where someone jizzed the information into your mouth doesn't mean there aren't entire fields of science dedicated to it you stupid fucking pseuds.

Anyone who would claim something doesn't exist just because they don't know about it, something that can easily be found with minimal effort is an ego maniac and no has no business ever discussing real science.

kys you stupid fuck

[Anonymous No.11676007]

>>11675469
>>11675481
>If you can't remember sensation of the mind, then what do you have?

Not remembering it doesnt mean it didnt happen brainlet. I dont remember what I did this time a month ago, doesnt mean I wasnt conscious.

>The answer is that you have no way to know that you are not a p-zombie because you aren't capable of a comparison between functional awareness and sensation of mind at all.

The point of a p-zombie is that you are functionally the same but you just dont have subjective sensation. If you are saying someone has brain damage then you are missing the point of p-zombies. I can also say the exact same skepticism as you mentioned about other things. You cant prove youre not in a computer simulation for instance.

Honestly, youre just not understanding this at all.Youve clearly come into this thread never having seriously read or thought about the issue before.

Just think about the fact that we forget things in the past all the time. That doesnt mean we were never conscious at that point in the past. Memory and sensation have independence.

[Anonymous No.11676088]

There is nothing hard about the hard problem of consciousness. Hindu mystics solved this
made-up problem 8,000 years ago. Analytic philosophers and neuroscientists are not even
doing the catchup work; they are looking in the completely wrong direction, hunting for
grounding principles that are phantasmagorical and non-existent. They will be stuck there
forever as long as they cling to the traditional dogmas of matter and Cartesian dualism.

The brain, matter and reality itself, are insubstantial apparitions of the mind. Consciousness
itself is self-aware, self-creating and self-perpetuating. There is nothing more to it than that.
Read the Upanishads or meditate for twenty years and find out for yourself.

>>11675860

You are on the right track, but you have made a mistake by suggesting that consciousness is a
"fundamental field". Now you are going halfway back to physicalism. Consciousness is nothing like a
field you would find in QFT or relativity. There is no need to postulate any such entity.
Because consciousness is fundamental, it needs no explanation.

[Anonymous No.11676116]

>>11676088
that ontological idealism was first invented in india is true and they should get the proper credit for this rather than berekely but simply asserting idealism therefore i win is ignoring 2500 years of debate on this exact issue like a non book reading memer

[Anonymous No.11676153]

>>11675953
>no dude I don’t NEED evidence of it FEELS right
nice “real science” retard

[Anonymous No.11676171]

>>11676116
If you want to challenge this, then explain to me precisely what matter is apart from our conscious awareness of it, and why we should think it has any metaphysical status external to consciousness. Yes, Western philosophers have been trying to figure this out for hundreds of years and it has been an embarrassment. Kant basically said "I don't know, I only know what it looks like", and chalked it up to be this mysterious unknowable thing.

[Anonymous No.11676177]

>>11676116
And don't forget Descartes' cringeworthy attempts to explain physical reality as made up of inelastic balls and screws of various sizes that filled the apparent vacuum of space.

[Anonymous No.11676208]

>>11665494
Consciousness itself is an opinion.
You can't address it with facts.

[Anonymous No.11676230]

>>11676171
i think the simplest way to put it is to say that many people have an intuitive impression that one's sensory experiences correspond to an independently existing, external world; such that one believes that their parents conceived them before they were born, and that their parents existed independently from the way that they exist in the mind when one perceives them. now you will say but "intuitive impression" is just a mental existence but the problem comes from the belief that this impression is true. so then when you regard it as true you believe in mind independent existences, and when you regard it as a belief or an impression then you believe in mind-dependent existences.
the typical strategy against idealism is to say that "regarding" or "thinking about"(i.e intentionality) some x, implies that you believe x has an independent features(so even when you think about your belief as a belief, you now believe that "the belief" is independent object from the in-the-moment-believing-self) and therefore an idealist that regards others as others or things as things, is inconsistent.
a second strategy is to say that while not inconsistent on philosophical grounds, we are all so lended with a belief in an outside world and other people's minds, that seriously rejecting those things is not a livable philosophy, it can only be completely theoretical, which is a kind of defeat even greater than being logically inconsistent or incoherent.
you will note that i'm not looking to make the arguments so much as describe how they work because i don't think i can settle this controversy. i am being a nice person. if you insist on being autistic then it's sufficient to assert that
>If you want to challenge this,
there is nothing to challenge since you have made no fucking argument. but please ignore this last bit if you're not actually autistic

[Anonymous No.11676242]

>>11676208
You're giving up. You only appeal to "opinions" because you have no fucking clue.

[Anonymous No.11676275]

>>11676088

>Because consciousness is fundamental, it needs no explanation.


queue clown car music and philosophical printer.

[Anonymous No.11676426]

>many people have an intuitive impression that one's sensory experiences correspond to an
independently existing, external world
So what? A physicist can have an intuitive impression that every body has a center of mass.
There is no such thing as a center of mass. It is a hallucination, made up for the purpose of
solving a problem. When I dream, I have the intuitive impression that my dream figures are real
people talking to me. There are no such figures.
>a second strategy is to say that while not inconsistent on philosophical grounds, we are all so
lended with a belief in an outside world and other people's minds, that seriously rejecting those
things is not a livable philosophy
I do not reject the existence of the world or other minds. I reject the notion that their existence is,
in fact, separate. I contend that reality is basically God with a bad case of dissociative identity
disorder. You and I are just dreams in God’s mind.
>there is nothing to challenge since you have made no fucking argument
I have claimed that consciousness is fundamental by fiat. There is no further explanation of
consciousness, but matter is explainable as a kind of consciousness. If you take matter as
fundamental, then there is no further explanation of matter. Problem is, consciousness is not
explainable in terms of matter. All you are doing is correlating different types of consciousness.
That is why everybody on this forum is spinning their wheels so hard trying to figure this out.
If you want to take matter as fundamental, that is fine. But then you have to answer:
> what matter is, apart from our conscious awareness of it
> why we should think it has any metaphysical status external to consciousness
To date, I have no seen anyone give anything even approaching an answer to these questions.
I am not convinced the “physical world” is anything more than a convenient fiction,
epistemologically useful but metaphysically vacuous.

[Anonymous No.11676434]

>>11676426
Wow, I completely fucked up that formatting. My bad.

[Anonymous No.11676499]

>>11672401
>your point of view

what is "your point of view"

[Anonymous No.11676539]

>>11676426
>So what?
very big problem this intuition, since we are absolutely lended with its credibility. the physicist can dispose of all of his notions, but he can't have any notions without except space and time. this intuition is precious to such a degree that-
>>we are all so lended with a belief in an outside world and other people's minds
>I do not reject the existence of the world or other minds.
-you were forced to drop the "outside" out of an inability reject the world, but this is a joke. "merely" reducing the world to your perception does nothing less than totally annihilating it in the same way that dream world is annihilated when one realizes that they are dreaming.
i will remind you that this-
>The brain, matter and reality itself, are insubstantial apparitions of the mind.
is quite unambiguous. it is also radically different from:
>I contend that reality is basically God with a bad case of dissociative identity
disorder.
because in this view, all the people and all the stuff very clearly exists quite independently from whether or not one(namely, you, since i'm just dreamspirit, evidently) perceives them(or any other human for that matter).
don't play semantic games around this. when we speak without further specificity about things happening "in the mind", it obviously means in one's own phenomenal reality, (and if you're gracious enough to admit other minds, then in their own respective phenomenal realities). that is to say: when i say that my monitor exists in the mind, i mean precisely to say that i perceive it, not that it's stored in God's mind-independently existing ram disk.

you're inconsistent about whether or not things can exist outside of your mind. if the answer is yes, then there can be yourmind-independent existences, and you a a realist. you may well be an idealist realist, but you should say so at least.

[Anonymous No.11676636]

>>11676499
A place where a certain restricted set of experiences exists. The set isn't observable from the outside.