[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 9 KB, 238x192, 1613956199148.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12760942 No.12760942 [Reply] [Original]

How does it work because it makes no sense in terms of our science

>> No.12760971
File: 101 KB, 585x675, 9AD70DE5-F369-4350-9693-F4DE10ED2B52.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12760971

>>12760942
I think to define that question. You first haha be to define what thoughts are. Are they words or images? If I imagine an image in my head is the appropriate region in the brain stimulated? And is this same thing that happens if I see a rela image of said thing? And how does my brain know the difference of when I’m seeing a real object be when I’m imagining something? What causes these thoughts to arise in the first place? Like what causes them to appear in a controlled logical flow, as opposed to just random? Like when I’m in a dream, I don’t feel like I’m in control and thoughts just bounce around pretty much randomly. But when I’m awake I feel like I have free will over my thoughts. How are these two things different?

>> No.12760992

>>12760942
Unless you're willing to spend the rest of your life developing the science and apparatus to determne how the human brain produces phenomena like consciousness self-awareness and cognition, your question belongs on a philosophy board not a science board because we do not have the technology to determine what causes these phenomena.

>> No.12761090

>>12760942
can someone explain to me how the fuck consciousness is not real according to ndt and daniel dennett

>> No.12761137
File: 87 KB, 1024x702, aqh46.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12761137

>>12760971
>But when I’m awake I feel like I have free will over my thoughts.
Emphasis on the word feel. There are two options: your thoughts are based on electric signals and chemistry (the scientific view) or they are based on the will of a deity (the religious view). Let's add a third option: they are completely fucking random (the chaotic view) In any case, your thoughts are predetermined or random. What exactly are you choosing on your free will? How is your "will" not based on earlier events and the laws of physics, none of which you are currently controlling?

I do agree with you that it feels like I control my thoughts. But with reasoning, I can conclude that this is just an illusion.

>> No.12761311
File: 103 KB, 858x649, 1577733992230.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12761311

>>12761137
>with reasoning, I can conclude that this is just an illusion.
But your reasoning would be illusory too and you can't trust conclusions reached by it.
>>12761090
They're retards. Dennett says you don't have to have real conscious awareness with qualia and everything, you can just have the belief that you have it and that would be the same thing to you. But then he doesn't explain how you're aware of your beliefs so it's basically "you don't have thoughts you just think you do."

>> No.12761351
File: 28 KB, 459x668, images (23).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12761351

>>12760942
Where does a question come from and where does an answer go? If not from me and to me in the divine self, then obviously all I am doing is participating in some message courier service and doing my part by passing messages along instead of complaining about the fact that no matter how or why one exists, things other than me exist and I respect all things able to form information unique and seperate from me by passing the message along as it was presented to me.

Basically I don't bother opening divine mail, unless somehow it is 100% supposed to be for me. How the reality, universe, consciousness, spirit, or whatever else wants to prove that to me though is up to them. I am divinely allowed to reject anything that doesn't definitively prove itself as ADDRESSED TO ME, ONLY ME, AND SUBMITS FULLY TO WHAT I DO WITH THAT FUCKING MESSAGE!

Preferably just refer to me by name. Y'know, state your business and I will process it asap! All requests for me to suffer though get a big ol' RETURN TO SENDER!

>> No.12761374

>>12760942
The very act of interaction of one thing with the other for interacting with itself

>> No.12762302

if you duplicate a man, every atom of him, and kill the original, what exactly do you lose?
the new man has the exact same memory and then probably the same consciousness, yet for the original man, it's equal to death. how is such a thing possible?

>> No.12762590

>>12762302
It's impossible thanks to Pauli exclusion principle

>> No.12763829

>>12761311
God I hate materialists.