There is no "hard problem of consciousness".

File: 60 KB, 500x500, Joscha Bach.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

There is no "hard problem of consciousness". Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:45:06 2022 No.14693616 [Reply] [Original]

There is no "hard problem of consciousness". The objective properties of a self-aware agent that possesses general intelligence translate 1:1 to our subjective experience of consciousness.
Every aspect of the conscious experience can be explained by being self-aware within your internal model of reality.
After listening to some pic related, who seems to have a somewhat similar view, I have arrived at this (pseudo?)thought experiment:

Instead of asking pointless questions about phenomenal consciousness, just assume you are a researcher that has no concept of consciousness at all. You are investigating another agent, and you know that he has an internal model of the world and itself, a general intelligence to navigate the model and self-awareness. You ask him :"what is the color blue? How would you describe it? What does blueness feel like?" What would happen in the mind of such agent, while trying to answer your question? Blue would surely seem very real for him. It would also be distinct and different from other colors. But in no way could it describe the sensation to you, because it's purely a part of it's internal model of reality, that can't be translated for the external world. An objective description of exactly what qualia is.

To have any further insight on exactly why this objective process results in a subjective sensation (because it obviously does), you would need some deep knowledge on "what does it exactly mean for the universe to compute something?", which I'm not sure is within the reach of human thought at all... but the important part is that objective self-awareness does translate 1:1 to subjective consciousness, without any extra conditions required.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:48:50 2022 No.14693631

>>14693616
We’ll discover the solution when we can manipulate our own brains and observe the results. Though it would be funny if one day someone did this and accidentally turned off their consciousness but still acted as if they were conscious, effectively becoming an NPC, and convinced everyone else to do the same, so that everyone became NPC’s

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:51:16 2022 No.14693642 >>14693616 >There is no "hard problem of consciousness". That's just a pseud way to spell "I have no consciousness". Way to go removing yourself from every discussion on the subject. Not reading the rest of your shart.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:52:43 2022 No.14693649

>>14693616
Listen to Thomas Metzinger. Way better than this dude, and he isn't being shilled as hard by the mainstream media and big tech. Also, I heard of Thomas Metzinger literally years before I heard of Joscha Bach. Check out this lecture on "minimal phenomenal self models" by Metzinger:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f4ykI9har8

That being said, I tend to agree with you, even I'm not a materialist.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 21:55:01 2022 No.14693652

>>14693649
>he isn't being shilled as hard by the mainstream media and big tech.
>Also, I heard of Thomas Metzinger literally years before I heard of Joscha Bach

Which I mentioned, by the way, just because it makes me think he has more relevance to the field, and that his notoriety is more organic and merit-based.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:03:37 2022 No.14693683 >>14693649 thanks dude, will check out

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:13:08 2022 No.14693711
File: 317 KB, 814x1280, 1658614354933.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14693616
>There is no "hard problem of consciousness"
>you would need some deep knowledge ... which I'm not sure is within the reach of human thought at all
The absolute state of brainlet OP contradicting his own shallow deepities in the same fucking post

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:21:07 2022 No.14693735 >>14693616 It depends what the cognitive architecture of the agents looks like. We can't really "explain" qualia (creation) because it's a lower level neural process. >But in no way could it describe the sensation to you wrong

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:29:21 2022 No.14693763

>>14693616
I feel like I have handily redefined consciousness in an inclusive and reference-frame independent way that doesn’t leave too much room for navel gazing philosophical questions.

>Consciousness is easily described as a type of awareness.
>An awareness of what exactly, has a plethora of answers depending on the body in which the awareness is present, for example humans have an awareness of something called a memory
>Generally, the most motivating and persistent kind of awareness is an awareness of one’s impending demise, that as some point the body in which the awareness resides will degrade and decay into a lesser (read: physically smaller) body or bodies
>With this understanding of awareness, it’s evident that all objects in the universe are conscious insofar as they are aware of their death, and act in such a way to either delay or accelerate the event’s passing
>Atomic nuclei, man, and stars, the smallest to the largest scales of what could be considered a body, act in such a way that reveals this type of awareness of death, by the acts which sustain them (strong nuclear force, survival, thermonuclear fusion) and those which accelerate their demise (nuclear decay, suicide, stellar core collapse)
I hope this is of use to somebody

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:31:54 2022 No.14693773 >>14693763 Is color an awareness?

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:32:01 2022 No.14693774
File: 160 KB, 1080x739, 1654636408245.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14693616
Alright OP, here's a thought experiment underlining the hardness of the hard problem.

Imagine you're talking to a person who refuses to tell you their preferred pronouns. How would you find out their gender? You have all scientific knowledge and tools at your hand. Good luck.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:33:24 2022 No.14693778

>>14693711
Well kinda (and partially on purpose) but not exactly, if you are bothered to actually engage intellectually instead of being an asshole. But I get it, I was your age on 4chan at some point.

You can explain why a person makes certain statements about consciousness, thus have an objective picture of it.

You can never experience the consciousness of another. To paraphrase Kurzweil, even if some future neuralink tech will allow you to directly feel the emotions of another, it will still remain your own conscious experience.

You can perfectly understand how a higher level phenomena like consciousness can emerge in a materialistic reality, just by understanding that through the flow of time and increase on entropy complex computational systems can emerge from simple matter.

Than your hard problem might still remain, but it is in the same class of problems as
>why does anything exist at all?
>why does the universe obey mathematical rules?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:34:30 2022 No.14693781 >>14693763 You've explained "consciousness", but now you have to explain awareness. We have a new hard problem: "the hard problem of awareness".

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:36:19 2022 No.14693784 >>14693763 OP here, could have predicted a dude like this would come around.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:38:35 2022 No.14693789

>>14693773
that’s a good question anon. color is an effect produced by a photon, and in my ontology the photon is a body and all bodies necessarily have awareness. but I don’t think color itself would. this is similar to asking if gravity has an awareness, but it is merely the effect of a massive body. the awareness lies in the body, I’ve sort of borrowed a little from gnostic myth here in that awareness and its place in the body is not unlike the essence of god being trapped in the demiurge’s material creations

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:39:18 2022 No.14693790 >>14693778 >the hard problem is ... le hard Wow, thanks for this groundbreaking insight

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:40:24 2022 No.14693794

>>14693781
I suppose this is a valid question, but I admittedly default to a solipsistic answer. you already know what awareness is and language cannot adequately describe it in the same sense that awareness itself cannot adequately describe what it is aware of

>>14693784
should I leave?

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:40:42 2022 No.14693795

>>14693778
>why does anything exist at all?
Because existence is simply the default. If things needed a reason to exist, than something would have to give a reason for the reason to exist and so on. However, for things not to exists we can give reasons.
>why does the universe obey mathematical rules?
How could it now? The existence of structure implies the existence of logic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:42:18 2022 No.14693800 >>14693795 *not

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:43:33 2022 No.14693804 >>14693763 Amazing. This post made me realize we're all made of star dust.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:45:32 2022 No.14693809 >>14693804 You should become a star child and start collecting crystals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:47:06 2022 No.14693813 >>14693789 >color is an effect produced by a photo name the si unit that measures color then

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:48:35 2022 No.14693815 >>14693789 a world full of "bodies" is a misrepresentation of modern physics

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:49:02 2022 No.14693816 >>14693813 isn’t it measured in nm?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:49:28 2022 No.14693817 >>14693789 How many colors are you right now?

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:50:49 2022 No.14693822

>>14693815
I’m describing my own schizo ontology anon, it merely borrows language from physics in addition to theology and astronomy, etc. some day I’d like to put it all in a book but I’m sure I’d like to die immediately after so as not to be subject to undue praise or derision (the latter of which already happened itt)

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:51:02 2022 No.14693824

>>14693790
It's painfully obvious you are not reacting to my stupidity, but trying very hard to be a smug cunt on the internet. Can you please trust me I'm not at the stage in my life where I care as much as you think, and kindly just fuck off?

Yes, it's actually pretty groundbreaking to shift the question in such a way, that it removes 99% of existing potential explanations.
If you've established that an objective phenomena creates the subjective phenomena without any additional conditions required, you can stop looking for your quantum effects, magical mathematical formulas and souls to explain how consciousness works.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:51:56 2022 No.14693826 >>14693631 Lol. Reminds me of a Rick and mortal adventure. Im gonna turn that exposition into a short story.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:51:57 2022 No.14693827 >>14693616 Here'a my take : Objectivity doesn't exist. Particles do not exist. It's subjectivity all the way down. The universe is a blur of formless information.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 22:58:21 2022 No.14693837

Here's the rub:

If you admit to yourself how physics is just a construction of the human mind in terms of a representation, a reference frame built inside an observer.

Then the hard problem dissipates.

Because I am not obligated to reconcile reality with a tool..

Thats what physics is... a tool, a model.

It has no ontology.
It is more or less completely enactive. Rules for living, rules for acting, rules for mathematizing... what to do or say next.

All knowledge is about what to do or say next and so all ontology is illusory.
All concepts are deflated in the dynamic structure of our experience... what to do or say next...

Defining reality is about... what to do or say next...

But reality is objective?
Well our experiences are not. They are epistemically constrained.

It follows that some concepts cannot be titally explicated in our subjective reality. We are limited. The truth is limited... deflationary, some extent pragmatic, coherentist...

What to do or say next...

So you see friends there is no ontology.
Physics is a tool

There is no hard problem
Only the hard problem of why do things exist... which is a under munchausens trilemma, under carollian regress... becomes... futile... at some point.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:00:31 2022 No.14693845

>>14693795
>>14693795
I am not trying to be an asshole, but it's hard for me to respond, as I don't even understand in what way you think these are the answers to the presented questions

>If things needed a reason to exist, than something would have to give a reason for the reason to exist and so on
You must have thought I'm making an argument about god and in your confusion used a counter-argument that makes no sense at all. Most things around us have a reason to exist, and the things before them and so on.

How could it now? The existence of structure implies the existence of logic.
Yes, logic exists in the universe, and it's an observed phenomena that can't be explained. Since Kurt Gödel we know this factually.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:02:24 2022 No.14693850

>>14693778
Are you meditating?
I was born into 'nice' circumstances ... I missen nothing and through this open doors everywhere, but let me tell you - nothing is like getting into the shallow depths of your concsiousness.

Mediate. There's nothing like it. It's hard to describe I know. Just do it. Everyday. There's nothing like it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:04:46 2022 No.14693858 >>14693826 Good luck explaining to the audience that consciousness was lost, as it can’t be proven

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:07:07 2022 No.14693862 >>14693845 Some people say "a god" is the reason anything exists at all, yes.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:08:30 2022 No.14693867

does entanglement evades p-zombie arguments?

perhaps, if one notes that p-zombie behaviour is based on correlations.
entanglement is just correlations.
so the whole thing becomes a tautology.
this ofcourse is predicated on:

1) scale free quantum models of reality that can be applied to brains

2) cementing the conditions upon which it is NECESSARY that statistics is REQUIRED to be explained by quantum mechanics...

you see both probability and quantum information can be proved to be reducuible to outgrowths of a single generalized probability theory... it falls out directly from statistics and formalized description, not as a purely empirical thing. quantum theory is just another type of probability, perhaps then another type of just general math for describing a complicated system probabilistically.

we need proper models of p-zombies, where we can see the interplay of classical, quantum and generaliseed probabilitt.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:09:43 2022 No.14693871 >>14693845 logic is not a single thing. logic is pluralistic, nihilistic. logical laws routinely fail. saying the universe has logic built into it is a fallacy. we create logic and impose it on the universe

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:11:42 2022 No.14693873

>>14693845
It depends on what you consider a valid answer to the question "why does anything exist at all?". Yes, nothing could have ever existed at all, but that isn't the case. Asking "Why" only makes sense, if existence is already the default. The answer could also be: "because logic can't be broken".

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:12:23 2022 No.14693875

>>14693616
Your brain isn't your consciousness, you have a soul (personality-holder) and a spirit (awareness-holder), your eyes allow you to see this material world, but that doesn't mean you should identify yourself as being literally your eyes, they are just mere tools, not the actual you, the same go for the brain

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:15:15 2022 No.14693883 >>14693858 Good point, though not every story is an awsnered question and an easy thing for every peasant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:19:38 2022 No.14693895 >>14693867 >does entanglement evades p-zombie arguments? biggest pop sci-fi sentence i've read this week, shouldn't you be in the movies business?

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:20:05 2022 No.14693896

>>14693616
I remember watching an interview with Bach and he said the most brainlet shit about how the universe can't be continuous because he couldn't figure out a way to program it on a turing machine. Rather than just realizing the clear answer (that the universe is not computable on a turing machine) he went on some weird ramble that sounded almost like a finitist.
anyway this guy is a brainlet. He came out with some theory of consciousness in 2009 which was a failure and he's never recovered.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:22:24 2022 No.14693903

>>14693867
OP here, I am not even sure you can have a p-zombie (if it has human comprehension). It's a creature animated by our imagination, based on arbitrary assumptions (intelligent, displays awareness, isn't conscious). My line of thinking implies these are simply contradictory assumptions.

>>14693837
this
>>14693827
and partially this too

Yes, math and physics is just us formalizing how our internal model of reality behaves. I do think that objective and persistent reality exists and our brains exist within it, but this is not exactly what our formal models probe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:23:50 2022 No.14693907 >>14693816 That's the wavelength. You were talking about the effect.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:25:22 2022 No.14693909 >>14693907 color is the effect of the specific wavelength of a photon, did you really think this was gonna be a gotcha? can you just say what you wanna say instead of larping as columbo?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:26:45 2022 No.14693912 >>14693896 >the universe is a magic meme machine with infinite resolution found the brainlet

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:27:50 2022 No.14693915 >>14693912 >continuous = magic you are a severe brainlet moron.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:30:05 2022 No.14693920

>>14693896
information is discrete all the way down. continuity is jist a coarse-graining of fundamentally discretized processes of measurement. youll see this in the fact that quantum mechanics is fundamentslly discrete. infornation theory is fundamentslly discrete. observation happens discretely. a yes or no. did i see something, did i not?

and you see in the end. there is only map, no territory. we cannot see territory. epistemically caged. no such thing as an unseen tree. no measurement or obaervation without an observer.

so at the end of tje day discretization MUST be fundamental.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:32:07 2022 No.14693925

>>14693920
This universe is strictly greater than a turing machine. It's not a hard thing to accept. What it means is that our description of nature/any model we can make about the universe (which will always be written with computable math i.e. math on a Turing machine) will always be insufficient and can never describe to arbitrary precision all phenomena in the universe.
The turing machine binds our ability to know things, it does not bind the set of things that exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:32:09 2022 No.14693926 >>14693909 And force is the effect of a mass moving yet it isn't mass.

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:33:18 2022 No.14693932

>>14693920
>and you see in the end. there is only map, no territory. we cannot see territory.
you contradicted yourself. for me it’s the second sentence. the territory exists but is inaccessible to humans. like being permanently locked inside a camera obscura with an aperture firmly out of reach. we cannot know the true nature of the thing projecting the image

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:33:47 2022 No.14693933 >>14693895 nothing pop sci about it. if quantum theory is inherently related to consciousness whether as a theory about reality or a theory about observation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:36:52 2022 No.14693941 >>14693932 thanks for making it obvious that you are actually retarded

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:37:25 2022 No.14693943 >>14693941 nothing he said is wrong

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:37:28 2022 No.14693944

>>14693896
Never saw the interview or have heard the statement, but I can already extrapolate the sound reasoning for such a statement, even by just reading it in your retarded ramble. It would be hard for a system that can't be programed on a turing machine to itself hide some higher-level language and self-reflection, but it can contain some pockets of stuff capable of computation (human brains).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:39:55 2022 No.14693950 >>14693944 it would not be hard at all

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:40:23 2022 No.14693951

>self-awareness
To become aware of a "self" a consciousness must have formed an image of a self to become aware of. I am not sure we can say that the awareness (conscious experience) and the self the awareness is aware of (ego or whatever you wanna call it) are equivalent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:40:42 2022 No.14693953 >>14693903 yes sure things exist we can guess but to talk about that is still to be caught in a regression of maps hence why it is subjectivity all the way down.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:43:54 2022 No.14693962 >>14693867 P zombies just were a way to illustrate the hard problem of consciousness, they were never meant to be seen as a real thing

Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:46:03 2022 No.14693964

>>14693932
i dont see it as contradiction if the territory is completely indeterminate. there can be no territory as a concept. once the territory is understood it is no longer territory but a map. even when you say the word "territory" its not clear what you are referring to... indeterminate. the word "territory" just has a use that makes conversation easier. there is no true nature of reality then because a "true nature" conceivable to us is a map.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:49:07 2022 No.14693970 >>14693925 universe is not actually greater than a turing machine since a turing machine has infinite memory. anything a turing machine has problems computing is not due to precision.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:52:30 2022 No.14693975 >>14693970 The universe is not a computer. Can a turing machine operate on qualia?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:52:52 2022 No.14693976 >>14693964 I unironically believe “the territory” is God. I concede that this does not grant access to it or make it tangible but I believe it exists nonetheless

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 23 23:58:23 2022 No.14693988 >>14693649 Go the Buddhist route if you're interested in him, as there will be more depth knowledge from that front, which Metzinger draws from.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 00:04:21 2022 No.14693995

>>14693951
No, you are simply wrong. Self-awareness is something well defined semantically and mathematically, that humans can easily comprehend and have successfully programmed into machines.
You just need an agent within a model of reality (of any kind or size, does not need to be very intelligent) that has a memory and can recognize it's own actions within the model.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 00:08:24 2022 No.14694001

>>14693951
>>14693995
You do however accidently point out my mistake, as perhaps awareness is sufficient for some rudimentary form of consciousness, and self-awareness might not be required.
So just a model of reality and recognition of events happening in the model MIGHT be sufficient

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 01:03:44 2022 No.14694114 >>14693616 This is panpsychism Panpsychism is obviously correct

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 01:08:04 2022 No.14694127 >>14693995 No you don't.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 01:08:40 2022 No.14694129 >>14693616 Yeah it's not a "problem" because it merely is an unfalsifiable statement.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 01:26:25 2022 No.14694171

>>14694114
It is or it isn't. Maybe you could assign some "internal" state to all kinds of information processing happening in the universe, but it would be so different from our experience it's almost pointless to consider.

And I think there might be a statistical argument against panpsychism. Might be, because I don't have a background in math and my reasoning might be retarded. But the argument would be that computation is happening all the time, all around the universe. Yet you currently happen to find yourself to be a human, who also happens to have an intelligence and a complex brain created in the process of evolution. If everything is conscious, it's a weird fucking coincident that "I" happen to be this conscious experience at the moment, isn't it? "I" could very well be two atoms colliding inside a random star.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 01:29:45 2022 No.14694183 >>14694171 Alfred North Whiteheads Process and Reality theory explains how this works. I am not able to summarize it here so I suggest you read it, but it directly addresses the issues you raise.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 01:46:08 2022 No.14694207 >>14694171 coincidences happen. people do win the lottery ya know and lots of people dont win. as long as all the outcomes are accounted for then i dont see the problem

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 01:59:53 2022 No.14694244

>>14694207
At some probabilities it certainly becomes problem.

It's reasonable and scientific to assume that as a conscious thing, you are also the most common type of conscious thing that there is.
Alternatively tough you can postulate you are just the most common conscious thing that has an understanding of it's consciousness.

But I have considered if reasoning this leaves us at panpsychism after all, so I get your reasoning. I just think the term "panpsychism" may cause too many misconceptions with people and ideas about atoms with feelings and sensations.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 02:00:56 2022 No.14694247 >>14694244 *this reasoning

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 02:18:05 2022 No.14694279 >>14693642 /thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 02:20:59 2022 No.14694284 >>14693827 so basically idealism which leads to theism. theism and idealism won when quantum mechanics was discovered. when are gaytheist going to catch up?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 02:26:04 2022 No.14694298 >>14694284 god doesnt exist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 02:32:28 2022 No.14694310 >>14694284 Wishful thinking of humans is the only thing that leads to theism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 02:41:12 2022 No.14694333 >>14694298 cope

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 03:30:06 2022 No.14694396
File: 8 KB, 229x173, 1403640868183.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

wudn't it b funi if there was aliens that literally interpreted language and cummed 2 earth and saw some retbrd cumplaning aboat the problem of conscienceness cause lol the aliens would think the issue is humans being conscience of b'ing alive
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 04:04:39 2022 No.14694461 >>14693616 >There is no "hard problem of consciousness". Correct and trivial. Not reading the rest of your post

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 04:13:10 2022 No.14694480 >>14693642 Concession accepted.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 04:54:50 2022 No.14694566
File: 87 KB, 1280x720, Denpa teki na Kanojo - OVA_02 37.27.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Qualia is observation from the perspective of consciousness, and consciousness emerged due to relativity when the agent acts as an adversarial system drawing a line between itself and environment, then judges environment from its own perspective and organizes its consciousness as a self-centered system.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 05:03:19 2022 No.14694578 >>14694461 OK thank you, please keep us informed on other things that are and aren't on your schedule, random internet person.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 07:43:16 2022 No.14694911 >>14693824 >if you ignore the question you don't need to look for an answer anymore Another groundbreaking insight. Give this man a Nobel prize.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 07:50:00 2022 No.14694929 >>14693616 Ah its another „lets define consciousness as something that isn’t consciousness so the hard problem goes away“ episode. Your thought experiment does what exactly? An agent would mostly talk about associations with the colour.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 07:53:19 2022 No.14694941 >>14693763 >i have perfectly exained consciousness! >it’s actually awareness and some mumbojumbo about mortality >proceeds not to explain awareness Congratulations, retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 07:56:24 2022 No.14694949 >muh consciousness is soooo mysterious >it's literally a HARD problem bro Shut the fuck up already retard

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 07:59:35 2022 No.14694954

>>14693867
Id tell you to take your mods but you arent a shizo, just a pseud that spews buzzwords.
Entanglement has nothing to do with the thought experiment (read: not real thing) that are p-zombies.
Abd they dont need to be explained, they are just a tool to explain a certain view of consciousness.
Irrad the Wikipedia on entanglement, its much less complicated than you think, its only the effects that arise from it that are spooky.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 08:04:23 2022 No.14694961 >>14693933 >t. yet another dumbfuck scammed by deepak chopra

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 08:35:11 2022 No.14695033 >>14693616 the framework of this universe is "I Am", " I exist", an the realization of that

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 10:05:11 2022 No.14695214 >>14693616 >hurr durr there is no such thing as consciousness to reject the hard problem is to deny the existence of consciousness

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 10:08:56 2022 No.14695227 >>14695214 You say that as though it's a religious dogma no one is allowed to dispute. Curious.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 10:12:58 2022 No.14695237 >>14695227 no, it is tautologically true.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 10:13:22 2022 No.14695238 >>14695227 Behaviorists and radica reductionists literally do tho.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 15:32:55 2022 No.14695811

>>14693616
This doesn't explain why there's a gap between the translation of information between the 'internal model' of 'blueness' with the experience of 'blue.' There is a distinction between your information, and the information which implies there is a translation or conversion occurring. They literally just threw word salad at it until they obfuscated the question away... Typical academia bullshit. We have the answer just tenure me first. k thx bai.
>Proin eget ante pellentesque, posuere ipsum vel, venenatis est. Phasellus consectetur accumsan diam et gravida. Curabitur scelerisque felis in dui finibus, eu auctor elit efficitur. Vivamus eget lobortis arcu, sed suscipit nisi. Nunc eget neque vitae augue egestas facilisis. Sed in fermentum ex. Pellentesque in faucibus urna. Donec in libero eget augue hendrerit ultrices at tristique lectus. Vivamus pellentesque eleifend dui, feugiat pharetra ex placerat vel. Fusce efficitur ullamcorper urna, sed placerat massa pulvinar vel. Vestibulum facilisis neque leo, vel laoreet odio gravida eu. Aliquam eget varius augue, nec varius diam. Quisque accumsan augue posuere leo gravida suscipit. Quisque at tellus quam. Nulla euismod turpis eu leo sollicitudin, et imperdiet erat bibendum; And that's why there's no hard problem of consciousness.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 15:54:11 2022 No.14695851

>>14694929
>An agent would mostly talk about associations with the colour.
Oh, you mean exactly like a typical human?
>>14694911
Every objective property of consciousness is objectively explained. The whole "mystery" revolves around the fact that you can't assign a meaningful objective description to the internal language of your world model, because for you qualia are on the level of abstraction that is below the objective comprehension of the world, and not the other way around.
The fact that you just can't wrap you head around ideas put out in this thread in no reason to keep ranting like a fucking baby, retard.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:09:46 2022 No.14695891 >>14695851 You don't need to repeat your explanation on why you think the hard problem is hard. We already got it the first time. We're just making fun of you believing that stating its hardness would somehow resolve the problem.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:12:14 2022 No.14695903
File: 239 KB, 1000x1497, buffy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14695811
>This doesn't explain why there's a gap between the translation of information between the 'internal model' of 'blueness' with the experience of 'blue.'

Blue is some property in your internal model that can be assigned to a surface, that is different than red or green or no color at all. The mental model of you and the mental model of blue are constructed out of the same "language", that is built on top of the structure of your brain and the information processing that happens within it. There is probably (almost) no limit for what the sensation of blue can be made to be, if all it is is just a model of reality reflecting on itself in some internal programming language.

I have shared your perspective for many years, until I've listened to some people smarter than me, gave the whole thing a deep thought and realized how stupid it is to seek a "formula for blue", instead of actually tackling the problem from an objective perspective.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:18:59 2022 No.14695925

>>14695891
>You don't need to repeat your explanation on why you think the hard problem is hard. We already got it the first time. We're just making fun of you believing that stating its hardness would somehow resolve the problem.
>You don't need to repeat your explanation on why you think the hard problem is hard.
Having an IQ of a turtle, watching a few "sciency" youtube videos and trying to boost your ego on 4chan with all that + some failed smugness must be an exciting life for you. Now that you've explained to me that you're ALL laughing at me, I'm in the corner crying.

It's not a hard problem, it's a fake problem. Spend some time trying to understand what you've read here, relax, try posting later.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:23:46 2022 No.14695932 >>14695925 It makes no sense that you project your lack of education onto me. If you want a good proof of how it isn't a "fake problem", just read your own posts where you did a mediocre job explaining its difficulty and thus refuting your own point.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:26:05 2022 No.14695937 >>14693616 shit that’s one ugly motherfucker

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:27:33 2022 No.14695941 The amount of zealots that are hellbent on denying that consciousness has a non-physical property is unreal, y'all want to forfeit your soul that much?

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:46:00 2022 No.14695976

>>14695932
I have stated that the properties of consciousness and every single thing that it "does" are already perfectly objectively explained. Yes, I have added the point that the "mystery" of why this translates to a subjective experience, instead of resulting in p-zombies simply recognizing and claiming that they have consciousness, computing in some abstract void can be now only relegated to the question of "what does is actually mean for the universe to compute something"; but no meaningful answers will be found in things like quantum tunneling or IIT. There is no mechanism behind it to be found that is separate from simple awareness.

Boy, if only I could change the title of this thread to something less definitive! I bet that if only I did that, you would intellectually engage and not be a sad, smug cunt on the internet. I can understand your butthurt, the ego concept is clearly a close one for you.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:51:20 2022 No.14695985

>>14695976
Yes, the hard problem is not amenable to science. This is known to everyone who at least read the Wikipedia page. Do you have other trivial factoids you want to present as if they were novel insights? Perhaps make a discussion about water being wet?

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 16:56:37 2022 No.14695994

>>14695985
>Yes, the hard problem is not amenable to science. This is known to everyone who at least read the Wikipedia page.
I've had some interest in breaking through your trolling to engage in further discussion out of boredom. Thanks for making it obvious that you are retarded, I can go grab a coffee now.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 17:26:08 2022 No.14696048
File: 50 KB, 413x243, d8b.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14695811
>They literally just threw word salad at it until they obfuscated the question away
exactly. i find them completely insincere. i honestly think that these people are atheists who got carried away with debunking religion, and now they feel like there is literally no mystery in existence whatsoever so conscious must be DEBOOOOONKED as well

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 17:28:01 2022 No.14696052 >>14695994 consciousness is not a subject of empirical inquiry. cry harder

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:06:35 2022 No.14696164 >>14696048 There are approximately 5 scientists on the planet "carried away with debunking religion", the rest have decided how stupid your religion is around the age of twelve, and now they just avoid retards like you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:07:41 2022 No.14696166 >>14696164 I never specified "scientist" dont put words in my mouth. >5 scientists on the planet "carried away with debunking religion" yea, and one of them is Daniel Dennett. Therefore my point stands.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:23:08 2022 No.14696224
File: 261 KB, 200x150, lel.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14696166
Sure your point stands. All those people trying to explain a natural phenomenon, they must be so fucking butthurt about your little fantasies. All the other phenomena that you couldn't possibly explain without god, like the existence of life, that have already been explained? It must only increase their butthurt.
Keep reking and pwning, theistfag.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:26:18 2022 No.14696239 >>14696224 i am a more militant atheist than you could imagine. consciousness is still a mystery. you will one day realize your folly.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 18:45:27 2022 No.14696287

>consciousness is just what it "Feels like" to process information
>consciousness is an emergent phenomenon
All of these explanations come from people grappling with their inability to let go of their secret Dualism.
Dennet, Joscha Bach, all these types of dudes are dualists and have been word-salading their way around confronting that for years. This is why these debates go in circles around and around again, because these guys cannot resolve their dualism.

Dennett gives himself away so obviously, it amazes me he hasn't realized this yet.
He focuses so much on things like optical illusions.
He always starts off his lectures on consciousness by debunking the "little man watching a movie" depiction of consciousness. And then, like a magic trick, he has you believing that there is indeed a little man inside your brain experiencing these so called "illusions". Dennett just doesn't call it a little man any more and calls it "neural correlates" or some other technical sounding term.

If there is no little man, then who or what is experiencing these illusions?
If you press Dennett on this he will start quoting some random ass book from the 1970s and how that guy asked him the same question and ended up being a total crackpot. And then he will mention another optical illusion or magic trick. And then he will go on a little tangent about the etymology of the word "illusion" and give you examples of how people misuse it grammatically. Dennett's skills in this craft are remarkable and he is indeed the boomer philosopher par excellence.

The reason for all of this sophistry is because the only way to find the "little man" is to accept that you are a dualist, and you have been all along. Dennett is still stuck where Descartes started, and he can't see it because of "muh brain imaging data".

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 19:03:33 2022 No.14696350 >>14696287 >dennet >dualist

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 19:04:55 2022 No.14696355
File: 889 KB, 2000x1333, optical-illusion-abstract-rotating-frames-feat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14696287
>He always starts off his lectures on consciousness by debunking the "little man watching a movie" depiction of consciousness. And then, like a magic trick, he has you believing that there is indeed a little man inside your brain experiencing these so called "illusions". Dennett just doesn't call it a little man any more and calls it "neural correlates" or some other technical sounding term.

Dennett is a clown. The fact that these clowns use the word "illusion" is appalling. Illusions are a conscious experience... The complete idiocy is so palpable as to send me into a nervous fit of rage.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 19:05:56 2022 No.14696359 >>14696350 Dennett is a dualist in denial.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 19:07:36 2022 No.14696365

>>14696287
>All of these explanations come from people grappling with their inability to let go of their secret Dualism.
Firstly, I have seen stuff by Dennett years ago, I don't know what current ideas he has. What I saw was pointless and circular, yes.
Secondly, claiming that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon does not prove that you are a dualist. People who claim so are just reductionists who clearly don't entirely understand reductionism.
I am myself a reductionist, but reductionism does not mean that emergent phenomena don't exist, which seems to be what people like yourself believe.
It's pretty clear to me that thanks to the forward flow of time we can make the information be processed in complex ways that go beyond the properties of the substrate. You are on a website using a computer, are you not?

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 19:11:26 2022 No.14696381
File: 33 KB, 657x527, 1650468342437.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14696287
The best counter argument against Dennetianism is to say "Daniel Dennet is an illusion" and to refuse to elaborate further. If he get's to claim consciousness is an illusion, I can claim he is an illusion.

I literally have yet to hear a convincing argument that can tackle this compelling line of reasoning.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 19:13:57 2022 No.14696389 >>14695851 Yes like a human. And just like talking to a human it wont tell you dick about the nature of consciousness

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 19:13:59 2022 No.14696391

>>14696365
>Firstly, I have seen stuff by Dennett years ago, I don't know what current ideas he has. What I saw was pointless and circular, yes.
hes still up to the same shit
>Secondly, claiming that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon does not prove that you are a dualist.
Ok this is a fair point. "Consciousness is emergent" does not necessarily imply dualism. But you often hear the secret dualists saying such things.
>I am myself a reductionist, but reductionism does not mean that emergent phenomena don't exist, which seems to be what people like yourself believe.
This is too broad of a statement. Give me some examples of emergent phenomena and I will tell you what I think. I have issues with how the label "emergent" is applied in some cases, and I find it appropriate in other cases.
>It's pretty clear to me that thanks to the forward flow of time we can make the information be processed in complex ways that go beyond the properties of the substrate. You are on a website using a computer, are you not?
I like where you are going with this, but its not super clear to me. can you speak more to this point?

>>14696381
based

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 19:17:32 2022 No.14696401 >>14696287 >>14696355 >>14696359 >>14696381 Based.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 19:30:16 2022 No.14696445

>>14696391
>This is too broad of a statement. Give me some examples of emergent phenomena and I will tell you what I think. I have issues with how the label "emergent" is applied in some cases, and I find it appropriate in other cases.
not him, but the laws of nature could be piecewise continuous. laws of nature could be concocted in such a way that they seamlessly transition between the microscopic/subatomic behavior that is revealed in particle colliders, and macroscopic behavior found in the immense conglomerations of particles that we observe in nature. so it could be that the fluidity of water is in fact not derivable from the schrodinger's equation, but STILL derivable from a piecewise continuous description of the universe which really does entail all possible outcomes in nature.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 19:31:40 2022 No.14696455

>>14696445
to add to this, schrodinger's equation would be a segment of the piecewise continous laws of nature, and everytime you discover a new regime in this reductionist framework, that is equivalent to discovering a new "emergent" behavior in nature

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 19:46:06 2022 No.14696500

>>14696391
>I like where you are going with this, but its not super clear to me. can you speak more to this point?
If you really wanna explore this in a formalized way on hard mode, lurk Constructor Theory; plus opinions on consciousness and computations by the (clearly hated here) Joscha Bach.

But in essence if you have some broadly defined computer (like a silicone computer, human brain or a species of organisms in an ecosystem), you now have some means of processing and storing complex information in non-trivial ways. Your brain or a silicone chip is still made out of atoms interacting with each other on an individual level, and at any given moment they can only interact with each other directly (or by exchanging photons etc., you get the idea). But because you've used these atoms to create two things: a processor and a form of storage; as information flows through this structure in time, there is now an emergent "language" happening. This in not the language of the laws of physics, it can obey different rules and create different structures entirely, but in essence it's still a system that can be explained by reductionism.

This connects to the hard problem, because "you", the subject that experiences things, are not made out of atoms interacting with each other (not on the level that comprehension and consciousness happens). You are a model of reality that is itself computed in this emergent language.
If you accept this, some (myself included) would claim that experiencing the color blue is no longer especially weird.
Because blue was never made out of atoms.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 20:06:33 2022 No.14696536 >>14696500 >Because blue was never made out of atoms. but the information pertaining to "what blue feels like" is nowhere to be found in their model.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 20:15:08 2022 No.14696562

>>14696500
Ok. I think I am very much close to where you are at with this. I don't have much of a problem with that description of things.

But I want to push on this part in particular.
>This connects to the hard problem, because "you", the subject that experiences things, are not made out of atoms interacting with each other (not on the level that comprehension and consciousness happens). You are a model of reality that is itself computed in this emergent language.
This is the same compartmentalization of "the hard problem" that we see in every other attempt. This is your "little man". It's a much smarter and better version of the little man, but its him alright.

There's also an issue here with using "atoms" as some kind of base layer of reality. An atom is an abstraction, and is not a fundamental part of reality. Although it really does seem like one. Even an atom is an "emergent system" you could say.

I suppose I should just cut the chase here and say what I really mean to. Panpsychism is the answer to all of these issues. It is the only solution that cleanly gets rid of dualism.
Alfred North Whitehead's Process and Reality has the answers we are looking for, but we are all taking a very long time catching up. I'd have to write an essay to go much further than this but I can promise you it will be a very enlightening read for a person who has gotten to where you are on the consciousness question.

Maybe I agree with Joscha Bach more than I thought I did? I need to listen to him some more, my take on him was probably overly informed by retards here on /sci/ who have no concept of nuance so maybe I put him in the wrong camp. Dennett is still a faggot tho, no cap fr fr

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 20:22:57 2022 No.14696577

>>14696562
>There's also an issue here with using "atoms" as some kind of base layer of reality. An atom is an abstraction, and is not a fundamental part of reality. Although it really does seem like one. Even an atom is an "emergent system" you could say.
*applause* i get nervous ticks when physics-ists talk as if "atoms" are anything more than a mathematical structure that explains observations.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 20:30:50 2022 No.14696608 >>14693642 this

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 20:32:21 2022 No.14696613

>>14696562
On the "atoms" part, sure, an oversimplification on my part to get the point.
I think our points of view converge somewhat, but perhaps not quite.
As I've stated before, even if you can pretty much give an objective answer to the question "why does the agent claim he experiences the color blue", to get the "jump" from that objective description to the subjective experience, you still need to make some deep, philosophical and abstract assumptions about the computation in your brain actually happening, being somewhat independent from our descriptive rules of how it happens. I think one might call it panpsychism, as long as it's not being confused with stars and planets having some deep, animalistic/human feelings.
And yeah, I bet I'd like that essay.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:08:59 2022 No.14696856 its obvious that my qualia is just neuron behaviour. so so so obvious. panpsychism. maybe you can be illusionist about dualism. this is what people lime dennet are i think.

Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:11:02 2022 No.14696858

>>14693763
>>With this understanding of awareness, it’s evident that all objects in the universe are conscious insofar as they are aware of their death, and act in such a way to either delay or accelerate the event’s passing
Stopped reading there. Into the trash it goes

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:14:13 2022 No.14696864 >>14693774 I would politely end the discussion and then have them followed and spied upon until the pronouns are revealed. Perhaps even emotion elaborate disguises and other forms of trickery.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:25:16 2022 No.14696899 >>14696856 >panpsychism Schizo.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:35:06 2022 No.14696926 >>14696856 Who is being fooled by the illusion?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:35:33 2022 No.14696927 >>14696899 nah not panpsychism paninformationism

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 24 22:36:36 2022 No.14696931 >>14696927 Nah, schizo.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 02:34:31 2022 No.14697349
File: 54 KB, 500x469, 1658704151572068.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Develop a working model of the human brain
>Figure out how it processes information
>Still have no fucking idea how it works
>Model matures and it appears to have a "Ghost" in it
>Dualistfags were somehow right
post yfw

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 02:46:37 2022 No.14697371 >>14693616 You're presupposing your own consciousness. The researcher begins with his own consciousness even if he lacks a concept of it.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 05:37:31 2022 No.14697696

>>14696287
>The reason for all of this sophistry is because the only way to find the "little man" is to accept that you are a dualist, and you have been all along.
That's what Dennett means by "illusion" - that the dualist concept of little man is wrong, there's no little man.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 05:43:38 2022 No.14697706 >>14696287 Emergence isn't dualism, dualists fundamentally deny emergence, because emergence implies monism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 06:16:15 2022 No.14697721 >>14696562 That's not what dualists mean by little man. They argue he can't be reduced to neural processes, no matter how well you understand them, he's a supernatural ethereal component.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 13:26:22 2022 No.14698229

>>14693616
How can you not watch his vids and follows his Twatter purely ironically? I abuse him as a lolcow. It's literally no different from following Chris chan, it's not somehow a different principle just because it's "highbrow" like philosophy. He has the most high-tier midwit takes ever (although admittedly, a regular high midwit would never come up with theml -- he seems to be one trained from childhood to perform as a pop philosopher, like you can train a midwit into a chess prodigy).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 16:27:22 2022 No.14698318 File: 387 KB, 680x813, 468.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14697696 but illusions are a conscious experience, therefore by using the word he is evoking the little man anyways. he is a clown

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 20:16:18 2022 No.14698853

>>14697371
>>14697371
Not really. I have not formulated all of this to be perfectly elegant, but the researcher is not very relevant.
The relevant part is that if we'd trace the thought process of a certain type of an aware and intelligent agent, it might be almost inevitable for that agent to have some type of consciousness. It is almost certain that it would make similar statements about it's internal states to the statements we make.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 25 22:18:06 2022 No.14699122 >>14695941 Maybe they would be willing to listen to you if you didn't bring up schizo bullshit like "souls, and somehow, the possibility and ability of forfeiting it by denying that a soul exists"

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 22:23:44 2022 No.14699131

>>14694171
There is no "I"
The distinction between the rest of the universe and "You" has no true basis. It's an abstract heuristic conjured up by the interface of your senses, not some metaphysical reality. The sole recognizable unity is the complete totality of Everything. All else is just illusion.
When you fail to answer the question of why are you "You," it's because that "You" is not an actual, existing thing, but it's instead a perception, an illusion. It's an arbitrary part of space-time.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 22:43:20 2022 No.14699172

>>14699131
You don't get my point. Of course there is no "I", either in the sense that there is some real continuity of our being, or some material thing you can point at that one could define as the true self.
You can still save the ego though, by accepting that "you" are at best some form of information processing, and by having memories of your past and being able to predict the future you retain your "self".

But what is true is that I am in this conscious state right now. A monkey with a big brain, not a cloud in a rainstorm or a meteor colliding on some planet millions of light years away. This makes panpsychism problematic for me.

Anonymous Mon Jul 25 23:18:32 2022 No.14699251

>>14699172
>This makes panpsychism problematic for me.
Because you are still thinking in compartmentalized terms of "I" and "They," when any such distinction is just illusion, a creation of heuristic interfaces evolved to give a "good enough" result for an animal, not to ponder metaphysical reality. The experience of being "distinct" is specifically the ego. Ego death itself exists to name the destruction of this illusion. Can you see how the senses provide an illusion of distinction?
>A monkey with a big brain, not a cloud in a rainstorm or a meteor
Are all part of Everything. Any distinction, any perception and division that is not the combined and utter unity of Everything is an illusion. When you divide aspects of Everything into pieces like this, you're already working with heuristics and so any system you build upon those is inevitably going to run into problems and inconsistencies.
With what divine authority would you divide yourself apart from Everything? Do you exist outside of Everything? If we took you, dropped you outside of reality as we know it, outside of all laws of physics, of spacetime, of everything that gives us the means to define something, would you still exist? Could you even define yourself outside of reality like this? How are you NOT intrinsically a sliver of Everything with no real, independent existence? Just like the metor an the rain?

If you want to work with heuristics like that, consider the fact that we can arbitrarily extend those heuristics further and see that the slightest movement of electrons or decay of atoms in your body means you are no longer the same thing as you were a moment ago; change has occured and "You" are now different. How do you justify Ego instead of this system, on what basis do you argue for your position? Usefulness? That's what the heuristic is for, it's not meant to represent reality and it never was. You will inevitably run into the same problems as with the Ship of Theseus by using it.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:11:53 2022 No.14699366
File: 109 KB, 713x520, ananalogy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14695903
You're completely missing the point. I'm not talking about blue or blueness, or perception of blue or blueness. I'm taking about there obviously being an edge where the inside and the outside are differentiated informationally and that cannot be accounted for with a physical model because it implies there's only one language being used for the entire description. There is something in between that is trying very hard to be as transparent as possible. A translation is occurring. I don't mean a mathematical translation. I mean it's literally converting purposely to a different language. I don't want to say it's an IQ thing but most people are totally unaware of this even though they're living it. And it's very difficult to talk about because by the very nature of the thing language fails. It's like the difference between a and a. They're both a right? If they're both 'a' why are they in different places??? You're staring at a picture of something. The next thing you have to ask is how much of this picture is counterfeit.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:12:49 2022 No.14699369

>>14699172
>But what is true is that I am in this conscious state right now. A monkey with a big brain, not a cloud in a rainstorm or a meteor colliding on some planet millions of light years away. This makes panpsychism problematic for me.
Neutral monism, not dualism. Matter and experience are all the same stuff. Your brain exists and IS experience. There isn't some little guy looking into your body to experience the stuff there. The stuff there IS the experience.
You might as well wonder why two things are separate and not the same and you'll just end up shrugging your shoulders or making a leap of faith and buy some bullshit that feels right to you.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:15:43 2022 No.14699382

>>14699251
I am giving an honest try for your perspective and I am not married to mine here, but the conscious perception of this division still happens within a model generated inside my brain.

It is not especially meaningful that I feel that I am me and not some other person, because only my memories connect me to some continuous concept of myself. I perfectly understand the illusion of it in that respect.
What I am saying is relevant is that my "self" happens to be modeled inside this monkey brain, and if panpsychism is correct statistically some scrambled, nonsensical and incoherent "selfs" would need to emerge all the time, all over the place.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 00:20:47 2022 No.14699395

>>14699382
>happens to be modeled inside this monkey brain
See >>14699369. It's not modeled in it, it IS the brain. The brain and its active processes are your "self" (as perceived by your senses, who knows what the brain is truly like)
>and if panpsychism is correct statistically some scrambled, nonsensical and incoherent "selfs" would need to emerge all the time, all over the place.
Nah. Panpsychism is fundamentally just the acceptance that whatever "consciousness" exists is universal and everywhere. The "self" is universal. It's in everything and all things. It doesn't need to arise when it already is all over the place. It's a quality of all things in existence.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 03:29:27 2022 No.14699718

>>14699366
>And it's very difficult to talk about because by the very nature of the thing language fails.
you are absolutely right about what you are saying. a pedagogically useful way of motivating language-speakers to understand this limitation of language is to talk about "map is not the territory"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation#%22A_map_is_not_the_territory%22

You show them a map of their hometown on a map on your phone, you ask what that is. Depending on what they say, you go one level deeper. Say they are from Cincinnati. They may respond:

>That is cincinati!

You respond, no that is a map of cincinnati. Or he might say:

>That is a map of cincinnati

You respond, no that is a series of pixels that are lit up in the pattern of what appears to be Cincinnati.

Or you could write "blue" on a piece of paper and ask what this is. And you can play this game and give annoying answers to illustrate how our language-speaker brains instinctively draws connections without even being consciously aware, and you can try to explain why it is absolutely critical that we pay utmost attention to not conflate such things when discussing about the nature consciousness.

You wont be able to convince the person you are arguing with though. Some people just can't be convinced.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 03:38:35 2022 No.14699737

>>14699172
>This makes panpsychism problematic for me.
Most panpsychists really just see an academic similarity between stones and animals. The stones don't have experience like a human, at the very least because they lack memory. Almost certainly according to panpsychism, also any kind of perception, as they don't have sense organs. Finally, most will also agree that their consciousness is pure scrambled, meaningless static, as it's not assembled in a productive way, unlike animal brains.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 03:42:24 2022 No.14699743

>>14699366
>I don't want to say it's an IQ thing but most people are totally unaware of this even though they're living it.
It's mildly infuriating when people say "umm of course a tree falling in the woods produces a sound even if no animal is in earshot, hello???"
I bet even a few readers of my post will go like "wtf is this motherfucker going about, of course there's a sound even if no one is around to hear it".
I suggest typing that sentiment again out slowly, and ponder it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 04:35:36 2022 No.14699827 >>14698318 Consciousness doesn't imply little man. Little man is just how dualists prefer to think about consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 04:51:04 2022 No.14699853 File: 64 KB, 584x427, pp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14693763 is mayonnaise a consciousness?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 05:08:20 2022 No.14699886 >>14699827 consciousness imply consciousness, which is absent from the worldview of no-hard-roblem-ists

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 05:25:28 2022 No.14699918

>>14699886
Depends on the problem is stated. Dualists believe consciousness is a secret sauce, so it's obviously irreducible, but this belief is entirely assumed: they believe consciousness is irreducible, because they are dualists. If their assumption is wrong, there's no reason to believe in irreducibility. But if consciousness is reducible, then consciousness exists. Why hard problem would exist if it's assumed? Assumption is not an argument.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 05:34:25 2022 No.14699934

>>14699918
what does reductionism reduce consciousness to? if you are a reductionist, you ought to be reducing things *TO* something. What is it?

As I understand it, reductionism reduces observations to mathematical models (equations, initial conditions, etc). And since it is clear that a mathematical model cannot literally be qualia, reductionism is kaput. A mathematical model can only reduce the *informational content* of a qualia to a mathematical structure. You could have a mathematical model that successfully predicts precisely what qualia is associated with literally all physical configurations possible in the world, and yet you would be missing the qualia itself.

People seem to be very confused about the fact that reductionism ought to reduce things to a set of equations of some sort (if not a set of equations, what do you presume reductionism reduces things to? do you not agree that physics ought to describe the world in terms of a mathematical model of some time?). And the problem is, no mathematical model will ever give you anything other than a mathematical prediction of the world, not the world (qualia) itself. This would entail y'+xy=*experience of warmth* or something equally nonsensical. This is not a mere assumption, what I am saying is tautologically true. Reductionism cannot reduce qualia itself to a mathematical model, only the informational content of qualia.

No matter how complicated, no mathematical structure can correspond to anything other than mathematical structure.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 05:36:47 2022 No.14699937

reposting with a few grammar etc fixes. still dogshit, but im drunk

>>14699918
what does reductionism reduce consciousness to? if you are a reductionist, you ought to be reducing things *TO* something. What is it?

As I understand it, reductionism reduces observations to mathematical models (equations, initial conditions, etc). And since it is clear that a mathematical model cannot literally be qualia, reductionism is kaput. A mathematical model can only reduce the *informational content* of a qualia to a mathematical structure. You could have a mathematical model that successfully predicts precisely what qualia is associated with what physical configurations, and yet you would be missing the qualia itself.

People seem to be very confused about the fact that reductionism ought to reduce things to a set of equations of some sort (if not a set of equations, what do you presume reductionism reduces things to? do you not agree that physics ought to describe the world in terms of a mathematical model of some type?). And the problem is, no mathematical model will ever give you anything other than a mathematical prediction of the world, not the world (qualia) itself. This would entail y'+xy=*experience of warmth* or something equally nonsensical. This is not a mere assumption, what I am saying is tautologically true. Reductionism cannot reduce qualia itself to a mathematical model, only the informational content of qualia.

No matter how complicated, no mathematical structure can correspond to anything other than mathematical structure.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 07:11:13 2022 No.14700052

>>14699934
>And since it is clear that a mathematical model cannot literally be qualia, reductionism is kaput.
Non sequitur. Mathematical model doesn't need to be qualia, qualia is what's reduced to it. You again simply repeat dualistic axiom that qualia is irreducible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 07:17:46 2022 No.14700057 >>14699934 >This is not a mere assumption, what I am saying is tautologically true. It's called implicit assumption. When you try to reason you jump to conclusions relying on implicit assumptions - dualism in this case.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 11:02:51 2022 No.14700276 >>14700052 >You again simply repeat dualistic axiom that qualia is irreducible. so what is your argument beyond stomping your feet and saying >no it IS reducible to math

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 12:34:55 2022 No.14700481
File: 827 KB, 1x1, Triviality arguments about implementation.pdf [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14693616
I agree with your general point but this
>you would need some deep knowledge on "what does it exactly mean for the universe to compute something?"
sounds like you're shifting the difficulty of the problem onto the notion of computation. But computation itself is (in this context) a very vaguely defined and problematic notion (see e.g. pdf related).
After thinking this way for a while I've come to the conclusion that computation, non-rigorously defined, is the right perspective with which to view consciousness (i.e. two entities have identical consciousness if they are shown to be computationally equivalent), but going beyond this and claiming that consciousness *somehow* requires computation in some specific strict (but as yet unknown) sense is wrong. It's just pushing the problem around.
What's the alternative? Can we just do away with computation, take physics at face value, and look for the equations of consciousness within physics? Would it even be possible for physics to be non-computational?
Can we take a block-universe view of time, look at it from the outside, and identify consciousness in a static 4d structure?

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 12:57:25 2022 No.14700550

>>14693867
P-zombie arguments are easily evaded by denying the premise that zombies are conceivable. They are (except for trivial or adversarial cases) inconceivable in any basic functionalist account of consciousness.
>>14694171
>Maybe you could assign some "internal" state to all kinds of information processing happening in the universe
This line of thinking is misguided I think. It's trying to assign internal experience to information processing in some magical way instead of getting down to brass stacks and figuring out how internal experience is *constructed* through information processing.
>>14694183
I'd be interested if you could provide a brief summary or quote the relevant part of plato.stanford or whatever.
>>14699172
>But what is true is that I am in this conscious state right now
I think all the talk about "states" is misguided. A single state frozen in time can never be conscious. Consciousness is a process and requires change in time to be there at all. Sorry to hark on your post, I just wanted to make this general point.
>>14696287
Dualism/monism is a meaningless debate anyway, noone can even define "substance".
>If there is no little man, then who or what is experiencing these illusions?
This is a bullshit gotcha and you should know it. A subject is constructed through the mechanical workings of the material world. This subject is then subject to the illusion that it is not a result of the mechanical workings of the material world.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 13:00:42 2022 No.14700564
File: 6 KB, 225x225, 32524.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14700550
>P-zombie arguments are easily evaded by denying the premise that zombies are conceivable. They are (except for trivial or adversarial cases) inconceivable in any basic functionalist account of consciousness.
So the counter-argument to your delusional dogma is wrong because you can't conceive of anything outside your delusional dogma? Solid refutation.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 13:10:19 2022 No.14700592

>>14699366
What are "inside" and "outside" in your model? I assume one of them is internal experience (of e.g. blueness) and the other is not the objective physical world (cuz that would be too easy), but what is it then?
>>14696500
Sounds cool but also sounds like it may be sneakily offloading the problem onto a very hairy and unexamined concept of "language".

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 13:13:30 2022 No.14700603 >>14694461 It's neither correct nor trivial

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 13:16:24 2022 No.14700613 >>14699122 It's not schizo bullshit just because you don't like the idea.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 13:25:46 2022 No.14700646

>>14700564
It just makes no sense how a zombie would perform the exact same mechanical process as a human when it introspects and comes to the conclusion that it is self-aware, and then produce an utterance to that effect, BUT for some reason other than that it was actually experiencing self-awareness. It's begging the question so hard that consciousness can not simply be the product of mechanical action, assuming before the argument even started that there is an unbridgable rift between the two. Thankfully the argument is not that insidious since all this bullshit is cleanly contained within a single premise.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 13:28:32 2022 No.14700656 >>14700550 functionalism has been shown to be wrong. get with the times

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 13:31:05 2022 No.14700670

This argument is similar to the hindu vs buddhist argument about reality being fundamentally existence (Hindu Brahman) or non-existence (buddhist Anatta)
Its been raging for thousands of years and it isn't going to be figured out here in a /sci/ thread

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 13:31:48 2022 No.14700672 >>14700656 Which counterargument are you thinking of?

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 13:32:04 2022 No.14700675

>>14700646
>It just makes no sense how a zombie would perform the exact same mechanical process as a human when it introspects and comes to the conclusion that it is self-aware, and then produce an utterance to that effect, BUT for some reason other than that it was actually experiencing self-awareness
Well, no, you retard. That makes perfect and utmost sense. What makes no sense is that a mechanical process would lead to any kind of actual internal experience of any of that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 13:33:14 2022 No.14700680 >>14700672 Functions do not exist so a philosophy based on operations of functions/transformations is wrong ipso facto

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 13:36:28 2022 No.14700698

>>14700675
>Well, no, you retard. That makes perfect and utmost sense. What makes no sense is that a mechanical process would lead to any kind of actual internal experience of any of that.
Be that as it may, the zombie argument is not going to help us decide this question since it is just circular reasoning.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 13:38:53 2022 No.14700704

>>14700646
>>14700675
Actually, let me elaborate: even a bot like you should be able to see that a system can produce some outputs based on external inputs without actually *experiencing* anything; what makes you think a system that produces some ouputs based on not only external inputs, but also inputs from its internal processing, necessarily experiences itself? As far as its internal logic is concerned, there is no conceivable difference between experiencing something and doing the processing that it does. In fact, you probably are such a system, you have no consciousness, and that leads to your decidedly inhuman outputs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 13:39:54 2022 No.14700708 >>14700698 >it is just circular reasoning. It's not circular reasoning, you botlike imbecile. It's pointing to a distinction that your unconscious language-model-like "mind" can't perceive.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 14:16:08 2022 No.14700816

>>14700708
Is it pointing to that distinction through argument, or simply by assuming it in one of the premises? What's the distinction?
>>14700704
>even a bot like you should be able to see that a system can produce some outputs based on external inputs without actually *experiencing* anything
Sure, that is possible in most cases. But what we are talking about is a specific function that explicitly includes self-awareness as part of its functioning. My point is that if in this universe, an information processor exhibits self-awareness while it runs, then it will do so in any other (would-be zombie) universes too, as long as it's computationally/functionally equivalent.
>what makes you think a system that produces some ouputs based on not only external inputs, but also inputs from its internal processing, necessarily experiences itself?
Not necessarily for any such system, but I'm sure there are some systems like that (i.e. human minds).
>As far as its internal logic is concerned, there is no conceivable difference between experiencing something and doing the processing that it does.
It sounds like you are thinking of it this way: "just processing" (zombie) vs "processing + consciousness" (normal humans). I'm thinking of it this way: "processing (which includes consciousness)" (normal humans) vs. "processing (which does not include consciousness)" (zombies), which latter is impossible since we assume that the processing stays the same, and the consciousness is part of the processing.
Anyway, that's about as clear as I can make my point of view, if I had a more detailed explanation of how exactly consciousness results from processing we wouldn't be here at all.
Also
>muh if you disagree with my opinion on consciousness you are not conscious!11!1
childish and evidence of a dogmatic stance

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 15:15:02 2022 No.14700969

>>14693649
>https://www.fil.lu.se/pufendorf/lectures/2021-thomas-metzinger/
Thanks anon these pufendorf lectures look very nice. Watched one of the Prix Jean Nicod lectures (a similar series) and it was alright, but not really what I was looking for. This looks much better.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 15:52:15 2022 No.14701053

>>14700816
>Is it pointing to that distinction through argument
Bot question.

>what we are talking about is a specific function that explicitly includes self-awareness as part of its functioning
You have not shown any relevant difference between a system sharting out outputs based on external inputs, and a system sharting out outputs based on internal feedbacks. Neither one implies experiencing anything, and there's nothing stopping a system that doesn't experience anything, from mistaking the presence of that internal feedback for the genuine meaning of conscious experience. I mean, look at you and your likes: you are making precisely that mistake.

>in this universe, an information processor exhibits self-awareness while it runs
That's your botlike dogma, not an established fact.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 16:54:21 2022 No.14701237 >>14701053 >bot bot bot This is on the level of calling Darwin a monkey lel.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 16:55:12 2022 No.14701240 >>14701237 Looks like you are unable to refute the argument.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 16:57:26 2022 No.14701245

>>14700670
>This argument is similar to the hindu vs buddhist argument about reality being fundamentally existence (Hindu Brahman) or non-existence (buddhist Anatta)
Let me correct you here.

The debate is not existence vs non-existence, but rather about what the reality is made up of.

Hindus claim there's a super-conscious, super-soul, super-god, super-ultimate reality, beyond the likes of which we typically see reality as. Buddhist claim the reality is what we see, there's no super consciousness (panpsychism), no hidden super-soul (brahman), no hidden god (theism), no hidden substance (materialist), no hidden anything. Reality is what we see, not what is not there. What we see are reality of "things" existing ONLY because of relations. There's no hidden reality behind it. All that we see/perceive/cognize are all within the purview of the mind.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:01:46 2022 No.14701256

>>14701240
First of all I don't have a complete functionalist account of consciousness, like I already said. If that is what you're asking of me I must disappoint you.
>>14701053
>there's nothing stopping a system that doesn't experience anything, from mistaking the presence of that internal feedback for the genuine meaning of conscious experience.
If you engage fully with functionalism you will not find a difference between these two. You can do that yourself if you're really interested.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:16:47 2022 No.14701330

It's literally just basic logic and reasoning to deduce that other consciousness exist, if you were the sole consciousness you would be god and have have the ability to manipulate time and space it self. But if you were the sole consciousness wouldn't the concept of loneliness scare you? So you'd bifurcate your own consciousness into other finite consciousness.

If you are a god like entity and you hate the idea of solipsism why not create other bodies. But then again this can just turn into schizo ramblings, like trying to disprove the fact that there are invisible demons that suck your cock or some shit. Arthur Schopenhauer basically completed kants work by identifying the will which is a priori.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:23:06 2022 No.14701356

>>14701330
If there is a will to life that you yourself can observe, and this will to life is inextricably bound with your cognition (survival instincts, wanting to reproduce etc) then its easy to assume that there other consciousness that exist. And if their behavior also reflects this will to life, it is further reason to believe in the existence of other minds. I mean if consciousness is some sort of mystical ethereal object that transcends space-time you would not feel the effects of drugs, it is only the rational choice to believe the existence of other minds because there is more information supporting that then the former.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:32:39 2022 No.14701411 >>14701256 >If you engage fully with functionalism you will not find a difference between these two There is no reason whatsoever to engage with functionalism. It's unsubstantiated, and what I've pointed out seriously undermines it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:45:25 2022 No.14701464 >>14700675 So would you agree that you making these posts here in the thread and making your arguments is not at all caused by you having consciousness?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 17:47:04 2022 No.14701470 >>14701464 It is certainly motivated by it.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 19:30:55 2022 No.14701834

>>14693649
Does he go into memory formation anywhere? It's all well and good to say you are experiencing "pure awareness" but the fact that you can even remember this shows there was at least one other thing (namely forming a memory of it) going on. Although you might say forming a memory is not a conscious act, and only remembering is...

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 21:30:06 2022 No.14702102

I think it's extremely lame to call it "the hard probem of" it's super popsciency. Woah yes it's hard because it's hard. Horribly unscientific thinking which is promoted by bad scientists who sell shoddy science to literally borderline retarded people which is 90% of people alive. This is also 99.9% of all publicly available scientific data.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 21:31:02 2022 No.14702105 >>14702102 I've never seen someone get so offended over it who wasn't a low IQ NPC.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 21:59:33 2022 No.14702159

The so called hard problem is basically highting the explanation gap between experuence and physical science/biological explanations. The answer depends on who you ask.

1) there's no experiential consciousess (everything is matter)
2) there's only consciousness (everything is consciousness made)
3) experience can only relay whats within consciousness and the physical realm is unknowable

The only way to get to the bottom of this is to understand the structure of consciousness and not just take it for granted. Meditation goes into this.

The two dominant structural positions on consciousess within meditation world are held by Buddhism and Hinduism.

1) Consciousness is the true reality, bodies, people, nature are illusions. Consciousness surpasses the physical world and the body. (Hinduism)
2) Consciousness is a structure of the mind(physical body). People/universe are relational structures given entity status. Consciousness is limited to the body. There's no super consciousness outside the body. (Buddhist)

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:13:16 2022 No.14702200

>>14702159
>there's no experiential consciousess
Self-evidently false.

>there's only consciousness
Vacuous.

>experience can only relay whats within consciousness and the physical realm is unknowable
It's unclear what you think follows from this.

>1) Consciousness is the true reality, bodies, people, nature are illusions. Consciousness surpasses the physical world and the body. (Hinduism)
>2) Consciousness is a structure of the mind(physical body). People/universe are relational structures given entity status. Consciousness is limited to the body. There's no super consciousness outside the body. (Buddhist)
Neither one of these explains the relationship between the brain and the mind.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:14:36 2022 No.14702207 >>14693912 you're a literal retard

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:15:58 2022 No.14702211 >>14693912 you are a super big giga idiot

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:26:00 2022 No.14702232

>>14701470
That can’t be right. The process that leads to your arguments and posts is mechanical and therefore measurable, invalidating the assumption that philosophical zombies are indistinguishable from non-zombies.
Eliezer Yudkowsky actually made this same argument to David Chalmers, who accepted its conclusion, namely the fact that he claims he is conscious has no relation to whether or not he is conscious.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:31:50 2022 No.14702248 >>14702232 >That can’t be right. The process that leads to your arguments and posts is mechanical and therefore measurable, invalidating the assumption that philosophical zombies are indistinguishable from non-zombies. Utter nonsequitur.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:31:52 2022 No.14702249 What comes first, thought or neurotransmitter movement? If the former, then what and where is thought? If the latter, then we can control molecular movement? Neither makes sense desu. What am I missing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:32:06 2022 No.14702250 >>14701470 >>14702232 Re: Yudkowsky & Chalmers, see this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7DmA3yWwa6AT5jFXt/zombies-redacted

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:32:54 2022 No.14702253 >>14702250 I'm not reading Yudkowsky's tripe. Either make a proper argument yourself or fuck off.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:36:29 2022 No.14702261

>>14702200
>Neither one of these explains the relationship between the brain and the mind.
Hinduism doesn't as they're into similar position as an idealist/panpsychism. So they ignore body all together.
Buddhist tie down consciousness(process) directly to the body. The traditional superfunctions of consciousness are broken down into physical components. The conscious process are directly tied down to each individual organs like eyes for visual, ears for sound, etc. At each moment of processing those sense organ at the physical level, the conscious/awareness of the event is formed. At the brain level, the organization of the sensory conscious events happen. The mind of the brain is broken down into its functions, like formation of thoughts via sensory conscious dump (eyes always looking, while awake) in conjunction with physical sensations and habits drawn from memory of past events. The mind is also a process described like consciousness.

I think the Buddhist have the most structured explanation on how the consciousness/mind works, out of any body of work, without resorting to some reification to some supernatural entity, while keeping the whole thing bound and tied to physical functions of the body.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:39:24 2022 No.14702271

>>14702248
You claim your arguments are motivated by the fact that you have consciousness. If philosophical zombies are possible, then these would make the same claim, caused by the same underlying mechanisms (otherwise they would be distinguishable, which, again, goes against the definition of philosophical zombies). Therefore your claims are not due to consciousness, but due to this same mechanism that would also motivate a zombie to do the same thing.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:40:22 2022 No.14702275

>>14702249
Easy. Thoughts. Thoughts come before everything you know. Even claims like "neurons fire faster than thoughts" are bound inside a thinking mind. We should never forget this subtle baseline truth. Everything we know comes from our conscious mind. Whether it's asking the mind if that's really the case, whether some people may claim neurons fire first, or others claiming the opposite. Everything must answer to our conscious mind.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:42:20 2022 No.14702278 >>14702261 Surely you should be able to see how none of that actually explains anything in rigorous intellectual terms.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:44:12 2022 No.14702281

>>14702271
>You claim your arguments are motivated by the fact that you have consciousness.
I can claim whatever I want. This doesn't prove anything. Maybe I am a p-zombie mistakenly conflating consciousness with some aspects of my internal processing. Isn't that what your cult leaders literally insist on?

>If philosophical zombies are possible, then these would make the same claim, caused by the same underlying mechanisms
Unprovable assertion.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:45:05 2022 No.14702283

>>14693616
>There is no "hard problem of consciousness".
yes, there is
>The objective properties of a self-aware agent that possesses general intelligence translate 1:1 to our subjective experience of consciousness.
literally retarded
enjoy being a naive realist
might want to check up on the last 3000 years of metaphysics when you get a chance
>Every aspect of the conscious experience can be explained by being self-aware within your internal model of reality.
you just said it yourself, "model"
what conscious experience is modeling is obviously not the same as the model itself, and if you think otherwise you are literally retarded
>just assume you are a researcher that has no concept of consciousness at all
>you know that he has an internal model of the world
man, will you please stop being retarded for just one second
>You ask him :"what is the color blue? How would you describe it? What does blueness feel like?"
that's exactly the point, retard
there's zero way of conveying this
that's precisely what the hard problem of consciousness is: the inability to find out what experience feels like based on just observing neuroelectrochemical activity
>But in no way could it describe the sensation to you, because it's purely a part of it's internal model of reality, that can't be translated for the external world.
I mean, it almost sounds like you're getting it now
>An objective description of exactly what qualia is.
doesn't exist
if it did, there would be no hard problem of consciousness
>(because it obviously does)
not necessarily, but we're obvious presupposing that for the sake of this particular discussion
the alternative is metaphysical idealism
only if you're a metaphysical idealist is there no hard problem of consciousness, but you are clearly not a metaphysical idealist
>the important part is that objective self-awareness does translate 1:1 to subjective consciousness
the hard problem of consciousness is about WHY and HOW this happens, not THAT it happens, retard

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:47:53 2022 No.14702288

>>14702275
I’m determining your thoughts right now while you read this. My thumbs typed this post, sending signals to a screen, which sends photons into your eyes, which in turn get converted to electrical signals causing neurotransmission and only then forming your thoughts.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:50:22 2022 No.14702303

>>14702278
You're suggesting theres no physics involved right? Or are you asking for 50,000 pages peer reviewed exposition from 2500 year old textual documents exploring the domains of consciousness that surpasses any other literature tying the structure of consciousness and the mind.

Really we need to build up from the Buddhist foundations as that allows for a falsifiable mechanism to test out a working model of consciousness. It's better than masturbating all day

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:51:53 2022 No.14702307 >>14702288 Add the "From my mind, it looks like" to the statement. Think carefully.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:53:18 2022 No.14702311 >>14702303 I'm just telling you that your buddhist perspectives don't offer any scientific insights. Those who speak do not know, pseud. :^(

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:54:17 2022 No.14702315 >>14702281 >Maybe I am a p-zombie mistakenly conflating consciousness with some aspects of my internal processing. Yes, we all are. >Unprovable assertion. Of course it’s unprovable, it’s part of the definition of a philosophical zombie.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:55:13 2022 No.14702317 >>14702315 >Yes, we all are. You mean you are. >Of course it’s unprovable I accept your concession. What was even the point of this discussion if you're literally going to admit that you're an unconscious entity and that your arguments are invalid?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:57:31 2022 No.14702324 >>14702307 If thoughts come first, how come I can’t control what I observe by thinking about it beforehand?

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:58:10 2022 No.14702326

>>14702311
The Buddhist model offers a physical model for science to test. There are no other falsifiable alternative model offered for science to gain insights from and the current science doesn't even go into anything beyond a vague notion of consciousness mired by general society's understanding of consciousness aka santa clause did it.

It's why threads continue to be made about consciousness because science has not started looking into anything verifiable, nor does it have a strategy to tackle the problem..

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:59:41 2022 No.14702328

>>14702326
>The Buddhist model offers a physical model for science to test.
No, it doesn't.

>There are no other falsifiable alternative model offered for science to gain insights from
There aren't any at all. That's the whole point of the hard problem, and nothing you said even attempts to address it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 22:59:51 2022 No.14702329 I am the universe.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:02:16 2022 No.14702336 >>14702324 Because little inside your mind does not exist for you to change the direction and that your mind lacks the tool to analyze what's being perceived.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:05:29 2022 No.14702341

>>14702328
Ive posted about Buddhist grounds of consciousness to the physical body. Why would you deny it?

Are you of the bias that science should not try to physically examine these propositions because you don't want the sanctity of the consciousness to be broken down for us to understand it? Possibly a perolsonal or a religious zeal driving this outlook?

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:06:01 2022 No.14702343

>>14702317
>if you're literally going to admit that you're an unconscious entity and that your arguments are invalid?
I didn’t admit that at all. I simply pointed out that the philosophical zombie argument is not sound. And arguments are sound or not irregardless of who writes or speaks them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:06:45 2022 No.14702344 >>14702324 But I can control what I see inside my mind, at will. I can picture my boss raping my bussy any time I want. To the point that the experience is almost as vivid as actual sex.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:08:26 2022 No.14702349

>>14702343
>I didn’t admit that at all
You said we're all p-zombies but the only reasonable conclusion is that you are one.

>I simply pointed out that the philosophical zombie argument is not sound
You tried to claim it and got steamrolled as soon as you were asked to justify your claims.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:11:22 2022 No.14702355 >>14702344 If your boss was actually raping your bussy to the point it got stretched beyond repair, could you simply decide not to feel the pain? Can a soldier who’s seen the worst horrors of war simply decide to not have PTSD?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:12:17 2022 No.14702359 File: 87 KB, 999x769, 463545.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14702355 Yes.

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:13:36 2022 No.14702365

>>14702159
In other words,
West is tied down to p zombie vs not. (stubbornness belief that physical is truth and everyone is a zombie without inner consciousness experience)
East has moved on from that to conscious is fundamental substance (Ala soul) vs consciousness is relational/process structure.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:15:35 2022 No.14702371 >>14702355 You are right. But. This has nothing to do with consciousness. You will forget all your memories when you die. Even your traumatic ones. But consciousness will comtinue.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:16:35 2022 No.14702374 >>14702365 The East has not moved on from anything. The East barely has any scientific tradition.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:17:03 2022 No.14702375 >>14702355 You are right. But. This has nothing to do with consciousness. You will forget all your memories when you die. Even your traumatic ones. But consciousness will continue.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:17:39 2022 No.14702378 >>14702374 Your mother is a whore and she will die of covid unless you reply with an apology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:18:46 2022 No.14702382 >>14702378 I don't know why you're chimping out. I'm just stating the simple fact of the matter. You're the one trying to shoehorn a philosophy you barely understand into Western pop-soi mode of thought and end up sounding like a nasty pseud.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:20:14 2022 No.14702391 >>14702349 I did justify my claims, you just don’t (want to) understand them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:21:25 2022 No.14702394 >>14702105 And you still haven't.what your experiencing is called projection... Projection is... Nevermind, grown up stuff

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:22:01 2022 No.14702395 File: 174 KB, 348x312, D8F6480E-46FF-4029-9006-1E07FB809650.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14702382 >someone used the word “pseud”

Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:22:17 2022 No.14702397

>>14702391
>I did justify my claims,
You didn't. The trouble with midwits like you is that you don't even have a concept of what a proper argument is. You string together nonsequiturs that make some vague sense in your mind and think it proves something. NPCs like you just don't have a solid theory of mind.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:22:28 2022 No.14702398 >>14702344 Tell is about your fantasies. Why do women deny wanting to get raped by strong alpha male?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:23:14 2022 No.14702403 >>14702382 Being a retard doesn't mean you get a pass. If you post like a retard, don't be surprised when you're treated as such.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:23:19 2022 No.14702404 File: 15 KB, 323x570, 2413.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14702394 >Projection is... Nevermind, grown up stuff Projection is midwit middleschooler speak for "no u". Now hang yourself.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:24:20 2022 No.14702407 >>14702403 >i'm a pseud spouting narcissistic faux-spiritual drivel Okay.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:30:37 2022 No.14702419 File: 3.77 MB, 377x344, 49C1F170-9E51-4246-8CAE-5BD679C32448.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I’m a onions pseu. I enjoy things that are WRONG.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 26 23:31:41 2022 No.14702422 File: 35 KB, 1000x539, E16DE2BC-C3CC-46C1-A6AD-B48B740FAC18.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14702419 I also enjoy onions

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 04:34:05 2022 No.14703035 >>14700564 You can imagine only an inconsistent p-zombie, like the bleem number, but inconsistent ideas don't provide insight into reality.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 04:59:27 2022 No.14703073 >>14700704 >without actually experiencing You never tried to see if mechanical systems actually experience. How do you know they don't?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:30:28 2022 No.14703129 >>14701053 >That's your botlike dogma, not an established fact. So your argument is merely an assumption of dualism. Just as planned.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:38:27 2022 No.14703147

>>14693631
>We’ll discover the solution when we can manipulate our own brains and observe the results. Though it would be funny if one day someone did this and accidentally turned off their consciousness but still acted as if they were conscious, effectively becoming an NPC, and convinced everyone else to do the same, so that everyone became NPC’s
It is very unlikely this would work this way

>>14693616
I like Joscha Bach's theories on consciousness but your post seems a bit rambling and doesn't appear to be saying very much.

>>14693763
ugh

>>14695941
>The amount of zealots that are hellbent on denying that consciousness has a non-physical property is unreal, y'all want to forfeit your soul that much?
It has nothing to do with "want". I hate that little twerp, but, "facts don't care about your feelings".

>>14699937
You can delete posts on 4chan.

>>14693896
Bach is much more intelligent than everyone who's posted in this thread. He wouldn't even waste his time talking to most of the people here.

>>14702283
Yes, there is a hard problem of consciousness, in a sense. But it's just "hard". Many people seem to use it as shorthand for "this will never and can never be resolved" / "this proves plain materialism and emergence cannot be right and instead dualism or panpsychism or whatever are right".

>>14700704
Your forced dichotomies here are odd. Yes, a mechanical system very well *can* be "pseudoconscious". It could claim to have experiences when in fact it actually doesn't. And a sophisticated information processing system is certainly not necessarily experiencing itself/experiencing anything. But that doesn't mean any and all mechanical systems are absolutely incapable of experiencing themselves/anything.

>>14703129
You're dealing with someone who's essentially arguing based on religion, not reason. It's futile.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:42:13 2022 No.14703162

>>14703147
>Yes, there is a hard problem of consciousness, in a sense.
Or, I guess I'd say, there is a problem of consciousness, and it is a hard problem, like many other hard problems in this world, but there isn't necessary a distinction between an "easy" and a "hard" problem of consciousness. Any true solution must solve the entire thing.

Or maybe you could say there is a "where" and "when" problem and a "what//why/how" problem. The "where" problem is much easier to answer than the rest, and the "when" is a bit harder but still much easier than the rest, but to solve the problem, you need to solve them all. I believe they're very likely all solvable, but we're probably at least like 60 years away from it, and quite possibly much longer than that.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 05:42:34 2022 No.14703163

>>14702281
>Maybe I am a p-zombie mistakenly conflating consciousness with some aspects of my internal processing. Isn't that what your cult leaders literally insist on?
The zombie argument is based on assumption of dualism. In physicalistic ontology the argument is meaningless, because it's based on a wrong assumption.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 10:59:31 2022 No.14703646

>>14702250
>Intuitively, we'd suppose that if your inward awareness vanished, your internal narrative would no longer say things like "There is a mysterious listener within me,"
Exactly right, does Chalmers explicitly address this kind of argument anywhere? Or does he just ignore it like Searle ignores the systems reply and keeps on blabbering?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 11:14:18 2022 No.14703668

>>14703035
>You can imagine only an inconsistent p-zombie
Prove it.

>>14703129
>So your argument is merely an assumption of dualism.
Prove it.

>>14703147
>Your forced dichotomies here are odd
You're just lying outright. No dichotomy is even remotely implied.

>>14703163
>The zombie argument is based on assumption of dualism
Prove it.

GPTs are spamming this thread pretty hard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 11:16:01 2022 No.14703674 >>14703646 >Exactly right Exactly wrong. What does your cult leader mean by "if your inward awareness vanished"? Who said that's even a coherent possibility?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 11:16:51 2022 No.14703676

>>14702232
>Eliezer Yudkowsky actually made this same argument to David Chalmers, who accepted its conclusion, namely the fact that he claims he is conscious has no relation to whether or not he is conscious.
That's some mental gymnastics on the level of pre-established harmony (Leibniz). I wonder if he *really* feels that his utterances and writings and (you might say) his entire life's work are not actually causally related to the fact that he's conscious, or is he just so committed to his position by now that he might as well see it out to the end?

Also it makes me think of the following: suppose Chalmers has his own very specific concept of consciousness, let's call it consciousness_1. We have this, but zombies don't. Wouldn't it be fair to say that, in the zombie world, even though they don't have consciousness_1, they do have at least *something*, some process or phenomenon involving self-awareness in a sense not as hardcore as what Chalmers has in mind, but still a quite interesting and mysterious phenomenon, that causes them to philosophize about "consciousness" etcetera? Let's call this consciousness_2. It would seem that both zombies and normal humans have this. A zombie would have every right to say, in reply to the zombie argument:
>Alright, you have shown that there can be no consciousness_1, but you have admitted that even zombies will have long-winded philosophical discussions about consciousness_2, and you haven't addressed the mysterious process that causes this.
The study of consciousness is actually the study of consciousness_2. Chalmers' arguments are about consciousness_1 and therefore don't pertain to _2. In fact consciousness_1 does not exist at all, and is just a figment of some dualists' imagination, and a cultural leftover from earlier times.
Sorry for the convoluted explanation but this is what I think is happening.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 11:23:28 2022 No.14703687 >>14703676 LOL. The absolute state of your mental illness.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 11:26:37 2022 No.14703691

>>14703674
>What does your cult leader mean by "if your inward awareness vanished"? Who said that's even a coherent possibility?
It's part of the thought experiment. I agree (and my favourite harry potter fanfiction author would agree as well) that it's indeed not a coherent possibility.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 11:27:25 2022 No.14703693 >>14703691 >it's indeed not a coherent possibility. Then it's logically invalid. Anything else?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 11:38:37 2022 No.14703714
File: 76 KB, 1200x1200, 342344.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's really weird to watch these bots babble on and on about what Chalmers said and what Yudkowski said. These are not conscious creatures. They are literally cannot form a thought except in terms of a corporate-selected false dichotomy of popular "thinkers".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 11:40:44 2022 No.14703718 >>14703676 As I understand it, consciousness_1 would be the “hard problem” of consciousness (which is incoherent) and consciousness_2 the “easy problem”.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 11:43:18 2022 No.14703725 >>14703714 How is Chudkowski corporate-selected?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 11:45:55 2022 No.14703728 >>14703725 Someone is clearly promoting his fringe and absolute garbage content into the pop-soi shared consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 11:45:59 2022 No.14703729 idiot (test)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 11:50:58 2022 No.14703734 >>14703714 Would you agree that your thoughts happen in your brain?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 11:53:57 2022 No.14703743 >>14703734 I don't know what your vague word salad means concretely. The most I'll give you is that the brain obviously crucial to thinking.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:07:12 2022 No.14703770 >>14703714 We are having the same experiences as you, we just know better than to go full metaphysicalist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:08:35 2022 No.14703773 >>14703770 >We are having the same experiences as you You're very clearly having a different experience than me, even in your own behaviorist drone terms.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:08:36 2022 No.14703774 >>14703743 By changing the structure of your brain you could be made to believe that 2+2=5, or that there is a real dragon in your garage?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:09:39 2022 No.14703775 >>14703774 I'm not sure, and if you think you know the answer, you're probably a retard. But for the sake of the discussion, let's assume you could do that. What of it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:10:17 2022 No.14703776 Why don't you guys put some more effort in your posts, even when you think everyone else is clearly a retard? Either make a somewhat substantial argument or fuck off. What's the point of shitting up the thread like this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:11:49 2022 No.14703779 >>14703776 >Why don't you guys put some more effort in your posts It's unrewarding.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:20:16 2022 No.14703798

>>14703775
Well, if that is the case, then your brain structure could likely also be altered such that you genuinely believe what you believe, which is exactly what evolution has done with some kind of ad hoc hack in order to give you a coherent sense of self and identity, necessary to make you an effective agent, but with the side effect of producing incoherent belief in a soul, or its secular equivalent, consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:21:13 2022 No.14703801 >>14703798 >your brain structure could likely also be altered such that you genuinely believe what you believe So? I don't see any kind of argument being made in your post.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:24:41 2022 No.14703806 >>14703801 >Doesn’t look like anything to me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:25:22 2022 No.14703807 >>14703806 Your post doesn't contain any testable explanation for the experience of consciousness.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:43:04 2022 No.14703831

>>14693616
>objective self-awareness does translate 1:1 to subjective consciousness, without any extra conditions required

What is the only thing one can ever claim to be true, whether reality is a dream, an illusion, a matrix-like phenomenon, whether you are an alien taking a hallucinogenic drug that simulates an alternate life as a thing called a "human being", whether reality doesn't exist at all? What if every single phenomological sensory experience and internal thought is unverifiable?

What is the one claim you can make to be indisputably true despite anything?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:43:53 2022 No.14703833

>>14703807
No such testable explanation can be given until it is defined which concrete measurements the explanation must predict. So far, the only measurement that begs an explanation is the fact that some, such as you, claim that you have consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:44:00 2022 No.14703834 >>14703831 That OP is always, always, ALWAYS a faggot.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:45:23 2022 No.14703835

>>14703833
>No such testable explanation can be given
That's your problem. Call me back when you have a testable explanation.

> the only measurement that begs an explanation is the fact that some, such as you, claim that you have
No one asked you to explain any measurement. Your task is to provide a testable explanation for the experience of consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:46:12 2022 No.14703837 File: 3.59 MB, 298x224, lol_idi_amin.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14703834

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:47:46 2022 No.14703840 >>14703835 How do you propose to test an explanation?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:49:04 2022 No.14703845 >>14703840 >How do you propose to test an explanation? That's your problem.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:52:03 2022 No.14703849

>>14703831
Cogito ergo sum is flawed but there's some truth to it.

It's not me to that exist, it's the conscious awareness of the event underlying. But even that is not guaranteed as once you think, you can become unconscious via sleep and head injury.

So in short, what you're asking for, a definite existence regardless of everything else, doesn't exist. More so, can you consciousness doesn't exist apart from the object/event that is being cognized, so even during conscious moments, there isn't a consciousness per se but rather a conscious awareness of something.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:56:14 2022 No.14703850 >>14703845 In other words, there’s nothing to explain. You have not provided any evidence that you experience consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:56:16 2022 No.14703851 >>14693642 This. OP BTFO

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 12:57:40 2022 No.14703852 >>14703850 >there’s nothing to explain. I don't know about self-proclaimed subhumans like you, but real people do experience consciousness and want to know what causes it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:00:18 2022 No.14703854

>>14703849
It's not about existence as a continuous mind tied to a certain biological entity, it's about the mere fact that there is a phenomenon that can positively be identified that seems to be an innate property beyond a gigantic variability of internal and external states, which include sleep/loss of consciousness.

The mere fact that all other phenomological events apart from the mere existence of an element of consciousness experiencing it all, makes it impossible to determine whether subjective and objective aspects of a conscious experience can translate. Every single experience is subjective and the only objective phenomenon is the fact that there seems to be a thing experiencing it all.

I am incredibly impressed you picked up on cogito ergo sum. 99.9999% of people don't know what it really means and celebrate it as a statement of empiricism rather than the end result of skepticism taken to its furthest extreme.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:01:41 2022 No.14703855 >>14703854 Daily reminder that Descartes was a brainlet, and he is largely responsible for the epidemic of consciousness-denying drones.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:02:26 2022 No.14703857 >>14703852 >real people do experience consciousness Prove it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:04:04 2022 No.14703859 >>14703857 Why would I need to?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:07:52 2022 No.14703868 >>14703859 Otherwise there’s nothing to explain. You’re going on and on about how unlike subhuman p-zombies you are actually conscious, but I haven’t seen you say anything a p-zombie or GPT-3 wouldn’t say.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:08:18 2022 No.14703870 >>14703868 >Otherwise there’s nothing to explain How do you figure?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:09:20 2022 No.14703873 >>14703718 I think that's about right. Physicalism amounts to saying "there is no hard problem, just a bunch of easy problems".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:12:44 2022 No.14703877 File: 215 KB, 645x1082, 1463236568523.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:12:52 2022 No.14703878

>>14703854
>Every single experience is subjective and the only objective phenomenon is the fact that there seems to be a thing experiencing it all.
The division often seems to get made to distinguish subject that experiences the object in a dualistic notion, but I'm more inclined to believe its a single stack subject-object. Wherever there is any sort of consciousness, its always conscious of something.
So I'm of the belief that the whole "consciousness" thing itself is a dualistic misnomer, when its really a "consciousness of."
Small pickings I suppose.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:12:59 2022 No.14703879 >>14703873 Physicalism doesn't amount to saying anything, since it can't even define what "physical" means.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:18:20 2022 No.14703887

>>14703879
Its one of the ontological monism stance, the classical implication is that there is no subjective experience because physical science hasn't been able to find one. Hence everyone's a p-zombie.

Similarly, the other end of ontological monism stance is panpsychism, its all consciousness. There's no physical properties. Hence everyone is a spirit or sort.

There's also the classical dualism, there's the physical "outside" thing and the mental "inside." Hence everyone's a spirit trapped inside a body.

There's few more

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:19:33 2022 No.14703890 >>14703887 Sorry, I still don't see any definition of "physical" in your post.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:21:56 2022 No.14703893

>>14702250
2nd half is also very nice
>Why say that you could subtract this true stuff of consciousness, and leave all the atoms in the same place doing the same things? If that's true, we need some separate physical explanation for why Chalmers talks about "the mysterious redness of red". That is, there exists both a mysterious redness of red, which is extra-physical, and an entirely separate reason, within physics, why Chalmers talks about the "mysterious redness of red".
Say what you want about Elisa Bukowski but she does, sometimes, have a knack for getting to the heart of the matter, tediously pinpointing exactly what's wrong with an argument while fully accepting the argument, following it through all the way to the end, further than the originator would probably have liked. As in this case.
>>14703879
Sure, I was being sloppy and don't intend to get into a rigorous argument about what the material world even is. Substitute any non-dualist non-idealist doctrine you like.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:22:26 2022 No.14703894

>>14703890
It means anything physical science teaches as default. There's nothing too deep about it, literally its just vapid "it is what we see with science." In the olden days, physicalism was divorced from science, and it was called materialism(there's a conflation today). The olden definition is a material substance constitute everything. That has become an untenable position given the physical sciences do not support this and has moved into exotic energy/mathematical realm.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:23:27 2022 No.14703896 >>14703893 >Substitute any non-dualist non-idealist doctrine you like. I can't. Your sentence doesn't work if I do.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:25:02 2022 No.14703900 >>14703894 >anything physical science teaches as default I thought it was common knowledge at this point that what physical science teaches is provisional and incomplete.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:28:51 2022 No.14703905

>>14703900
No, that's the more deeper(really just dipping the toe deep) knowledge that 99% of people do not understand. They know science can change due to new experiments/hypothesis/proofs/etc, but they don't know how to apply that to their understanding of the world.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:30:01 2022 No.14703908 >>14703893 >tediously pinpointing exactly what's wrong with an argument So what's wrong with the argument? LOL. You're really funny to watch you drones networking.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:30:06 2022 No.14703910 >>14703896 Just taking it out then. There is a not-to-be-named philosophical position X that amounts to saying there is no hard problem, just a bunch of easy problems.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:31:31 2022 No.14703912 >>14703910 >There is a not-to-be-named philosophical position X that amounts to saying there is no hard problem, just a bunch of easy problems. How does it differ from vacuous ones like physicalism?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:34:34 2022 No.14703917 >>14703912 Your question budget has run out. If you want to discuss further I'd like you to state your own position in your own words, somewhat self-contained, without all this tedious interrogation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:38:45 2022 No.14703924 >>14703917 >I'd like you to state your own position My own position is that you have no testable explanation for conscious experience, and you will never have one because conscious experience is internal to the subject.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:40:58 2022 No.14703928 >>14703924 Your personal conviction regarding consciousness is solely defined in reference to me? That's too much honour, anon, and also we just met.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:42:04 2022 No.14703930

>>14703878
You, I like you.

Do you believe consciousness could be a property of the universe akin to gravity? A type of force or phenomenon that is not part of an object, but acts on it in relation to a density of self-referencing information contained in one coherent object, like the relation between the force of gravity and the mass of an object?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 13:42:12 2022 No.14703931 >>14703928 Notice how your drone tactics amount to blatant deflection, or masturbating with your friends over the human strawman that is Chalmers. What does it say about the strength of your position?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:07:09 2022 No.14703957

>>14703931
>masturbating with your friends over the human strawman that is Chalmers
Spicy
>>14703924
>you will never have one because conscious experience is internal to the subject
Alright this is something akin to a positive assertion, at least.
For a phenomenon X, does the following hypothesis H1 count as a testable explanation?
H1: Physical science will one day be able to explain X.
For X = the human digestive system, this is fine. For X = gravity or magnetism, I guess it is not fine, since positing something as a law of nature is not really an explanation. So let me refine it:
H2: Physical science will one day be able to explain X in terms of widely-accepted early-3rd-millennium physics.
Would you say your position is the converse of this? I.e.:
H3: Physical science will *never* be able to explain X (in terms of bladibla).
Or you could put it like so:
H4: We will one day prove (through physics or otherwise) that it is impossible for physical science to explain X.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:07:49 2022 No.14703960 >>14703957 Try reformatting it to sound more human.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:08:12 2022 No.14703961 >>14703924 >There will never be a testable explanation for conscious experience. Now there I agree with you. It’s unfalsifiable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:10:45 2022 No.14703965 >>14703961 >It’s unfalsifiable. "It's" being whatever explanation you propose.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:14:27 2022 No.14703970 >>14703965 >"It's" being whatever explanation you propose. Exactly, it can be whatever we want it to be.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:15:48 2022 No.14703975 >>14703970 So you concede you will never have a testable explanation for this phenomenon. What are you sperging off about, then? You fully concede the hard problem of consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:20:14 2022 No.14703985 >>14703975 To say that a phenomenon has no possible testable explanation is equivalent to saying it doesn’t exist. You’re the one who just conceded that the hard problem doesn’t exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:20:17 2022 No.14703986 >>14703975 We will also never have a testable explanation for snurglewurgle. I fully concede the hard problem of snurglewurgle.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:25:00 2022 No.14704001 >>14703985 >To say that a phenomenon has no possible testable explanation is equivalent to saying it doesn’t exist. No it isn't. It's equivalent to saying that empiricism/science can not explain all things that do exist. Which is of course true.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:26:24 2022 No.14704008 >>14703985 >To say that a phenomenon has no possible testable explanation is equivalent to saying it doesn’t exist. Prove it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:27:29 2022 No.14704010 >>14703986 When a real person reads your posts, all they see is "I'm not human and it's okay to kill me".

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:31:21 2022 No.14704021

>>14704010
Death to non-believers. Too bad even this has become a culture war trigger.
By the way, Yudkowski says elsewhere:
>Could we define the word "consciousness" to mean "whatever actually makes humans talk about 'consciousness'"?
I think that's quite helpful.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:32:00 2022 No.14704025 >>14704008 I’m still waiting for proof that you have conscious experience. Go ahead, say something that a p-zombie or GPT-3 couldn’t say.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:32:30 2022 No.14704027 Remember Sam Harris saying consciousness was obviously an accidental by product of the brain. What a fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:32:49 2022 No.14704029 >>14704021 >Death to non-believers I'm not saying they feel any active urge to kill you. Just that your life has no moral value.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:33:56 2022 No.14704033

>>14704025
>I’m still waiting for proof that you have conscious experience
You still haven't explained why I need to provide any proof of it.
I'm also waiting for you to prove this claim:
>To say that a phenomenon has no possible testable explanation is equivalent to saying it doesn’t exist.
Notice how you will deflect again in your next post. I accept your full concession.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:37:19 2022 No.14704040 >>14704027 >Remember Sam Harris Of course not. Go back.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:40:35 2022 No.14704050

>>14704001
It’s one thing to say that we don’t know whether we will ever be able to explain something. It’s something else to say (which you did) that you already know that there is no possible explanation, which just means you’ve defined (i.e., made up) the problem to be unsolvable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:41:44 2022 No.14704052 >>14704050 >just means you’ve defined (i.e., made up) the problem to be unsolvable. Prove it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:42:41 2022 No.14704057 >>14704033 >You still haven't explained why I need to provide any proof of it. I did. If there’s no evidence of a phenomenon, why would it warrant an explanation? I have no evidence that you are a child molester, so I won’t bother proving that either.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:43:31 2022 No.14704060 >>14703930 Cant say.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:43:49 2022 No.14704061 >>14704057 >no evidence of a phenomenon Personal experience is evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:49:49 2022 No.14704084 >>14704061 No its not. Distilled experience with reason is evidence.. Personal experience is meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:52:01 2022 No.14704092 >>14704084 >No its not. Prove your claim.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:52:28 2022 No.14704094 >>14704092 Trust me bro

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:52:37 2022 No.14704096

>>14704061
Again, you haven’t said anything a p-zombie wouldn’t say, so I have no evidence of your personal experience. However, I do know that people frequently make mistaken claims about their experience (e.g., false memories, rationalization), which makes any of your introspective “insights” highly suspect, as they should be to you too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:55:54 2022 No.14704103 >>14704096 >I have no evidence of your personal experience Who cares? I have evidence of my own conscious experience, and all real people have evidence of theirs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 14:56:55 2022 No.14704106 >>14704094 So you can't prove your claim? Okay, I accept your concession.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:01:36 2022 No.14704120 >>14704106 I said trust me bro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:02:51 2022 No.14704123 >>14704120 Okay. I accept your concession.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:03:21 2022 No.14704124

>>14704103
Okay, now read the rest of the post. Everybody (yes, even “real” people like you) misremembers things or has déjà vu or has random thoughts that pop up that turn out to be mistaken. Now extend that skepticism to the thought that pops into your head of “I have conscious experience”. Where does that come from? You don’t know. It just appears. Don’t believe everything your brain tells you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:05:18 2022 No.14704134 Any rational person would believe a person/soul is a supernatural entity. You can't just reduce a person to nothing but atoms and molecules.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:06:47 2022 No.14704140 >>14704124 >ummm sweaty, you only think you have a conscious experience but you don't really You are truly mentally ill. lol. I know you think this reddit debate is ongoing, but to any real person this is the point where you forfeit.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:07:01 2022 No.14704142

>>14703930
Why would you (correctly imho) note that consciousness and information processing are related, but then just arbitrarily tack it onto any sufficiently dense self-referencing information? If you take the first step on this road it would make more sense to go on by to trying to find consciousness, qualitatively, within the information processing itself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:09:01 2022 No.14704148 >>14704124 The point is that even if our thoughts about consciousness are mistaken in such a way, there is still something there that needs explanation just as much. It's something else than you thought it was, but it's still just as mysterious.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:09:56 2022 No.14704155 >>14704142 How would you define consciousness in the absence of its association to any type of information processing?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:11:52 2022 No.14704161 >>14704155 How are you supposed to define something that is beyond science?

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:12:33 2022 No.14704164

>>14704148
You are a part of the problem for trying to reason with this nonhuman drone after it has openly admitted that everyone is subhuman like it, and that everything you think is just an illusion in your head unless it and its masters approve of it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:14:12 2022 No.14704168

>>14704161
The entire point of science is to try. To know there is no definable and knowable ultimate truth about anything, but to try approximate something as close as possible to it based on whatever available data, which includes the cognitive conceptualization of seemingly unknowable phenomena.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:17:19 2022 No.14704179 >>14704140 If you had any counterargument you wouldn’t have felt the need to use personal insults.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:24:23 2022 No.14704195

>>14704155
I wouldn't and I'm not sure why you think I would want to. I agree consciousness is associated with information processing, I just think positing a new property of the universe that magically appears right on top of objects with sufficient information processing is the wrong way to convert this insight into a theory of consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:29:25 2022 No.14704204 >>14704164 >You are a part of the problem What problem? Anons having a friendly discussion about a phenomenon that interests them? You're the one spewing insults and paranoid ramblings all over the place. "it and its masters", really kid?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:34:11 2022 No.14704214 >>14704195 Do you seriously think some A.I. or computer with sufficient information processing capabilities could be another person? Don't you see how far-fetched your own theory is?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:38:02 2022 No.14704223 >>14704214 Yes, for sure, that's table stakes. Do you really think an atom-level accurate simulation of a human brain would not be conscious? To me that would be far-fetched.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 15:51:27 2022 No.14704253 >>14704223 No it wouldn't be conscious because it would only be a simulation. It would be what'c called a p-zombie

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:03:38 2022 No.14704288 >>14704253 You've got some reading to do https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:09:44 2022 No.14704307 >>14704288 On that website you have 9001 different theories of consciousness. Nobody knows which one is true. You can't measure the weight, the size, etc, of consciousness. This subject is outside of reach of science

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 27 16:14:19 2022 No.14704317 >>14704307 The fun is in trying to find a theory you personally agree with.

Anonymous Wed Jul 27 18:32:59 2022 No.14704779

>>14704214
Biology is microcomputing on the molecular scale.

Our bodies are literally molecular machines and if you compare the size of a computer from the 50s to the size of a computer now and extend that process further, eventually you end up with computers that would be the size of cells. We are literally a massive chain of trillions of microcomputers working together.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hk9jct2ozY

Anonymous Thu Jul 28 03:41:27 2022 No.14705973
File: 51 KB, 1280x720, Eureka Seven Ao 19 02.05.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14703668
>>You can imagine only an inconsistent p-zombie
>Prove it.
Dualists are lazy retards, and all their ideas are half baked.
>>So your argument is merely an assumption of dualism.
>Prove it.
Because your argument is deboonked by an alternative assumption.
>>The zombie argument is based on assumption of dualism
>Prove it.
It's based on denial of emergence, which is an assumption of dualism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 28 04:22:39 2022 No.14706045 >>14703894 According to science matter if field and constitutes everything. It's materialism alright.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 28 04:29:40 2022 No.14706055 >>14703924 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.02.429430v1

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 28 04:39:20 2022 No.14706068 >>14704029 Suppressed psychopaths?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 28 08:48:33 2022 No.14706465 Bump!

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math