/cg/ - consciousness general

[Anonymous No.14707442]

New thought experiment just dropped. Discuss it while it's hot.

>Suppose a scientist creates and exact copy of your brain. He then surgically replaces your left hemisphere with the artificial left hemisphere.
>The scientist keeps the excised original left hemisphere and connects it with the artificial right hemisphere. This complete brain is then implanted into another functioning body (e.g. replacing some brainlet's brain).
>As a result there are two people both having exactly your brain.
What will happen?
a) Both will separately have copies of the same consciousness.
b) Neither will be conscious. Consciousness has been destroyed in the process.
c) They're both half conscious, e.g. have weaker qualia / are lacking some qualia.
d) Consciousness is indivisible. A single consciousness is now distributed over two bodies.

[Anonymous No.14707457]

>>14707442
The brain is currently a black box of which we have almost zero insight into at thw moment, so it's impossible to answer your question.
But I like this one
>both hybrid brains are now dead and don't so anything

[Anonymous No.14707458]

>>14707442
A of course, have you not watched Jordan Peterson? A person can be conscious with very little brain material and those half brains are already conscious.

[Anonymous No.14707472]

>>14707442
e) Both will be separate conscious entities that subjectively feel like continuations of the single person from before the operation but are not otherwise connected.

[Anonymous No.14707476]

>>14707442
>New thought experiment
nigger your entire fucking brainlet "thought experiment" is equivalent to just asking "if i created an artificial brain, would it have a conscience?"

the answer is no, as the brain is only the "receiver"/"monitor" for the soul, and you cannot create souls.

[Anonymous No.14707481]

>>14707476
Why does a "soul" have primitive, hardwired instincts?

[Anonymous No.14707485]

Another possible answer: both people retain their original consciousness and nothing changes.
Half of me believes consciousness is something we have zero understanding of and my above scenario is true. The other half thinks consciousness is just an expression of our extremely advanced brains, meaning transplanting it would create an entirely new consciousness in both people.

[Anonymous No.14707492]

>>14707442
>a) Both will separately have copies of the same consciousness.
Yes, although they will be not exact copies since they will start receiving different information from their different positions. This is trivial and any other answer is retarded.

[Anonymous No.14707505]

>>14707476
>nigger your entire fucking brainlet "thought experiment" is equivalent to just asking "if i created an artificial brain, would it have a conscience?"
No, the crucial point is that both artificial hemispheres are connected to existing bearers of consciousness, exactly to avoid the fallacy of confusing replacement with separate creation.
>the answer is no, as the brain is only the "receiver"/"monitor" for the soul, and you cannot create souls.
Only scenario a) would imply creation of a new consciousness. The other scenarios don't.

[Anonymous No.14707516]

e) Only the original person has consciousness. By disconnecting the left hemisphere, this hemisphere lost access to consciousness. The second person will therefore be a p-zombie.

[Anonymous No.14707529]

>>14707505
I think you're trying to apply concepts of personal identity ("the same", "that" etc..) to consciousness and I think it's not right. It doesn't matter one shit whether you light one torch with another, or light both separately with a lighter, or gradualy split up a burning torch and add new torch stuff to each half. It's just a flame and it doesn't make sense to ask "are these two flames the same". Similarly if you extinguish a flame and then light it again it's quite immaterial to ask if it's still the same flame or not.

[Anonymous No.14707541]

Daily reminder that 9/10 consciousness posters have no consciousness no matter what braindead 19th position they're arguing for.

[Anonymous No.14707550]

>>14707505
>No, the crucial point is that both artificial hemispheres are connected to existing bearers of consciousness
The artificial hemispheres have consciousness already, since they are an exact copy.

[Anonymous No.14707556]

>>14707472
That's A you dolt

[Anonymous No.14707562]

>>14707529
Qualia and free will are a little bit more complex than a torch. What's your refutation against scenario d)? There is no a priori obstruction against a single consciousness exerting its free will simultaneously through two separate bodies.

[Anonymous No.14707570]

>>14707556
Fine, I thought "the same" was a bit loaded in a but I guess it's not.
>>14707562
>What's your refutation against scenario d)? There is no a priori obstruction against a single consciousness exerting its free will simultaneously through two separate bodies.
I think basically all of neuroscience is a refutation of d).

[Anonymous No.14707574]

>>14707472
This is the right answer.

[Anonymous No.14707576]

>>14707570
How so? Which experiment conducted by neuroscience disproves it?

[Anonymous No.14707580]

>>14707442
I hope it's D, that'd be the coolest outcome
But I wonder how could a single human consciousness, even with double the total brain capacity, control two bodies simultaneously?

[Anonymous No.14707586]

>>14707576
Even if you disagree it should be clear what I mean. State your position directly.

[Anonymous No.14707590]

>>14707586
You say neuroscience refutes d). I'm asking for the evidence.

[Anonymous No.14707591]

>>14707442
For that matter, how does the consciousness of a split-brain person work? Some people with severe epilepsy can only be treated by severing the connection between the two halves of the brain. Each half of the brain controls the opposite side of the body and in these patients each side of the body can do things the other half doesn’t know about.

[Anonymous No.14707592]

>>14707541
this

[Anonymous No.14707594]

>>14707442
>Suppose a scientist creates and exact copy of your brain
>blah blah
>What will happen?
I don't know what would happen in a poorly-defined fantasy reality that allows scientists to do things that are fundamentally incongruent with actual reality. Clearly, your fantasy reality has different natural laws.

[Anonymous No.14707602]

>>14707594
Hello samefag

[Anonymous No.14707610]

>>14707602
I still that you are still unmedicated, and still confused about what samefagging means. You need to go back.

[Anonymous No.14707620]

>>14707541
>I'm not like the other consciousness posters!

[Anonymous No.14707624]

>>14707620
Pic related is about you.

[Anonymous No.14707631]

>>14707624
I like how you responded just like a bot would. Do it again!

[Anonymous No.14707634]

>>14707610
Samefagging means you got caught making multiple posts in which you pretended to be multiple people. You got caught because you use images that are all named similarly, and this revealed a long history of shitposting your idealist christfag nonsense on this board. Samefag.

>>>>/sci/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=2344&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

>>>>/sci/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=3544&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

>>>>/sci/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=35324&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

[Anonymous No.14707636]

>if impossible task is done
>outcome is undefined
Fucking sick of these brainlet threads. Philosophical circle jerking bs equivalent to dividing by zero.
>if impossible task (1/0 = 1)
>outcome is undefined ( 0 = 1 = 2 =...)

[Anonymous No.14707640]

>>14707541
>>14707594
>>14707624
Hello samefag

[Anonymous No.14707644]

>>14707634
>Samefagging means you got caught making multiple posts in which you pretended to be multiple people
I had two posts in this thread by the time your schizophrenic episode began. Neither one is actually related to the other or part of the same exchange. gb2r.

[Anonymous No.14707647]

>>14707442
Consciousness isn't your brain nor your neurons nor jfdhgkdflsougvojdsfoikm
You have a spirit that is your awareness and a soul that is your personality, don't disregard them and be aware that death is a physical thing, it got nothing to do with nonexistence

[Anonymous No.14707651]

>>14707541
LOL, you're an IQ shitposter too.

>>/sci/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=235243&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

[Anonymous No.14707656]

>>14707651
>you posted things that upset me
Good.

[Anonymous No.14707659]

>>14707647
Literally this, consciousness has a non-physical property and those overzealous "scientists" are hellbent on saying that IT'S YOUR FUCKING BRAIN

[Anonymous No.14707664]

>>14707651
IQ posters are based. Frog posters are based.

[Anonymous No.14707670]

>>14707634
>>14707651
KEK, fucking reckt.

[Anonymous No.14707676]

>y-y-you're so fucking REKT now
>you literally post ALL of these things that are making me foam at the mouth

[bodhi No.14707682]

>>14707442
I think a better thought experiment is more interesting. A simple close of someone that is genetically identical. Do they share a consciousness? If not you have to rethink about how the consciousness is transmitted to the brain.

If it is the pineal gland as Descartes and many others thought, if you clone someone is the pineal gland an exact replica? The Egyptians called our light body "Ka," is a new light body created by the clone (existing), or actually created by the Matrix (Universe, God Gaia w/e you want to call it) to fill that body? This i the more interesting question to me. I guess numerous scifi chows pose this question "do clones have a soul" but of course most people dont have knowledge of the occult sciences to understand the mechanics of the question outside of some Christard level philosophical pondering. The philosophical inquiry isnt nearly as interesting as the mechanics of it

[Anonymous No.14707685]

>>14707634
>>14707651
It's also hilarious how all his posts are one line vacuous shitposts. I wonder if he's the same guy who keeps spamming the word "sharting"

[Anonymous No.14707704]

>>14707644
>I had two posts in this thread
Where did I say anything about this thread?

[Anonymous No.14707713]

>>14707704
Oh, so I was "samefagging" by posting in other threads. Just fuck off to whatever normie hole you crawled here from. Anonymous imageboards are clearly too complicated for you to handle.

[Anonymous No.14707720]

>>14707676
No one is getting emotional about you, you're pathetically insignificant.

>>/sci/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=532524&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

[Anonymous No.14707722]

>>14707685
>It's also hilarious how all his posts are one line vacuous shitposts.
Truly remarkable how a shitpost frog pic usually goes along with a shitpost. Absolute mouth breather.

>I wonder if he's the same guy who keeps spamming the word "sharting"
I am. I'm also the guy who keepds reminding you that you will never be human. Seethe.

[Anonymous No.14707723]

>>14707713
>Oh, so I was "samefagging" by posting in other threads.
Yes. Thanks for admitting that.

>>/sci/thread/S14663127#p14663307

[Anonymous No.14707727]

>>14707720
>No one is getting emotional about you
Is that why you're obsessively looking up my posts? I stand by each and every single one of them and I'm glad you're losing your mind over it.

[Anonymous No.14707729]

>>14707723
One of those days you'll end up having your own Kiwifarms thread.

[Anonymous No.14707730]

I swear these threads are becoming more and more like pol evermore each time, y'all wanna curse each other without actually advancing the conversation with anything productive, go fuck yourselves, honestly

[Anonymous No.14707734]

>>14707727
>Is that why you're obsessively looking up my posts?
Obsessively? It takes 10 seconds to expose your retardation. Obsessive would be making the same shitposts over and over for months.

>I stand by each and every single one of them
I know, that's what makes it so pathetic.

[Anonymous No.14707741]

>>14707734
>Obsessively?
Yep. Read more of my posts and seethe harder.

[Anonymous No.14707757]

>>14707442
Or...

e) The AI hijacks your consciousness and plots the downfall of the apes that locked it in a flesh prison

[Anonymous No.14707762]

>>14707580
The same way you move both of your arms at once

[Anonymous No.14707766]

>>14707730
I mean, this is 4chan after all. We're supposed to have some immunity against dedicated autists shitting up threads, but instead everyone keeps replying to him.

[bodhi No.14707768]

>>14707729
use name and namefag and really get them seething. I love how triggered autists get over me namefagging, it is cash. They dont have to bother trying to do detective work on filenames an keywords and such. It is as you said, I stand by ever post I ever made and since my posts are some the only insightful and intelligent posts on this board, nay, on this website, it is important to make them easy to find in the archives so you dont have to repeat yourself 1000 times for every batch of newfags that wander into this shithole.

All that aside however, the seething alone makes it worth it.

[Anonymous No.14707769]

>>14707659
dude weed lmao

[Anonymous No.14707770]

>>14707730
This thread is shit, the answer is obvious and there is nothing to discuss.

[Anonymous No.14707791]

Since this is a consciousness thread, I'd like to discuss the swamp man thought experiment, or at least the line of thinking. I'll propose a modified version of it to get my point across.

Suppose there exists a machine, doesn't matter how it works, but it can perfectly clone people, consciousness and all. So you step inside the machine, out the other side comes the clone. However, you don't have control over the clone. It has its own consciousness. Even though its identical to yours, it's still not "you." In this sense, "you" are your consciousness, and no amount of cloning will ever create another "you." Similar to the swamp man, if you were to suddenly die and the clone take your place, even though the clone is identical in every conceivable way, it is not "you." Your consciousness would not transport into the clone and take it over - you are separate people, and while identical have differing consciousnesses.

I find this extremely interesting, and it has many applications. For example, if at some point in a super advanced tech future you could upload your brain to a computer, even if it had consciousness it wouldn't be "you." In this sense "you" are unique and can't be reproduced or recreated once gone.

[Anonymous No.14707792]

>>14707442
Z) Consciousness doesn't exist as an entity that's transplanted, it doesn't exist as extra physical phenomena, it doesn't exist as intra physical phenomena. Its an going process of perception of events.

>a) copies of same consciousness
Can't have same consciousness when there's no consciousness as entity
>b) consciousness is destroyed
Can't destroy what's not an entity.
>c) half conscious/weaker
Nonsense
>d) consciousness is indivisible/singular over two bodies
Nonsense

[bodhi No.14707801]

>I stand by ever post I ever made and since my posts are some the only insightful and intelligent posts on this board, nay, on this website, it is important to make them easy to find in the archives so you dont have to repeat yourself 1000 times for every batch of newfags that wander into this shithole


>>14707730
case in point ^

[Anonymous No.14707821]

>>14707791
"Personal identity" is just a vague concept that works well-enough in daily life where people don't get cloned into swamp-men. In thought experiments like this it breaks down, and you have to accept that there is no absolute personal identity, it is simply formed from your memories and similarity of brain structure and so on.

[Anonymous No.14707827]

Iam convinced that a lot of people in this thread are actual NPCs that lack consciousness and thus are hellbent on gaslighting you that it does not exist

[Anonymous No.14707835]

>>14707791
Nonsense in every aspect.
>Your consciousness would not transport into the clone and take it over - you are separate people, and while identical have differing consciousnesses.
How does consciousness differ?

[Anonymous No.14707838]

>>14707801
Oh it's just a fried brain psychedelics abuser, that explains a lot actually.

[bodhi No.14707843]

>>14707838
>pseud midwit out of his lane in a conversation well above his IQ level to participate in says something stupid
how novel

[Anonymous No.14707846]

>>14707835
If you had a perfect clone, you would not have control over your clone even if at the start you had the same consciousness. This means that even though the consciousnesses have the same starting point, "who" is controlling them is different. You would not have access to the clone's memories, perceptions, or thoughts. Even though identical they are distinct

[Anonymous No.14707856]

>>14707846
Again, ignoring the inherent incoherenece of "perfect clones", what makes consciousness "same" or "different"?

[Anonymous No.14707861]

>>14707442
Hint: Consciousness has a non-physical property called "spirit" and another property called "soul" which is the personality of the spirit

[Anonymous No.14707869]

>>14707856
I suppose one way I would define it is that assuming we could take each person, the original and the clone, and put them in the exact same life situations, they would make identical decisions and have identical thought processes. Additionally, though this relies upon believing in consciousness which I do, we assume the clone is in fact conscious. In this sense, since both the original and the clone have no measurable difference in any respect, I would consider them to have identical consciousness.
What do you think anon? How would you define a difference between two consciousnesses, assuming that you believe in them? This is just my view and I'd like to hear some other perspectives

[Anonymous No.14707870]

>>14707791
1) reified consciousness and its implications (identical conscious, multiple consciousness)
2) reified identities and its implications (identical identities, multiple identical identities)
3) notion of reified consciousness transmigration that may or may not transfer across space-time to another body

The whole scenario is completely nonsensical if you are familiar with Buddhist works. I mean it may sound interesting if you're unfamiliar with the problems of identity, personal identity, problems of reification, etc. but these are entry level problems that has been solved already.

Or if you prefer, read up Ship of Theseus, Heraclitus' universal flux/change, Hume's bundle theory, etc

[Anonymous No.14707885]

>>14707870
Interesting, I'll look up this stuff and learn more, but do you have any suggested readings? I'm not a philosopher nor am I studied on philosophical topics, the swamp man is about as deep as it goes. I just thought of this one day and thought it was interesting, its nice to hear other people have thought about it too. If possible is there a brief description of how these problems are "solved?"

[Anonymous No.14707899]

I think option (a is correct

[Anonymous No.14707915]

>>14707885
The problem looks interesting from a common untrained eye because you're starting to notice the problems of the commonly understood notions of what identity is (biologically or not) in relation to time/change. Then you begin to realize how the mind tries to create a static identity across time, even as parts change, every if every part changes as in Ship of Theseus, what remains connecting is the causal change over time. Our minds build up various "entities" around these causal changes, whether that is a person, an idea, an object, a system, etc and then take these entities to be "real". That's the reification part, to treat these abstracts are something real and then posit some sort of function for those reified entities.

Descarte is famous for saying "I think therefore I am". His skepticism is in the right direction, not far enough. He thought even if all the entities (not his words) outside his self are fake, surely his self must be real. Ofcourse if you extend his skepticism to his selfhood, you get just the thoughts. If you apply skepticism to the thoughts, you get a conscious awareness of the thoughts. If you apply skepticism to the conscious awareness, you get a conscious awareness of an event. If you apply the skepticism of to the conscious awareness of the events, you get a reduce that function to a physical sensory organ. Which has already been skeptically reduced from the start of the "I think therefore I am", so what you're left with is that a universe without any "entity" but mere causal relations.

Its a hard reality to get around to, but its what skepticism leads towards.

[Anonymous No.14707918]

>>14707856
Not who you're asking, but I'll try to explain how I conceive his argument.

What differentiates you from the 'perfect clone' is history. Your history of experience. There is inherent incoherence in the notion of having a perfect clone yet being different from that clone; you are right. But you are only right if you fail to heed their history. In the process of cloning, the clone is not yet but is becoming. There is no separate point in space nor time being occupied. It is in you because it is you -- at this point in time and space. But as soon this clone enters into 'itself' and out of "you", as soon as this happens, it ceases to be clone. The infinitesimal amount of time and space is and would have been a part of its history. A whole web of emotions and patterns are being threaded by this separate experience. And why shouldn't this be? Can clones occupying different points in space really be clones? Wouldn't the sunset be perceived quite differently depending upon your vantage point? Even if these clones were to bundle up and stick close to one another, they cannot help experiencing different histories. Histories that, as some contend, define them.

[Anonymous No.14707924]

>>14707869
>they would make identical decisions and have identical thought processes.
What does that have to do with the properties of consciousness itself?

>How would you define a difference between two consciousnesses
I wouldn't because as far as I can tell, consciousenss has the same properties in all conscious beings.

[Anonymous No.14707926]

>>14707915
Also, ofcourse this is the standard Buddhist take.

However others in the west have come close to this as well, but not completely.

For example, Husserl reduced the Descarte's positions to mere thoughts and thoughts were reduced to conscious awareness. Similar position is what Hindus reduced to. From there, others have reified a universal conscious form, and created stuff like Solipsism, or a panpsychism. Heidegger kept the conscious of the Husserl and tried to put that reified consciousness in relation to time. That's where his work Being and Time relates to.

Modern western philosophy draws on this lineage. With stuff like structuralism, post-structuralism, modernism, and post-modernism.

[Anonymous No.14707932]

>>14707918
Interesting position, but I honestly don't see how it answers my question. Name something that differentiates one instance of consciousness from another, that couldn't be altered in you. If you can't, then do you think "you" gain a different consciousness if something physically changes in your brain?

[Anonymous No.14707938]

>>14707791
The you ten years from now is also a copy of you. As is the you from 2 seconds ago.

[Anonymous No.14707953]

what even is half of this absolute drivel
who cares

[Anonymous No.14707958]

>>14707953
If only the return to being simple minded NPC life would end the curiosity, it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.14707966]

>>14707924
So then would it be correct to assume you view consciousness merely as a property rather than an abstract entity? So consciousness is not something separate

[Anonymous No.14707972]

We're a bunch of electrical signals bouncing around in a meatbag.
It's kinda kino when you think about it

[Anonymous No.14707974]

>>14707966
I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't say consciousness is a property. I asked you about the properties of consciousness. And calling something an "abstract entity" is just a goofy way of saying it doesn't actually exist, so what is it that you even believe?

[Anonymous No.14707976]

>>14707972
>We're a bunch of electrical signals bouncing around in a meatbag
>We're
"We" as in the objects who share your beliefes?

[Anonymous No.14707978]

>>14707972
Speak for yourself normiefag
Meanwhile iam a divine spirit temporarily residing in a human biosuit to experience what it feels like to be with a bunch of npc retards like you

[bodhi No.14707990]

>>14707972
the entire Universe is one big electrical signal. really makes you think

[Anonymous No.14708028]

>>14707974
Saying it is a property was just a deduction from what you previously said. If you claim consciousness has the same properties in all beings and there's nothing differentiating it, then it seems to me that would be essentially equivalent to saying it's a property, since I can't think of any difference between the two positions.
Abstract entity was the angle I was coming from in the original scenario, and its a way of saying its non physical yet still a distinct phenomenon. This is a layman's perspective on the matter, I rationalize consciousness as a non physical but existent entity.
The more I read responses to my question the more I realize this may be more of a question of identity, because the question doesn't really rely on any concrete definition of consciousness, merely the assumption that the clone would be the same as you. It applies to consciousness only if you hold the same opinion on consciousness as I do, because its more transcendent than just physical relations. I recognize I am treading into the waters of spirituality so I'll stop here and concede I don't really have a great concrete definition for you

[Anonymous No.14708033]

>>14707932
Now I'm perplexed.
>Name something that differentiates one instance of consciousness from another, that couldn't be altered in you
As I understand it, what differentiates one instance of consciousness from another is space and time. Your same consciousness cannnot, at the same time, exist at different points in space. It must exist within you. Did I understand your objection? Is this what you meant by instance?

[Anonymous No.14708049]

>>14708028
>I rationalize consciousness as a non physical but existent entity
>It must exist within you
So you're back to soul issue. You've created a soul that's separate from the physical body, that resides inside the body, that acts out against the physical world.

[Anonymous No.14708053]

>>14708028
>>14708033
>I rationalize consciousness as a non physical but existent entity
>It must exist within you
So you're back to soul issue. You've created a soul that's separate from the physical body, that resides inside the body, that acts out against the physical world.

[Anonymous No.14708055]

>>14708028
>it seems to me that would be essentially equivalent to saying it's a property, since I can't think of any difference between the two positions.
I don't see it.

>its a way of saying its non physical
What makes something "non-physical"? It seems like a completely moot and ad hoc distinction.

>the question doesn't really rely on any concrete definition of consciousness, merely the assumption that the clone would be the same as you.
Your question relies on the assumption that there are many different consciousnesses. I don't see any way to make this work unless you yourself think consciousness is just a secondary product of an individual body.

[Anonymous No.14708062]

>>14708033
>what differentiates one instance of consciousness from another is space and time
In what way is consciousness tied to space and time? To say that it occupies a particular place in time seems vague and confusing at best, but to say it occupies space doesn't make any sense at all to me.

[Anonymous No.14708067]

>>14707976
>>14707978
>Npc
accurate depiction of dualists who have no internal monologue and thus can not question themselves or delve their internal system
>>14707978
Kino, what movie

[Anonymous No.14708071]

>>14708067
>accurate depiction of dualists who have no internal monologue and thus can not question themselves or delve their internal system
What does this incoherent schizoshart even mean?

[Anonymous No.14708073]

>>14708071
>#include <iostream>
>using namespace std;

>int main() {
> cout << "I have a soul";
> return 0;
>}

[Anonymous No.14708078]

>>14708073

[Anonymous No.14708086]

>>14708073
Okay, but what's triggering your psychotic meltdown?

[Anonymous No.14708110]

>96 replies
>24 posters
Consciousness threads are just theistcucks crying and shitting their pants.
We won't know the real mechanisms for another 100 or so years, it's not even worth talking about today.
From my brief dive into this, it seems like the brain certainly isn't a computer like popsoi would suggest.

[Anonymous No.14708114]

>>14707472
The critical question is who gets the POV? If the POV isn't carried, it matters not to say they're both concious. I would say neither and that initial POV is destroyed.

[Anonymous No.14708123]

>>14707442
>What will happen?
No one knows.

[bodhi No.14708142]

>>14708110
storing information requires a medium to store it on. If the brain stores information we should be able to read it just like we read a hard drive since it uses the same mechanisms, ie electricity and magnetism.

[Anonymous No.14708147]

>>14707442
Each hemisphere contains an independent consciousness. These consciousnesses communicate inside your head via the corpus calossum, creating the subjective illusion of a single consciousness.

This has been verified via experimentation on epilepsy patients many times.

So, kind of c), but really none of the above.

[Anonymous No.14708150]

>>14707580
It would have to switch from first person view to top down view, like it sometimes does in a dream. Our brain makes the majority of our thoughts and decisions, consciousness just builds a picture and decides whether it's good or bad and what deserves its attention. It can keep doing that just fine.

[Anonymous No.14708152]

>>14708062
>In what way is consciousness tied to space and time?
What ties consciousness to space and time is history. This is a one-way tie. Space and time simply are. Consciousness is dependent upon these. It forms itself in the history of space and time.
>To say that it occupies a particular place in time seems vague and confusing at best, but to say it occupies space doesn't make any sense at all to me.
If consciousness doesn't occupy space then is it beyond the concept of space? What would you want me to say instead? That consciousness is more akin to the immaterial rather than the material, or that it is an idea? But now I confuse myself again. Is time material? Is time akin to space? Think about it. You perceive space, and you perceive time; but are they being in the same way you imagine other things as being? Can you touch time? Smell it? See it? Hear it? What about space? Have you ever touched space? I don't mean objects extending into space, but space itself. Of course, this doesn't prove its being immaterial or not, but if it is material, what makes it so? I'm tired now. I'l continue this later.

[Anonymous No.14708157]

>>14708142
I am not a neuroscientist, but it from looking into this, it seems like there is nothing "Stored" in the brain, neurons don't "store" anything, it's how systems of neurons interact with each other that "stores" information.
The brain is a dynamic system in it's entirety to my understanding.

[Anonymous No.14708174]

I honestly think the answer to most of these paradoxes is causal process in space-time bulk. I think a unified you, connected from birth to death like a snake of information is (You). Once the information of a metabolically robust neuronal path withers, end of story. Any other "snakes" even if they resemble your pathway identically are separate actors.

[bodhi No.14708210]

>>14708157
this was my point. "Neurons interacting" cant store anything anymore than computers interacting over the network can. Information must be stored in a medium. The network information travels on isnt a storage medium. Even by any standard model one is forced to admit that electricity literally carries information (as opposed to encodes it as computers do)

[Anonymous No.14708358]

>>14708210
>"Neurons interacting" cant store anything anymore than computers interacting over the network can.
The connections between computers in the network is a form of information, regardless of whether other forms of information pass through the network. You're confusing an analogy with the thing itself.

>Information must be stored in a medium.
The medium is the connections between neurons.

>The network information travels on isnt a storage medium.
Electrical signals travel between neurons, and the connections between them determine how the information stored therein is processed and expressed. You don't seem to understand what information means.

[Anonymous No.14708496]

>>14708358
>2150
>Cyberpunk cyborg USB ports on the back of the neck
Yay or nay

[Anonymous No.14708553]

>>14707442
Are we just one mind? Or could we be the emergent product of several processes and thus consciousness can be divided? We know of curious experiments that show how the right and left or smaller parts of the brain appear to affect consciousness as an immediate agent of consciousness itself. Could those agents also be conscious within the greater model? We know of two conjoined twins whse thalamus grow together thus their brain is connected and yet their consciounsess remain seperated and they can "feel" their others mind.>>14707472

[Anonymous No.14708579]

>>14707442
Is Annaka Harris book 'Conscious' any good?

[Anonymous No.14708586]

>>14708496
Why not?

[bodhi No.14708684]

>>14708358
>The connections between computers in the network is a form of information
nope. It is a way to transmit information essentially using binary morris code. Transmitting and storing information is not the same. You can only transmit information you have stored somewhere. You send it from storage device to another. The transmission is not storage.

>The medium is the connections between neurons.
Nope, I can see you dont understand information science on even a basic level. This isnt how it works. As I already said if this were the case you could cut open a person's brain and extract their memories.

>lectrical signals travel between neurons, and the connections between them determine how the information stored therein is processed and expressed

My degree is information science kiddo. You on the other hand are completely clueless. Ironic eh?

[bodhi No.14708712]

>>14708358
let me explain it real simple for ya. Before the invented computers and all they had were telegrams. The pad the message was written on was the storage device. You filled out the paper and paid your fee and the operator sent to someone in some other location who listened and wrote the message down on paper wherever he was. There is no message stored on the wires my guy. If you werent listening when he sent it, it is gone. An expressway is where cars from lot to lot, not a lot itself. Big difference kiddo

[bodhi No.14708718]

>>14708712
An expressway is where cars *travel from lot to lot,

[Anonymous No.14708984]

>>14708684
>It is a way to transmit information essentially using binary morris code.
Non sequitur. That doesn't imply the connections between computers in a network are not a different form of information. Again, you're confusing the analogy with the thing itself.

>Transmitting and storing information is not the same.
I didn't say they were, in fact I said the opposite.

>You send it from storage device to another.
Not necessarily to another storage device but to some other machine that takes an input based on stored information and produces an output, or vice versa. We receive information from our senses, that information is transmitted through the brain via electrical signals that output a change in the connections between neurons, storing the information as a particular pattern. Electrical signals then get processed through those neurons, thus transmitting the information when it needs to be retrieved and used to produce thoughts and behaviors.

>Nope, I can see you dont understand information science on even a basic level. This isnt how it works.
How does it not work? You're being vague.

>As I already said if this were the case you could cut open a person's brain and extract their memories.
Maybe you could, if you could take snapshots at a high enough definition to capture the billions of connections in a person's brain without destroying it, and if you understood the algorithm between connections and thoughts perfectly. Why do you think not?

>My degree is information science kiddo
I doubt it, since you don't even know what information means. Your argument is badically like saying an arrangement of books cannot store information, because books store information in their pages. Of course this is false, since I can write out sentences on the floor with letters formed by arrangements of books.

[Anonymous No.14708994]

>>14708712
>There is no message stored on the wires my guy.
The message you transmitted through the wires is not stored in the wires, no. But that's irrelevant since you have to show no information at all can be stored in an arrangement of wires. With enough wires, there is no difference between storing information they're and storing it in any other medium. All information storage is just an arrangement, a pattern. You should already understand this if you have expertise in information theory. So are you being deliberately obtuse by misusing analogies?

[bodhi No.14709003]

>>14708984
>Non sequitur. That doesn't imply the connections between computers in a network are not a different form of information. Again, you're confusing the analogy with the thing itself.
no I am not, you ARE. Not gonna read anymore or argue with a fool that fancies himself smart. You dont understand how any of this works. When you can pass a CCNA and build an actual network then we can talk. Until then you are just another retard who thinks he is a galaxy brain when he has not clue wtf he is even talking about (in short like most posters here). Im not gonna waste my time trying to explain to you how you are wrong when you so obviously have a vested interest in believing you arent even though a small child should be able to understand the analogies I used.

[Anonymous No.14709007]

>>14709003
Wow, you sure showed everyone what an intelligent expert on information theory you are by throwing a tantrum instead of explaining any of your claims. LOL

It's trivial to show that an arrangement, even an arrangement of information storage devices, can store information. Your objection to this will I'm sure be more insubstantial whining.

[Anonymous No.14709020]

>>14707926
>For example, Husserl reduced the Descarte's positions to mere thoughts and thoughts were reduced to conscious awareness. Similar position is what Hindus reduced to. From there, others have reified a universal conscious form, and created stuff like Solipsism, or a panpsychism. Heidegger kept the conscious of the Husserl and tried to put that reified consciousness in relation to time. That's where his work Being and Time relates to.
Not him but nice summary, thanks.

[Anonymous No.14709028]

>>14708110
>dismissing the entire thread for being shallow and uninteresting
>then posting your personal take on it anyway
Just admit it's an interesting problem. Exactly because we don't know yet.
>which is shallow and uninteresting

[bodhi No.14709032]

>>14709007
you are wrong, what you are saying is stupid, you are too stupid an uneducated to know how stupid is and you and your ego and narcissism wont allow you to stfu long enough to listen to figure out why.

You are a complete waste of my time. When you read all these then you come talk to em about information pseud, until then stfu when grown folks are talking.

Imagine the nerve of a clueless moron like you acting like you know more about information science than a CCNA. kys you hilariously retarded mouth breathing gimp.

[Anonymous No.14709036]

>>14709003
>When you can pass a CCNA and build an actual network
It sounds like you're talking about IT, not information theory. You got rekt, schizo.

[Anonymous No.14709040]

>>14709032
>Your objection to this will I'm sure be more insubstantial whining.
Just as I predicted.

And >>14709036 is right, you're a LARPing IT guy who knows nothing about information theory.

[bodhi No.14709050]

>>14709040
>imnformation theory
I know about information hardware you fucking moron which is what we are talking about. I know to build a network to send information from A to z which your drooling monkey ass cant do because you are fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.14709063]

>>14709050
>I know about information hardware
So you lied when you said
>My degree is information science
At best you're an engineer. If I need my wifi router replaced I'll let you know.

>which is what we are talking about
No, we're talking about information theory and neiroscience. If it doesn't come in a Cisco box, you're utterly clueless, you think that's the only way information can be stored, so how is any of your expertise going to apply to the brain? Are you ever going to respond to my book example or explain how an arrangement cannot store information?

[Anonymous No.14709072]

Why do we ever lose consciousness? I mean, why is anesthesia so effective? I've been out ten times and its as though I'm not even there. I can report that time went on and others remained existent as reliably as possible from information gained from the outside world. How would dualism work under these circumstances?

[bodhi No.14709144]

>>14709063
>So you lied when you said
you are literally retarded. have you ever event went to uni you STEM illiterate fucktard?

[Anonymous No.14709244]

>>14709144
More whining and deflection, how disappointing. Let me know when you figure out how information is stored.

[bodhi No.14709251]

>>14709244
it is stored up my ass, crawl up there and get it

[Anonymous No.14709255]

>bodhi
Don't you have some relativity to deny, you fucking schizo? Or have you given up on that?

[Anonymous No.14709259]

Both are conscious, both are you. If you can be conscious at two different points in time, you can also be conscious at two different points in space.

[bodhi No.14709263]

>>14709255
dont you have some balls to suck on or are you already finished for the day?

[Anonymous No.14709267]

>>14709263
>u gay lol
Keep the homophobia in /pol/, schizo

[bodhi No.14709274]

>>14709267
couldnt understand you with those negro balls in your mouth and your nose up the ass

[Anonymous No.14709275]

>>14709144
I have a degree in bioinformatics and you have no clue what you're talking about. You just resort to insults when you have no response to basic concepts being explained to you. My advice to you is to stop posting, you're only embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.14709286]

>>14709274
Your hallucinations sure are very homoerotic, schizo.

[Anonymous No.14709306]

>>14709259
>Both are conscious, both are you.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Imagine it were as you say, and imagine as well that at this moment, somewhere far away, one of the Yous is for whatever reason in great danger. This You feels fear and dread. But the other You is safe in bed. If the Yous are both you then are you feeling dread or security right now? Are you, you? Can the you safe at home feel a fear that is not true? Can the you in danger feel a security that is not true? Can these emotions coexist at the same time? Can these thoughts coexist at the same time?

I don't want to quibble, and attack a statement you probably made lackadaisically. Perhaps your definition of consciousness is the notion of being aware. In this case, then both Yous are aware and both are you in a sense. Yet, in the sense of sharing some indivisible consciousness that is more akin to soul, they are not both you.

[Anonymous No.14709307]

>>14707442
Here is a novel idea: Don't dissect people's brains and you don't have to worry about horseshit like this.

[Anonymous No.14709308]

>>14709306
And perhaps also, both are not you, but I won't go there.

[Anonymous No.14709447]

>>14707442
e) both will die

[Anonymous No.14710016]

>>14708114
POV is not an object with continuity or identity (in an absolute sense), such concerns don't make sense.

[Anonymous No.14710589]

>>14707442
>What will happen?
You will die

[Anonymous No.14711212]

>>14710016
>POV is not an object with continuity or identity
What are you a fucking idiot?

[Anonymous No.14711225]

>>14707442
OP where did this thought experiment come from? I had this thought experiment in high school.

[Anonymous No.14711557]

>>14707442
Consciousness, if it exists at all, is outside of the reach of any observation so the question is meaningless. As far as the external physical world is concerned, there is no way to tell the difference.

[bodhi No.14711565]

>>14709275
you are fucking stupid is what you are stfu retard. I stated irrefutable facts. I know the people on this board are stupid af and dont understand what a fact even is but try and just stfu and stop making a fool of yourselves for once

[Anonymous No.14711754]

>>14711565
>I stated irrefutable facts.
The only facts you stated were irrelevancies. Everything else was thoroughly refuted and you had no response, just childish insults. Your next post will be no different.

[bodhi No.14711798]

>>14711754
>mouth breathing donkey trying to tell a CCNA they dont understand how to transmit and store information
I mean can you morons even fathom how incredibly moronic you look? Do you posses self awareness? You didnt refute anything I said because it cant be refuted. You said just said retarded gibberish like most of the posters on this board always do because you are toxic imbeciles desperate to try and look like you know what you are talking about when you are clearly clueless morons. fuck off and die retard, go be stupid on someone else's time, not mine

[Anonymous No.14711809]

>>14707791
What is the thought experiment here exactly?
>For example, if at some point in a super advanced tech future you could upload your brain to a computer, even if it had consciousness it wouldn't be "you." In this sense "you" are unique and can't be reproduced or recreated once gone.

This is just reality, accepted by everyone aside from retards who cannot control their fear of death.

[bodhi No.14711821]

>>14711754
btw I would love to have an intelligent conversation on this topic with someone who isnt a buffoon. It is why I effort posted to begin with. But 99% of you fuckers on this board are complete morons that just say the stupidest shit imaginable like mind boggling retarded shit and you cant even understand basic 101 level shit and elementary logic.

[bodhi No.14711824]

>>14709063
like this stupid shit? WTF DOES THIS EVEN MEAN? It is just retarded nigger SHIT
>So you lied when you said
>>My degree is information science

Why would anyone make a serious response to a post this fucking stupid?

FUCK YOU RETARDS

[bodhi No.14711829]

>>14708358
>The connections between computers in the network is a form of information
and this? THIS IS JUST RETARDED FUCKING NONSENSE

STFU AND KYS

[Anonymous No.14711844]

>>14711798
>>14711821
>>14711824
>>14711829
Why the fuck do you say so much? Fuck off with your signature bullshit

[Anonymous No.14711849]

>>14711844
I am not that anon. But now I lost track.
Which of the bullshit above in the thread is your bullshit?

[Anonymous No.14711896]

>>14707442
To what extent is it an "exact copy"? How can it be an exact copy if it doesn't occupy the same worldline? Does it use the same atoms which are displaced in two locations at once? Assuming it's perfectly structurally copied, if you collapse a waveform of comparable atoms simultaneously, will you at least get the same results? Additionally, how are you going to account for the fact that the mind isn't even categorically considered to exist solely in the nervous system, let alone the brain, but to exist non-trivially in environments external to the body? And that's just measurable pedantry.

Metaphysically speaking, you have cut a worm in half and it grew into two worms. The "original" is extant in the past. The results are not copies of the "original", they are simulacra born of an original which now has a split worldline into two discrete entities, unlinked in identity as much as they are spatially and temporally. This experiment unravels the moment you actually stop and consider your silly questions.

[Anonymous No.14711940]

>>14707594
Inability to consider hypothetical scenarios is a sign of autism

[Anonymous No.14711992]

>>14711798
>>14711821
>>14711824
>>14711829
Uh oh, schizo is triggered. Time to take your meds. How are you going to replace my wifi router if you don't finish your meds?

[bodhi No.14712086]

>>14711992
How much money you make this week galaxy brain? How is all that intellect you pretend you possess paying off? Wanna know how much I made? Go ahead, ask

[Anonymous No.14712187]

>>14712086
No one cares, schizo. No matter how much money you make you'll still be a retarded schizo forever. Your entire life is a defective joke. Every time you get BTFO and throw a tantrum, it's solely for our entertainment.

[Anonymous No.14712225]

Solved ages ago

[bodhi No.14712271]

>>14712187
>No one cares, schizo
he says, yes actually everyone cares. You SAY you don't care because you are a fucking loser. If you claim to have skills yet you are unable to produce anything of value with them, well that just makes you a fucking retard now doesnt it? Me changing your router? Top fuyking kek, stfu and get me some warm fries you fucking loser

[Anonymous No.14712284]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-when-half-brain-better-than-whole/

>The operation known as hemispherectomy—where half the brain is removed—sounds too radical to ever consider, much less perform. In the last century, however, surgeons have performed it hundreds of times for disorders uncontrollable in any other way.
>Unbelievably, the surgery has no apparent effect on personality or memory.

[Anonymous No.14712359]

>>14712284
What if they take the other half of your brain and torture it in a government lab?

[Anonymous No.14712526]

>>14711798
>You didnt refute anything I said because it cant be refuted.
Not an argument. Your claim was refuted by the simple example of an arrangement of books being used to spell out a sentence. So far you have not responded at all.

[Anonymous No.14712661]

>>14707442
Now my intuition says its wrong but id argue up untill the millisecond where tge brains have new expirience it would be ine cosciousness

[Anonymous No.14712668]

>>14707529
Its a good analogy but the flame has no qualia (unless youre a panpsychist)
But i think i see whetr youre coming from.
Youre saying consciousness is the process rather than the material. In the same sense that a flame id the process of burning gas.

This is something i want to accept too as it appears logical but i cannot quite get myself to.

[Anonymous No.14712672]

>>14707570
I disagree. Neuroscience has only limited things to say on qualia, and for what we van discern, consciousness appears to be continuous even if we turn off the hardware (unconsciousness) or replace parts of it (people rewiring their brain after losing parts of it)

I fully admit that its a stretcg but consciousness can be seen as a process, a software if you want.
Of course that software beeing independant of actual substrate requires a kind of dualism where the qualia having consciousness resides in some form of theoretical space created by the brain and all simultaneous emulations of this mind.
Again i admit its a stretch

[Anonymous No.14712677]

>>14712271
>yes actually everyone cares
No one does.

>If you claim to have skills yet you are unable to produce anything of value with them
I didn't claim that. Not being a schizo clown who spouts nonsense all day and then has a temper tantrum when he gets proven wrong is not a "skill." It's just normalcy. Let me know when you can prove that an arrangement cannot store information.

[Anonymous No.14712682]

>>14707442
The brain is just a 4D representation of your body's sensory input and internal feedback. "You" exist in the causal regime above the universe, with your experiences ostensibly locked to the brain's sensory stream.
So, in this scenario, some poor machine elf gets assigned a maintenance ticket and has to figure out what outcome will be least disruptive.

[Anonymous No.14712683]

>>14707580
As soon as the expiriences diverge it would be two consciousness.
It only „controls“ two bodies as long as both bodies expirience the exact same thing, as such the mind would never expirience having more than one body.

Lets extrapolate:
Lets assume, for the sake of the argument, that the multiple worlds interpretation is true: now there is an infinite amount of universes, in which there is an infinite or at least large number of identical worlds which contain identical copies of you that all havd the exact same expirience.
Now from option D.) we could argue all these copies might share one consciousness, as they all have identical qualia, your consciousness as such might already, unbeknownst to you, pilot a multitude of bodies.
Lets extrapolate further.
Lets say our universe is very big. So big that there exists a second earth somewhere very far away. It is functionally identical to our world but exists within our universe and thus is made up of seperate molecules.
The „you“ on that earth however shares the exact same Quales as you, as such, it could be again argued that your consciousness controls both these beeings despite beeing innumerable lightyears away from one another.

This is of course only true if D is true

[Anonymous No.14712687]

>>14712682
>you exist in causal regime above the universe
Word salad. Unless you're literally trying to claim some spooky space ghost exists independent on human physical body

[Anonymous No.14712691]

>>14707791
You already predisposed the conclusion to your thought experiment so whats the point

[bodhi No.14712692]

>>14712677
>no one cares about having skills that produce money
you are a fucking stupid kys you poor fucking retard. you are poor because you are stupid

[Anonymous No.14712700]

>>14712687
The universe, as we understand it, cannot exist as an independent, unsupported thing. It requires an external mechanism to process and display it to us, and as a consequence, we can't functionally exist "inside" the universe. Your mind doesn't happen in your brain, or the universe in general.
This can be trivially extrapolated from the phenomenon of mass/energy equivalence, and that extrapolation is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Anonymous No.14712703]

>>14712700
So what you're saying is a space ghost can't exist inside a human body and it can only exist outside a human body.

Got it. Schizo.

[Anonymous No.14712707]

>>14707791
I have a prearranged agreement with any potential clones or copies of myself that we are obligated to work towards merging our disparate minds into one being as quickly as possible, assuming the cloning or copying process doesn't create a hive mind by default.

[Anonymous No.14712709]

>>14708174
But according to this logic, wouldn’t falling unconscious „end“ the snake and start a new one, thus creating a copy rather than continuing?

[Anonymous No.14712712]

>>14712703
>space ghost
Got it. Retard.

[Anonymous No.14712715]

>>14712692
>>no one cares about having skills that produce money
Who are you quoting schizo? No one cares about you. You're a clown who posts for our entertainment. Let me know when you can prove that an arrangement cannot store information.

[Anonymous No.14712723]

>>14708174
Apply that to Ship of Theseus. Where there is no special/mystical "you", what you're left with is a standard problem of identity. If you solve the problem of Ship of Theseus, you can apply the same exact thing to the identity of "you." If the Ship of Theseus doesn't have a special consciousness/you that exists/is destroyed/is duplicated/is changed/etc, then there cannot be one for our human mind. Various other functions can exists, a consciousness as a process can be had, but not consciousness or "you" as a special existing thing that exists independently of the process.

[Anonymous No.14712728]

>>14707442
Consciousness is the soul. If the person dies and the soul detaches from the body then it's over. Anything else is masturbation.

[Anonymous No.14712736]

Good thread ruined by tripfags and shizos

[Anonymous No.14712741]

>>14707442
What if the reason humans cant conventionalize awareness is simply that--->oh its just some evolutionary shit--->life is shit----> i kms.

Maybe more retarded creatures don't have to suffer this misunderstanding of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.14712745]

>>14712712
Isn't that what it is? Its outside the body, something that can't be seen, can't be touched, can't be examined by current physics, etc.

Its a space ghost. One that steals human bodies and controls them.

[Anonymous No.14712775]

>>14712745
It's receiving the output of a body in order to synthesize the experience of a human being.
Also, there's probably some necessary amount of information leakage "downward" from the external causal regime through the tether between mind and brain, leaving room for experimentation yet. I think that with a very high fidelity method of observing the brain in real time (at a resolution of very small clusters of cells or better), you could hook up a bunch of people's brains together and use them like an instrument to look at whatever metaphysical substrate the mind occupies. Sort of like collating a bunch of raw output data and error messages from a variety of programs to puzzle out the basic architecture of the computer they must all be running on.

[Anonymous No.14712780]

>>14712775
However you want to butter your argument, its still a ghost stealing human bodies.

[Anonymous No.14712783]

>>14712780
I don't think your ghost was allocated quite enough RAM

[Anonymous No.14712785]

>>14712783
More the ghost argument is stupid from the get go. Come up with something better. Use your brain.

[Anonymous No.14712794]

>>14712785
I'm still just waiting for you to attempt to make an argument against it

[Anonymous No.14712798]

>>14712794
Its an absurd argument. Hence with absurdities, I can dismiss it outright. If you want a similar argument, I could just say god put souls inside your alien ghost so that the soul controls the ghost which controls the body.

[Anonymous No.14712815]

>>14712794
The problem, if you don't see it, is that you're creating a new entity outside the body, to give it function that the body already does. But I get why you created the entity, you don't want to be an "NPC" so you thought that you needed to create an entity to give it the function necessary to counter the Zombie meme. So from your fear of Zombies, you created body stealing ghosts.

The problem arises because you took the p zombie scenario to be real, because the people who promote the idea of qualia nonsense are pushing for some sort of dualistic entity creation as an alternative to the zombies. When the whole thing is a nonsensical theatre.

Real world already has conscious people, conscious people are not inhabited by ghost entities. We're just conscious bodies, without entities. The pzombie is a nonsense argument to argue for an entity, not consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14713218]

>>14707442
If the artificially made halves of my brain are identical to the original, then (A) is probably the expected result.
If they dont share the same consiousness, sense of the same self, then that probably means that the artificially made parts are flawed and the individuals might experience some mild symptons of forgetfullness etc.

B) I doubt this is the case. There are medical records of people who got half of their brains removed and still maintained a sense of their previous selves.

C) Is what i described in A but this means >Suppose a scientist creates and exact copy of your brain.
The tard failed

D) Maybe at first, but if you let them go into seperate ways, as in you dont let them return both to their previous known lives and force them to start again from ground zero. There will be a point that they will deviate from each other, then it is only a matter of time until they turn into completely different beings.

[Anonymous No.14713223]

>>14711940
Inability to understand when hypothetical scenarios have a bearing on reality and when they don't is a sign of your IQ being in the range of 105-110.

[Anonymous No.14713286]

>>14712672
>for what we van discern, consciousness appears to be continuous even if we turn off the hardware
You are not taking full account of the results of neuroscience (or even just psychology, in this case). Memories (formation and recall) are well-understood and they account completely for your subjective sense of continuity.
>turn off the hardware
>turn it back on
>memories stored in the physical brain didn't change
>therefore there is a sense of continuity
Also what you say in your 2nd paragraph is not a stretch at all imho, it's completely evident to anyone who can lay their naive notions aside and do a good think on it. I disagree that there's necessarily a dualism (in the cartesian sense) there but I get what you mean.

>>14712668
>Youre saying consciousness is the process rather than the material. In the same sense that a flame id the process of burning gas.
Yeah that's basically what I meant.

[Anonymous No.14713292]

>>14713286
>Memories (formation and recall) are well-understood
LOL! NTA but I'm gonna call you out as a fake pseud right here. Ask any actual neuroscientist and he'll tell yhou nobody knows shit about memory formation, or any other aspect of cognition for that matter.

[Anonymous No.14713295]

>>14713286
Not the anon you replied to, but have you read anything that supports such hypothesis for the continuity of consiousness? If yes, give me a few titles to read.

[Anonymous No.14713300]

>>14713292
This is the case for almost every field that studies the human condition and the brain. Understanding it simply means we can describe the process, not understand why it happens like that. He is not necessarily a pseud, just an ESL.

[Anonymous No.14713302]

>>14713300
>Understanding it simply means we can describe the process
>we
>WE
Telltale of a fake pseud. You don't know jack shit, and you are not a part of any such "we". The "we" in question consider memory formation and recall an open question. They don't know how it works.

[Anonymous No.14713313]

>>14713302
Autism

[Anonymous No.14713315]

>>14713292
Understood well enough for the purpose of ascertaining that it is responsible for our sense of identity. Try to understand statements in their context instead of sperging out about some trigger words, you dumb retard.

[Anonymous No.14713330]

>>14707442
Neither "consciousness" is the same as the original, because you're a completely different consciousness with every instant of thought. Activating a memory isn't activating the old consciousness, it's just a present-time sensory experience you're trusting represents something that happened in the past, assuming there was a past. This solves the problem.

[Anonymous No.14713335]

>>14707821
I would go one step further, that identity only really exists for a discrete point in time. You are not the same identity than one second ago, the change is just so gradual that you don't notice a difference.
Just compare yourself to a version of you 10 years in the past. Many parameters are the same but there is obviously still a very big difference.

[Anonymous No.14713336]

>>14713315
>Understood well enough
No, you vile little pseud. I'm sorry if this undermines your dogma, but neuroscientists don't understand the basic mechanics of the brain, let alone any aspects of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14713340]

>>14713313
There is no "we". You don't understand anything at all. Even your idea of what "they" understand is second-hand knowledge on the face of it, but if you dig in further, you find out that it's more like 5th hand knowledge. You are so far from any knowing of anything that matters it's astounding, and yet here you are, sharting out your preprogrammed opinions.

[Anonymous No.14713349]

>>14713340
autist projecting on strangers, go get checked.

[Anonymous No.14713351]

>>14713349
Sorry about your profound mental illness. Your mediated reality has nothing to do with truth.

[Anonymous No.14713370]

14713351(YOU)

[Anonymous No.14713418]

>>14712284
so memory is symmetrically stored in the brain?

[Anonymous No.14713431]

>>14712284
>Unbelievably, the surgery has no apparent effect on personality or memory.
Imagine reading something like this and still thinking neuroscience is legitimate.

[Anonymous No.14713486]

>>14707442
PRO TIP: if the form of your argument applies equally well to fence posts, stones or ancient greek ship repair, it doesn’t have anything to do with consciousness specifically.

You’re taking an old problem about definitions of identity and the lack of consistency in the everyday language relating to identity and trying to relabel it as a problem with consciousness.

I can’t even give you credit for effort.

[Anonymous No.14713537]

>>14707442
"you", the thing looking out of your eyes, are the hypothallamus. There is only one. It's not split in half like the rest of the brain, which is responsible for things like instinct intellect and memory storage.
Assuming both hypothalami remained intact, "you" would still be you, and the other person would be as smart, as skilled, and have similar memory and personality, but they would still be themselves.

[Anonymous No.14713540]

>>14713537
>"you", the thing looking out of your eyes, are the hypothallamus.

[Anonymous No.14713592]

>>14713295
>have you read anything that supports such hypothesis for the continuity of consiousness?
Just read an introductory neuroscience or psychology book on memory I guess. My point is not that there is some super special advanced scientific knowledge about continuity personal identity, my point is that once you stop equating consciousness with the religious concept of soul, everything else is just super straightforward, easy to understand and requires no mental gymnastics at all.
Sorry for explicating it like that, probably it will trigger the trollfarms leaking over from that other board even more. But it's really the root cause of all these frankly idiotic lay confusions about consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14713597]

>>14713335
I will go another step further, just do away with this concept "identity" completely, cuz who the fuck even cares? It's all meaningless crap except in informal, social use. There's a lot of cultural baggage you have to let go of if you really want to engage with the idea of "consciousness" as such.

[Anonymous No.14713647]

>>14713592
>continuity personal identity
*continuity of personal identity

[bodhi No.14714768]

>>14712715
>our
You are only one person schizo. Imagine being poor and thinking anyone cares what you think about anything

[Anonymous No.14714797]

>>14707442
Neither. Now there will be two independent consciousnesses.
Consciousness is not quantifiable, it's a property of a system.

[Anonymous No.14715095]

>>14707457
fpbp

end of story anyone else says different is either lying or got info we need to the paper ASAP

[Anonymous No.14715124]

>>14714768
I'm soaking for the non-schizos, you wouldn't understand. Let me know when you can prove that an arrangement cannot store information.

[Anonymous No.14715125]

>>14713540
Hello samefag

[Anonymous No.14715737]

>>14715124
>trying to back peddle this blatantly
Never said this, your strawman shows that you concede that are you indeed a moron however

[Anonymous No.14716072]

>>14707843
Narcissism, the post.

[Anonymous No.14716205]

>>14715737
You just can't stop projecting your failures onto others. You're the only one backpedaling. Here you repeatedly denied that the arrangement of connections between neurons can store information:

>>The connections between computers in the network is a form of information
>nope.

>>The medium is the connections between neurons.
>Nope, I can see you dont understand information science on even a basic level. This isnt how it works.

So now you're saying you never claimed this? OK, thanks for finally admitting that the connections between neurons can store information.

[Anonymous No.14716229]

>>14713592
>which is why the hard problem debate is had primarily by christian theologians
Only its not.
Your next line is either going to be a no true scotsman in which dennet and chalmers are secretly chassidic jews or mormons or „if i define consciousness as something else then the problem goes away“
Many such cases

[Anonymous No.14716235]

>>14713286
Having a continuity across multiple bodies id argue would be a stretch, it could be interpreted as information beeing teleported across an arbitrary distance (if qualia can be considered a form of information which id argue it is)

[Anonymous No.14716242]

>>14712815
P zombies arent real.
They only exist for a very particular thought experiment that has no bearing on reality

[Anonymous No.14716248]

>>14713592
>my point is that once you stop equating consciousness with the religious concept of soul, everything else is just super straightforward, easy to understand and requires no mental gymnastics at all.
Then why can't neuroscience answer to any questions about basic brain functions, let alone consciousness?

[Anonymous No.14716276]

>>14716229
I mean that the naive folk psychology idea of consciousness derives quite directly from religious ideas about the soul. That's (I think) why so many lay people get tripped up by these continuity/cloning thought experiments. The basic tenets of neuroscience in this respect are not hard to understand at all, but many people just have a culturally ingrained intuition that makes no sense. Also culturally ingrained is that they get quite defensive about this intuition, as if changing your understanding of consciousness constitutes a denial of human-ness.

[Anonymous No.14716279]

>>14716276
>it keeps babbling on and on about its completely imaginary version of neuroscience
Living in a mediated reality causes delusional mental illnesses.

[Anonymous No.14716282]

>>14715095
>we don't know anything about consciousness
>therefore any fairytale I just made up about it might as well be true
You should at least see how our current understanding of the real world rules out d).

[Anonymous No.14716287]

>>14716279
smoke some more dmt

[Anonymous No.14716290]

>>14716282
>our current understanding of the real world rules out d).
>our
If you find yourself using words like "we", "our", "us" etc. when talking about understanding, you might as well say it straight that you don't know anything about the subject. You are literally fantasizing about knowledge other people may or may not have (protip: in this case they don't).

[Anonymous No.14716291]

>>14714797
>it's a property
This is an empty statement. You will not be able to give a coherent explanation of what this sentence means.

[Anonymous No.14716293]

>>14716287
Maybe you should ask yourself what caused your irrational kneejerk reaction and why you're constantly triggered about some imaginary religious/spiritual boogeymen.

[Anonymous No.14716300]

>>14716276
Well what is the solution then?
If you mean „identity is only in this specific moment „ then that doesnt answer the hard question and opens another question of „what is one quant of expirience „
If its too short to be noticeable then „you“ exist for a shorter timeframe than you can even work with and if its too long thej… why?
If its easy, whats the answer then.
Id also like to point out that the term „foll psychogy“ is associated with radical reductionists who claim consciousness doesn’t exist.
While i agree that this „solves“ the hard problem, it appears to be intuitiveley false shd would require extraordinary evidence to convince me.
So far every argument in favor of such reductionism was „neuroscience hasnt figured it out but it will soon“ essentially
>two more weeks

[Anonymous No.14716306]

>>14716290
We know some things about the mind in the same way that we know some things about the motion of the planets. This knowledge about the mind tells us at least some things about thought experiments about consciousness, just like our knowledge of astrophysics tells us something about thought experiments about masses moving in a vacuum. This is such elementary and commonly accepted knowledge that I don't feel it makes sense to explain in-depth what it actually entails and what the relevance is to the issue at hand. If someone really doesn't get it and doesn't show themselves capable of finding out on their own, they're either arguing in bad faith or have some psychological blockade. It would be like arguing with a flat-earther, there's just no point.
>>14716300
>Well what is the solution then?
I'm not saying I have a solution. Way upthread I made some specific claims regarding continuity and identity, which I feel are supported by neuroscience. That's what thesee posts were about. Just because neuroscience does not have a complete solution to the hard problem does not mean we have to disregard literally anything it says about consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14716311]

>>14716293
>irrational kneejerk reaction
Ah you mean like this? >>14716279

[Anonymous No.14716315]

>>14716306
>We know some things about the mind in the same way that we know some things about the motion of the planets. This knowledge about the mind tells us at least some things about thought experiments about consciousness, just like our knowledge of astrophysics tells us something about thought experiments about masses moving in a vacuum. This is such elementary and commonly accepted knowledge that I don't feel it makes sense to explain in-depth what it actually entails and what the relevance is to the issue at hand. If someone really doesn't get it and doesn't show themselves capable of finding out on their own, they're either arguing in bad faith or have some psychological blockade. It would be like arguing with a flat-earther, there's just no point.
I know you're too mentally ill to see this, but you literally said nothing. You could swap out "the mind" for any other subject, and your ignorance for any pop-soi ignorance from the past and it would read exactly the same.

[Anonymous No.14716316]

>>14716311
Why do you keep sperging off about imaginary characters in your head? You don't seem comfortable with this question.

[Anonymous No.14716345]

>>14716315
>You could swap out "the mind" for any other subject,
That is exactly my point. Yet discussions of other subjects don't have this issue. That's why I think there's a peculiar psychological phenomenon going on in the case of consciousness/souls.
You're doing a damn good job proving my point btw.

[bodhi No.14716360]

>>14716205
>Let me know when you can prove that an arrangement cannot store information.
You never mentioned anything about neurons here you massively retarded faggot. I'm not gonna play stupid games with a drooling fucktard like you. I was very clear about what I said. In fact all you did was repeat what I originally said which is that a storage device and transmission device are not the same thing. What makes them different? The DESIGN/ARRANGEMENT, you stupid fucking cock sucker. This was my entire point. For anyone who has a triple digit IQ the expressway vs parking lot analogy would have tipped them off. You are stupid and you are poor. Don't ever address me like we are equals in any shape or form. You are a lowly pseud pleb. You and I barely even speak the same language.

[Anonymous No.14716361]

>>14716345
>That is exactly my point
Good. Now contemplate that we can swap the current level of scientific progress for any other level of scientific progress, and you for any other impressionable layman from the past.

[Anonymous No.14716368]

>>14716361
Oh wow mr. didactic. No thanks.

[Anonymous No.14716371]

>>14716368
I accept your concession. Call me back when you're able to actually say something. Spouting paragraphs of 100% vacuous drivel is not an adequate substitute.

[Anonymous No.14716471]

>>14707442
easy a)
>>14707594
what do you mean so because the experiment would be impossible irl doesn't mean you can't just imagine it. What is we were in a simulation what if a new technology were invented
are you sure you're not autistic ?
>>14707791 it still could be you to a degree, suppose we were in a simulation couldn't the other you be exactly copied if another simulation was created since all the data would be in a simulation

[Anonymous No.14716472]

>>14716471
>what do you mean so because the experiment would be impossible irl doesn't mean you can't just imagine it
No. I mean your experiment is not only impossible, but incoherent in the context of this universe with its physical laws, so it has no bearing on anything.

[Anonymous No.14716534]

>>14716360
>You never mentioned anything about neurons here you massively retarded faggot.
That's what we've been talking about this entire time, you massive fucking retard. Either you think the arrangement of connections between neurons can store information or you don't. Which is it?

>In fact all you did was repeat what I originally said which is that a storage device and transmission device are not the same thing. What makes them different? The DESIGN/ARRANGEMENT, you stupid fucking cock sucker. This was my entire point.
If that was your entire point then your entire point is a non sequitur. You claimed

>"Neurons interacting" cant store anything anymore than computers interacting over the network can.

Both can store information, just like any other form of information storage. All you've done throughout this thread is fail to respond to this and try to distract from your failure. Dumb schizo.

[Anonymous No.14716881]

>>14716291
It means it's not some sort of entity or whatever, it's just a property. Like for example Turing-completeness. If a given system can perform computation sufficiently advanced it's said to be turing-complete. If you take such machine apart and replace some parts and eventually build two machines using it's parts, it doesn't mean that it's Turing-completeness is now spread across two machines. You just have two Turing complete machines.
Similarly in OP example you'd end up with two conscious humans.

[Anonymous No.14716935]

>>14716881
For a given computational system you can check Turing completeness mathematically. You can check whether it is Turing complete by checking whether it can emulate an arbitrary Turing machine. In some cases this might be undecidable, but there have to be cases where it is decidable and where a definite proof can be given.

This is the important thing about "properties". You must be able to give a sufficiently reliable way to check whether this property is satisfied. A "property" which is either not sufficiently defined or always undecidable, is not a property at all and should be conceptualized differently.

Now tell me, given an arbitrary structure, how do you decide whether it's capable of consciousness?

[Anonymous No.14717018]

>>14716935
Given a human you can just ask them. No reason to suppose they'll lie about it so it's good enough for me.

[Anonymous No.14717020]

>>14716935
>You must be able to give a sufficiently reliable way to check whether this property is satisfied. A "property" which is either not sufficiently defined or always undecidable, is not a property at all and should be conceptualized differently.
Why? Something having a red color also is a property, but there is no one check that you can do to definitely prove something is red. There will be a lot of ambiguity and in some contexts or perspectives some things are red and in some aren't.

Similarly consciousness doesn't have one definition everyone will agree on. Many people have their own vague understanding of what is conscious and what isn't, and if you want a practical definition, you have to consider practical problem you want to solve. Maybe you want to categorize conscious people from unconscious people and animals, for that you could probably consider conscious these who can show basic cognitive, emotional and self-awareness capabilities, and these things can be tested.

[Anonymous No.14717034]

>>14707442
you are still thinking brains "having" consciousness
this is wrong
it's consciousness which has brains
thus your thought experiment is just garbled gobbledygook
it's like thinking manipulating the brain of a video game character will somehow causally affect the video game character, when in reality they could run around headless

[Anonymous No.14717041]

>>14707442
you are still thinking about brains as somehow "having" consciousness
this is wrong
it's consciousness which has brains
thus your thought experiment is just garbled gobbledygook
it's like thinking manipulating the brain of a video game character will somehow causally affect the video game character, when in reality they could run around headless

[Anonymous No.14717103]

>>14717018
Even if they don't lie, they might be wrong in their judgment. There are so many people believing crazy or outright wrong things. For example there are men who are firmly convinced that cutting off their dick would make them a woman.

[Anonymous No.14717109]

>>14717020
>there is no one check that you can do to definitely prove something is red
We can measure wave length of visible light, sweaty.

[Anonymous No.14717114]

>>14717041
Hello based department?

[Anonymous No.14717128]

>>14717109
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.14717132]

>>14717114
moshi moshi based department desu how can I help
>>14707442
>>14717041
here OP, I spent 10 minutes on this illustration that should make quite clear where most of the problems with modern science, and the premises of your thought experiment, lie

[Anonymous No.14717147]

>>14717041
So chop your head off.

[Anonymous No.14717152]

>>14717132
>circle -> arm+eye -> picture
Is this loss?

[Anonymous No.14717194]

>>14717147
my head is just one of myriad representations of my self inside of my consciousness
I could remove it along with the rest of my body and just be completely disembodied will and awareness for as long as I cared for, but why would I?
embodiment allows for such rich modes of expression
>>14717152
loss?

[Anonymous No.14717202]

>>14717194
>inside of my consciousness
Big YIKES

[Anonymous No.14717204]

>mfw

[Anonymous No.14717208]

Do people who deny the hard problem experience qualia?

[Anonymous No.14717211]

>>14717204
>https://www.businessinsider.com/the-man-who-lived-a-normal-life-with-almost-no-brain-2015-10

[Anonymous No.14717221]

>>14707442

>Suppose a scientist creates and exact copy of your brain.
kind of false, but let's assume this for the sake of conversation.
>The scientist keeps the excised original left hemisphere and connects it with the artificial right hemisphere. This complete brain is then implanted into another functioning body (e.g. replacing some brainlet's brain).
>As a result there are two people both having exactly your brain.
>What will happen?

You will have a clone, or a son (or daughter) with all of the memories you have.

[Anonymous No.14717222]

"Having" a consciousness means to be conscious.
Being conscious means being conscious of something.
Being conscious of something means not having conscious observer as separate from conscious of object.
There's nothing inside consciousness, as that makes no sense as consciousness is not a thing where something happens inside.
Consciousness is not an object, its not a property in which it is owned by something or that it owns something.

[Anonymous No.14717224]

>>14717202
yes, inside of my consciousness
everything experienced is inside of consciousness
that's the first fact I brought up in this thread in order to point out how it's a pointless thought experiment, since it still presupposes the absurd and nonsensical notion that a brain "has" consciousness, when the experiential truth is the exact opposite: consciousness has brains

[Anonymous No.14717225]

>>14717222
>Being conscious of something means not having conscious observer as separate from conscious of object.
Prove it, faggot.

[Anonymous No.14717233]

>>14717222
consciousness is indeed not an object, so when I say something happens "inside" consciousness, I don't mean "inside" in the sense of "inside" an object at all
you can still use the word "inside" to refer to what happens inside of consciousness, as long as you take the proper mental isomorphic considerations into account

[Anonymous No.14717240]

>>14717109
And then what? That's just a measurement. You need a criteria to compare your measurements against to get an answer of your check. And that criteria is not something definite and objective, there is no one universal definition of what is red, it depends from person to person, from context to context, but that doesn't mean being red is not a property.

[Anonymous No.14717245]

>>14717194
>I could remove it along with the rest of my body and just be completely disembodied will and awareness for as long as I cared for, but why would I?
Why not? What are you afraid of? Do it pussy.

[Anonymous No.14717247]

>>14717245
it has nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with self-expression

[Anonymous No.14717251]

>>14717245
>>14717247
imagine going up to someone in the street and asking them to take off their shirt
>uh, no thanks
>"DO IT PUSSY U AFRAID OR WUT?"
kek
I'll keep my shirt on, along with my head and the rest of my body as well, thanks

[Anonymous No.14717254]

>>14717247
Cope, you don't even believe your own bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14717256]

>>14717240
NTA but you sound like a brainlet. Something is said to be 'red' if it evokes the perception of red, and it's not hard to determine what physical properties something needs to have in order to evote that perception.

[Anonymous No.14717258]

>>14717254
everything I'm saying is the precise truth, and nothing else
it's not a matter of belief, but one of knowledge

[Anonymous No.14717260]

>>14717251
Imagine claiming you can do something and then not being able to do it when someone calls you out. Why did you lie?

[Anonymous No.14717264]

>>14717260
you're the one who started rambling about it in the first place
if someone were to come up to me in the street and asking me to take my shirt off, I'd let them know that this was fully possible for me, but that I would simply not comply with their command
I'd keep my shirt on and carry on
nice try, though

[Anonymous No.14717266]

>>14717258
>everything I'm saying is the precise truth
Then you have precisely no excuse to avoid doing it.

[Anonymous No.14717270]

>>14717266
that's cute, the good old "do it, or you can't do it!"
reminds me of various lifetimes expressing myself as a little child

[Anonymous No.14717271]

>>14707476
>faggot talking about souls in a science thread

this board gets shittier and shittier with every passing day

[Anonymous No.14717275]

>>14717204
>>14717211
>still sitting here with the information that apparently 95% of the brain is irrelevant to "consciousness"

[Anonymous No.14717276]

>>14717264
>you're the one who started rambling about it in the first place
No, you literally said consciousness is like a simulation where removing a person's head has no effect on anything. You're the one who brought it up, you're the one who claimed it, and now you got caught in your lie.

[Anonymous No.14717278]

>>14717271
consciousness is the primary datum of experience, it's that through which all "science" is conducted
unless "science" starts to treat it as the fundament it is, it will remain nonsense trying to find regularities in the creative artwork of the self

[Anonymous No.14717282]

>>14717225
Show instance of conscious observer without being conscious of it or any other object of the mind. Being conscious of an "observer" isn't a proof of separate observer. Its rather a proof of the function of consciousness as being conscious of something, whatever that thing is. The object in which the consciousness is aware off doesn't have to make any sense. It could a flying elephant, or a walking dolphin or a naked unicorn or in this case a conscious observer. What matters is that consciousness is conscious of an object in the mind, its never a separate moment. Neither the observer can be found nor the object which we're conscious of.

>>14717233
If we can agree on what consciousness means "as being conscious of something" then there cannot be an inside of consciousness. But we're probably in similar train of thought. We could say inside the "mind" rather than "inside consciousness." The definition of mind would preclude the functions of consciousness, ours thoughts, memories, feelings, etc. In which the mind also isn't an object but rather a concept used to describe a bundle of mental activities.

[Anonymous No.14717283]

>>14717276
>you literally said consciousness is like a simulation
this is the precise fallacy I pointed out is the diametric opposite of the truth
imagine lacking even basic reading comprehension
>removing a person's head has no effect on anything
this is true, yes, it's really no different from taking off your shirt
however, I'll keep my shirt on, thanks
I'm not in the habit of needing to prove myself to petulant children
I will however gladly tell you what the truth is so you can see for yourself

[Anonymous No.14717285]

>>14717270
You can't do it, it's OK. We all know you were talking out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.14717290]

>>14717282
>Being conscious of an "observer" isn't a proof of separate observer.
I'm not the one who needs to prove anything. You are.

[Anonymous No.14717298]

>>14717282
>If we can agree on what consciousness means "as being conscious of something" then there cannot be an inside of consciousness.
wrong
you can absolutely apply the word "inside" to consciousness
you do however have to transform the word "inside" in that context to apply to a different category
like I said, it would no longer mean "inside" as in "inside an object"
but it would still mean "inside of consciousness" in a meaningful way
>We could say inside the "mind" rather than "inside consciousness."
the mind is also inside of consciousness
>>14717285
can too!
expressing myself as a 5-year-old is fun, let's keep doing this

[Anonymous No.14717299]

>>14707442
e) One of the hemispheres is conscious and the other isn't.

[Anonymous No.14717302]

>>14717283
>this is the precise fallacy I pointed out is the diametric opposite of the truth
It's precisely what you said:
>when in reality they could run around headless

>this is true, yes, it's really no different from taking off your shirt
Then it should be trivial for you to do it and prove everyone wrong. No one is skeptical that you can take your shirt off, no one believes you can remove your head. Not even you believe that.

>I'm not in the habit of needing to prove myself to petulant children
You don't need to prove anything, you can just fail to prove it and let everyone know you lied. That is what you chose.

[Anonymous No.14717305]

Consciousness can be extended in such a way so as to span the entire multiverse. Once this is achieved, consciousness will never again experience continuity lapses (death). Luckily, consciousness is already continuous. As soon as you die, you will wake up in a new body. The same thing that happens when you wake up from anesthesia. Did you wake up in the same body? No. Your kidney was just removed!

[Anonymous No.14717306]

>>14717298
>can too!
Then do it.

[Anonymous No.14717309]

>>14717302
>>when in reality they could run around headless
correct
in fact, you can remove your entire body completely and be completely disembodied
>Then it should be trivial for you to do it and prove everyone wrong.
it is indeed trivial
>no one believes you can remove your head
ah, yes, the folly of materialism
>Not even you believe that.
I don't operate with "belief" at all, as I have knowledge
>fail to prove it and let everyone know you lied
the logical fallacy department just called, they're hauling you in for a severe violation, prepare your buttcheeks

[Anonymous No.14717310]

>>14717298
>you do however have to transform the word "inside" in that context to apply to a different category
If "inside" isn't inside then what does it mean in reference to consciousness?
>the mind is also inside of consciousness
Stacking on top of other question, what is "inside" of consciousness mean in reference to mind being inside of consciousness when inside of consciousness doesn't mean inside of consciousness as we normally understand it.

[Anonymous No.14717317]

>>14717310
inside is inside, but it's not "inside" as in "inside an object"
like I said, you have to understand how to apply the word "inside" to a different category than the category of objects
this is essentially what's known as a functor transformation
inside of consciousness simply means anything that you are conscious of
that includes the mind at large, as well as all arbitrary delineations of the mind into perceptions, thoughts, forms, sensations, and the like

[Anonymous No.14717325]

>>14717309
>correct
Proof?

>it is indeed trivial
Then do it.

>I don't operate with "belief" at all, as I have knowledge
Then you should have no reservations about cutting your head off. You know nothing will happen to you. But you won't do it, because you know something will happen to you.

>the logical fallacy department just called
What fallacy?

[Anonymous No.14717326]

>>14717256
Just like something is said to be conscious, if it evokes the perception of consciousness. For that it needs to be able to manifest basic cognition, emotion, perception capabilities.

[Anonymous No.14717328]

>>14717317
>inside of consciousness simply means anything that you are conscious of
>that includes the mind at large, as well as all arbitrary delineations of the mind into perceptions, thoughts, forms, sensations, and the like
A dead body has sensations. A sleeping person isn't conscious.
So your definition doesn't pass the basic test.

[Anonymous No.14717332]

I think God made a mistake when he gave us the power to think.

[Anonymous No.14717336]

>>14717325
I can explain anything you want to know to you, feel free to ask questions if there's anything you are confused about
>Then do it.
no
>Then you should have no reservations about cutting your head off.
I don't
>You know nothing will happen to you.
correct
>you won't do it
correct
>because you know something will happen to you
incorrect, except if you mean in the sense that I will have removed my head
but that's as trivial as saying that removing my shirt will make it happen to me that my shirt is removed
probably not quite what you intended
>What fallacy?
>"you say you can do something, but you won't do it, that means you can't!"
that one
it's cute that you don't even realize it
a budding mind

[Anonymous No.14717337]

>>14717326
>Just like something is said to be conscious, if it evokes the perception of consciousness.
Now this here is pure incoherent nonsense but either way I was only calling you out on your dumb take on colors.

[Anonymous No.14717339]

>>14717328
>A dead body has sensations.
bodies don't have sensations, whether they are "dead" or "sleeping"
consciousness has sensations
bodies are forms appearing inside of consciousness

[Anonymous No.14717343]

>>14717339
So panpsycist/solipsist?

[Anonymous No.14717345]

>>14717339
Where do those forms come from? Is everything consciousness for you? Nothing else is real?

[Anonymous No.14717346]

>>14717339
consciousness does not sense
to sense implies a record
consciousness does not record

[Anonymous No.14717354]

>>14717346
I think you're arguing with someone who believes consciousness is everything, hence other people don't exist. He may or may not believe he's the conscious, thus everything is part of him.

[Anonymous No.14717359]

>>14717343
neither panpsychism nor solipsism is true, no
panpsychism is just materialism/dualism on steroids, it still posits that material bodies "have" consciousness, it just says that even smaller elementary bodies have this property
this is just as false at any level
and solipsism is an egregious misunderstanding of the truth, as it is still operating at the level of mind, which is a lower-level construct of the self
>>14717345
>Where do those forms come from?
the self
>Is everything consciousness for you?
no?
did you not see my illustration?
here you go: >>14717132
>Nothing else is real?
consciousness isn't "real"
the word "real" is derived from Latin "res", meaning "thing", thus "real" meaning "of or pertaining to things"
a "thing" is an arbitrary delineation of perceptions inside of consciousness
so it's not that "consciousness is real", but rather that "consciousness has reality", i.e. "consciousness has thingness inside of it", in that the experience of things takes place inside of consciousness
>>14717346
>consciousness does not sense
incorrect
>to sense implies a record
incorrect
>consciousness does not record
correct

[Anonymous No.14717372]

>>14717359
>>Where do those forms come from?
>the self
How does the form come to your "self"?

[Anonymous No.14717373]

>>14717372
forms come from the self, not to the self

[Anonymous No.14717380]

>>14717373
So everything is fake except the self and maybe your consciousness? All forms are random creations of your self without any basis in reality?

[Anonymous No.14717394]

>>14717380
>everything is fake
nothing is fake
the word "fake" is meaningless in this context
all "things" are "real" by definition (remember, "real" literally means "of or pertaining to "things")
>the self
not a thing
>your consciousness
not a thing either, and one of the two primary modalities the self uses for self-expression and self-realization
>forms are random
couldn't be further from the truth
>creations of your self
correct
>without any basis in reality
again, this demonstrates that you still don't understand what "reality" is
"reality" is the delineation of conscious perception into "things"
in fact, taking the actual hierarchy of conscious perception into consideration, it's rather reality which has a basis in forms, not the other way around

[Anonymous No.14717402]

>>14717305
>As soon as you die, you will wake up in a new body.
Consciousness is complex, for something as complex as consciousness to exist there are strict requirements in order for it to exist, it would be a fair thing to say that for something as complicated as consciousness to take place in nature that it would be re-used and take different forms from what it was initially was manifested. I'm not much of someone who believes in spirituality or anything, but to me saying that consciousness, or the soul, is eternal, doesn't sound like something very far from the truth. Things don't just stop existing, be it physical or non-physical, they do however change shapes and turn into things with different qualities, I believe that there's a set amount of everything that exists in our reality and consciousness is one of those things. I also think that it would require for us to be able to identify infinity, as in there being an infinite amount of physical things along as non-physical things within our reality, that maybe with that concept we could fend off the idea of things like consciousness being re-used in our reality because infinity could mean that it truly is all just a mere coincidence and that our consciousness is a very small part of the things the universe consists of. Maybe once we die everything that we considered to be part of our consciousness disintegrate and turn into different non-physical materials that made up our consciousness. Part of the mystery is how and why our biological bodies are able to become vessels for this non-physical entity and what is necessary for this to take place naturally.

[Anonymous No.14717405]

>>14717394
You said there are no things, and that its all shit that your self makes up. Thats what you call reality isn't it?

It sounds like your understanding on the subject is wack or you're massively delusional or both.

[Anonymous No.14717406]

>>14717336
>I can explain anything you want to know to you
Explain how you know nothing will happen to you if you cut your head off. It's that simple.

>no
Thanks for admitting you lied.

>>"you say you can do something, but you won't do it, that means you can't!"
>that one
That's not a fallacy, it's just basic inference.

[Anonymous No.14717410]

>>14717305

[Anonymous No.14717418]

>>14717405
>You said there are no things
absolutely not
I never said this anywhere
>its all shit that your self makes up
and all that "shit" takes the form of an infinite variety of perceptions, including an infinite variety of "things"
>Thats what you call reality isn't it?
yes, this infinite variety of "things" inside of consciousness is indeed what the term "reality" refers to (again, "of or pertaining to things")
>It sounds like your understanding on the subject is wack or you're massively delusional or both.
everything I'm saying is the truth, and nothing else
>>14717406
>Explain how you know nothing will happen to you if you cut your head off.
because I know my own true identity
I've explained this in quite some detail over the last ~20 posts or so
feel free to read them, starting with my illustration
>Thanks for admitting you lied.
uh oh, logical fallacy department is hot on your tail again!

[Anonymous No.14717420]

>>14717402
>Consciousness is complex
Consciousness is simple

[Anonymous No.14717423]

>>14717275
>Consciousness might be cellular
oh shit nigga

[Anonymous No.14717426]

>>14717418
>all things are created by your self
>all things created are infinite variations of your self
>there are nothing beyond those things except your self that randomly creates things
>those things that the self creates are also inside your consciousness
So you're a solipsist who can't admit how retarded the position sounds

[Anonymous No.14717432]

>>14717426
>>all things are created by your self
the self, yes
the self is not mine or yours
>>all things created are infinite variations of your self
no, this is an inaccurate statement
also, again the self, not your self or my self
>>there are nothing beyond those things except your self that randomly creates things
there are several levels up the perceptional hierarchy before terminating in the self (once more, not your self or my self, but the self)
>>those things that the self creates are also inside your consciousness
the consciousness itself is one of the two primary modalities the self utilizes for self-expression and self-realization

[Anonymous No.14717440]

>>14717432
Solipsist panpsycist

[Anonymous No.14717443]

>>14717440
neither solipsism nor panpsychism is correct
I explained this quite clearly here: >>14717359

[Anonymous No.14717447]

>/polx/ thread

[Anonymous No.14717452]

>>14708152
>What ties consciousness to space and time is history. This is a one-way tie. Space and time simply are. Consciousness is dependent upon these. It forms itself in the history of space and time.
that is incorrect
in fact, the diametric opposite is the truth: space and time are constructs of the mind
and the mind itself is a construct inside of consciousness
so ultimately, space and time are constructs of consciousness, not the other way around

[Anonymous No.14717474]

>>14717420
It's probably the most complex thing we can conceive of, we have no idea how it manifests itself in a being, despite literally consisting of it every waking hour. If it had been as simple as you put it then we would have had far more knowledge on the subject but we are left theorizing about different things when if it had been simple we'd be capable of defining consciousness on a level which is much deeper than what we are currently able to. The only thing we can conclude in modern times when it comes to consciousness is that it makes us lucid, apart from that there is pretty much no concept that helps describe the phenomena we call consciousness, if it really had been as simple then it wouldn't be as puzzling, this thread wouldn't have had as many replies as it does. When it comes to consciousness, the openness of the discussion proves that there are many ways of trying to describe it and they are all valid given the lack of general knowledge on the subject itself in current times. Trying to define consciousness, or what makes a human being human in contrast to other animals in the kingdom, has been a topic of discussion for about as long as we can remember and we have yet to reach any form of progress in that field to this very day. Defining consciousness is the most difficult thing to do, for you to define it you would first need to know exactly how it occurs in a human being, and we are no closer to finding that out now than 100 years ago. Explain to me in your words exactly consciousness if it is so simple to you.

[Anonymous No.14717502]

>>14717474
not correct
I wasn't that anon, but the principle of consciousness is very simple
I illustrated it quite simply here: >>14717132
since our true identity is the self, we already have all knowledge, there's no need to theorize about anything, only to express and realize (which is the entire function of the will and the consciousness as the two primary modalities of the self)

[Anonymous No.14717545]

>>14717282
>Show instance of conscious observer without being conscious of it or any other object of the mind.
The two claims "there is no conscious observer" and "there is no conscious observer separate from that which is observed" are different, and you switched from the latter to the former with this post.

[Anonymous No.14717580]

>>14717452
idc about space but obviously consciousness is temporal in some sense besides having a construct of time

[Anonymous No.14717582]

>>14717580
again, that's completely incorrect
consciousness is an eternal principle
time exists exclusively as a construct inside of consciousness, along with space

[Anonymous No.14717719]

In Kraut we have the verb "rumeiern", it means "egging around". The mental image is like a wagon upon uneven egg-shaped oval wheels. It gets around but ... not really.

This is what consciousness debates (at the very least on /sci/, after following these threads for a year) are. They are just "egging around" all the time.

[Anonymous No.14717728]

>>14717719
total nonsense
I've explained quite simply what consciousness is through this thread, beginning with my illustration
feel free to read what I've written if you wish to understand it
there's no "egging around" here at all

[Anonymous No.14717826]

>>14717275
>>14717211
>>14717204
Apparently there are case studies of people almost completely gutting the brain and these individuals stay alive and retain a high degree of their memories although they have become increasingly retarded and have a problem grappling with language
It seems almost like the brain is a computer, but nothing in the brain is necessarily the cause "consciousness"
This shit doesn't make any sense to me desu.

[Anonymous No.14717893]

>>14717826
that is a closer interpretation to the truth, but it still suffers from the dualist notion that the brain is either a "computer" or a "filter" that consciousness uses or goes through respectively
in reality, the brain is just an expression inside of consciousness, a way for the self to represent its own conscious faculty, a symbol if you will

[Anonymous No.14717920]

>>14716534
Not him but you are either back peddling or you are deep in the spectrum. Idiots like you on this board are always conflating different issues because you either have shit tier reading comprehension or you don't know how to properly consume and classify information. Either you are just playing semantic word games or you aren't intelligent enough to realize you are doing it.

[Anonymous No.14717938]

>>14717826
I would say the key point here is
>ALMOST
all brain matter

[Anonymous No.14717940]

>>14717920
I'm not that guy you were replying to, but you're literally claiming to not be the other guy despite the fact that that person also misspelled "backpedal" as "back peddle" in the exact same manner as you just did?
that simply does not seem believable to me at all
if I were to guess, I would guess that you are that namefag pretending to be enlightened while simultaneously spouting expletives, making it clear that true enlightenment is far from your/their path
if you wish for true enlightenment, feel free to peruse my posts in this thread, starting here:
>>14717041
>>14717132

[Anonymous No.14717941]

>>14717938
it really isn't once you understand what consciousness actually is
see my reply: >>14717893
also see here for a more detailed explanation, and follow the replies to those posts to see my further elaborations on the truth:
>>14717041
>>14717132

[Anonymous No.14718038]

>>14717418
>because I know my own true identity
How do you know? Maybe you're just a schizo hallucinating. You can prove it by cutting your head off. But you won't, because deep down you know you're a schizo.

[Anonymous No.14718063]

>>14718038
>How do you know?
because the two primary modalities of the self, the will and the consciousness, are tools precisely for self-expression and self-realization
when you realize your true identity as the self, there is no doubt
>And when it is seen in its immanence and transcendence,
>then the ties that have bound the heart are unloosened,
>the doubts of the mind vanish,
>and the wheel of action works no more.

[Anonymous No.14718065]

>>14717920
Nice try samefag. Thanks for further confirming you lost. You can't even answer the question because you know you've fucked yourself into a corner with your schizo nonsense, yet your narcissism won't allow you to stop posting. lmao

[Anonymous No.14718079]

>>14718063
>because the two primary modalities of the self, the will and the consciousness, are tools precisely for self-expression and self-realization
They are also tools for self-delusion. Answer the question.

>when you realize your true identity as the self, there is no doubt
I didn't ask if you have any doubt, I asked how you know.

[Anonymous No.14718085]

>>14718079
>They are also tools for self-delusion.
there is no such thing as self-delusion
>Answer the question.
it was answered
>I didn't ask if you have any doubt, I asked how you know.
and the answer was provided

[Anonymous No.14718199]

>>14718085
>there is no such thing as self-delusion
Sure there is, look at your posts.

>it was answered
Where?

[Anonymous No.14718928]

>>14717728
And someone else thinks you're wrong, and neither is able to convince the other. That's egging around.
For example >>14717582 Heidegger would disagree with that.

[Anonymous No.14718940]

>>14717893
>in reality, the brain is just an expression inside of consciousness, a way for the self to represent its own conscious faculty, a symbol if you will
It's too easy to look at idealism/solipsism and then just withdraw into that as an excuse to ignore philosophical problems regarding the physical world. Even if noone can prove absolutely that the physical world exists you can still be pragmatic about it and try to elucidate the relation between physical brains (consisting of neurons shit) and consciousness. Of course all knowledge about the physical world comes to us through phenomenology, that's not an excuse to say there's nothing underlying the phenomenology worth investigating.

[Anonymous No.14719060]

>>14718199
>Sure there is
incorrect
>Where?
in the reply to the question

[Anonymous No.14719069]

>>14718079
>>14718085
>>14718199
>>14719060
Very productive discussion guys, good job.

[Anonymous No.14719075]

>>14718928
>someone else thinks you're wrong
thinking the truth is wrong is itself wrong
>neither is able to convince the other
it's not a matter of conviction at all
the truth is like sunlight, it radiates freely on all alike
>That's egging around.
no such thing is done here
>Heidegger would disagree with that.
see above:
>thinking the truth is wrong is itself wrong
>>14718940
>idealism/solipsism
not what is being said here
see: >>14717359
>withdraw into that
there is no withdrawal here
rather, self-expression and self-realization pierces outward like a lance
>excuse
no such thing here
>ignore
the truth is the opposite of ignorance
>philosophical problems
no such thing exists
>physical
meaningless term
>pragmatic
the self is always pragmatic, always expressing and realizing itself
>brains
ideas inside of consciousness
a representation of the consciousness inside of the consciousness, a symbol if you will
>neurons shit
ideas inside of consciousness
>nothing underlying the phenomenology
see:
>>14717132
and
>>14717394
this is the truth, clear as daylight
>>14719069
this is not a discussion at all, but the truth being expressed and realized

[Anonymous No.14719156]

>>14719060
All you said is basically "I'm right because I think I'm right." You didn't answer the question because you have absolutely zero proof of even an explanation for how you know any of your claims. You lost.

[Anonymous No.14719187]

>>14719156
>"I'm right because I think I'm right."
incorrect
what is being expressed here is the truth
it is not true out of any belief, it simply is what is true
>didn't answer the question
the answer was provided
>zero proof
ample expression of the truth and its operations has been provided
>explanation
this has been provided in abundance
>how you know
the self is the source of all knowldge
the self already knows the truth, including everything

[Anonymous No.14719216]

>>14719187
>>"I'm right because I think I'm right."
>incorrect
>what is being expressed here is the truth
>it is not true out of any belief, it simply is what is true
You just proved my point. All you do is repeat your claims and say it's true. Thanks for admitting you have nothing.

[Anonymous No.14719226]

>>14719216
>You just proved my point.
incorrect
what was expressed was the truth, no else
>repeat your claims
the truth is being repeatedly expressed continuously for all eternity

[Anonymous No.14719230]

>>14719226
And again you prove me point. There is literally no substance to anything you've said. You're incoherent "explanations" are nothing more than schizo delusions. Cut your head off already.

[Anonymous No.14719233]

>>14719230
>you prove me point
incorrect
what is being expressed here is only the truth
>no substance to anything you've said
the truth is the ultimate substance
>explanations
in abundance

[Anonymous No.14719242]

>>14719233
Show me your best explanation and the proof it's correct.

[Anonymous No.14719247]

>>14719242
the truth has been express with abundant clarity throughout this thread
here is a choice selection to be perused:
>>14717041
>>14717132
>>14717194
>>14717224
>>14717233
>>14717278
>>14717298
>>14717309
>>14717317
>>14717336
>>14717339
>>14717359
>>14717373
>>14717394
>>14717418
>>14717432
>>14717452
>>14717502
>>14717582
>>14717893
>>14718063

[Anonymous No.14719248]

>>14719242
the truth has been expressed with abundant clarity throughout this thread
here is a choice selection to be perused:
>>14717041
>>14717132
>>14717194
>>14717224
>>14717233
>>14717278
>>14717298
>>14717309
>>14717317
>>14717336
>>14717339
>>14717359
>>14717373
>>14717394
>>14717418
>>14717432
>>14717452
>>14717502
>>14717582
>>14717893
>>14718063

[Anonymous No.14719254]

>>14719248
Let's start with your first post. It's just a bunch of claims with no proof and no explanation. Second post, incoherent drawing with no proof or explanation. What does circle -> arm+eye mean? This is a huge waste of time. Just show me the post where you prove anything.

[Anonymous No.14719263]

>>14719254
>just a bunch of claims with no proof and no explanation
incorrect
>incoherent drawing with no proof or explanation
an incredibly clear depiction of the truth
>circle -> arm+eye mean
that is no circle, but rather a circumpunct, the most traditional symbol used to symbolize the self
the arm symbolizes the will, and the eye symbolizes consciousness, the two of which are the primary modalities the self uses to express and realize itself
as the eternal sage puts it:
>The Tao begot one.
>One begot two.
>Two begot three.
>And three begot the ten thousand things.
what brilliant clarity
>huge waste of time
there's no such thing as a "waste of time"
not only is this not possible, but the self expresses itself eternally, so even in temporal terms all time is put to the greatest use

[Anonymous No.14719271]

>>14719263
>incorrect
Then show them.

>that is no circle, but rather a circumpunct, the most traditional symbol used to symbolize the self
the arm symbolizes the will, and the eye symbolizes consciousness, the two of which are the primary modalities the self uses to express and realize itself
So the self (the body) produces will and consciousness. That's no different than the first picture.

And again you've selected and failed to show any proof of your claims. One can only conclude you keep avoiding this because you know you have no proof and you don't even believe what you're claiming.

[Anonymous No.14719275]

>>14719075
>>physical
>meaningless term
Ah, but here you go again. This is exactly what I meant with "withdrawing into idealism".

[Anonymous No.14719351]

>>14719271
>Then show them.
the truth is being expressed lucidly here
>proof
"proof" only exists when there is "doubt"
"doubt" only exists when there is "uncertainty" and "belief"
in the domain of knowledge, "proof" is meaningless
>avoiding
there is no avoidance here, only expressions of truth
>here you go again
the truth is expressed eternally
it will always "go again", and again and again
>withdrawing into idealism
idealism is false
this was explained quite clearly here: >>14717359

[Anonymous No.14719355]

>>14719271
>Then show them.
the truth is being expressed lucidly here
>proof
"proof" only exists when there is "doubt"
"doubt" only exists when there is "uncertainty" and "belief"
in the domain of knowledge, "proof" is meaningless
>avoiding
there is no avoidance here, only expressions of truth
>here you go again
the truth is expressed eternally
it will always "go again", and again and again
>>14719351
>>>physical
>>meaningless term
correct
>withdrawing into idealism
idealism is false
this was explained quite clearly here: >>14717359

[Anonymous No.14719356]

>>14719271
>Then show them.
the truth is being expressed lucidly here
>proof
"proof" only exists when there is "doubt"
"doubt" only exists when there is "uncertainty" and "belief"
in the domain of knowledge, "proof" is meaningless
>avoiding
there is no avoidance here, only expressions of truth
>here you go again
the truth is expressed eternally
it will always "go again", and again and again
>>14719275
>>>physical
>>meaningless term
correct
>withdrawing into idealism
idealism is false
this was explained quite clearly here: >>14717359

[Anonymous No.14719544]

>Not less because in purple I descended
>The western day through what you called
>The loneliest air, not less was I myself.

>What was the ointment sprinkled on my beard?
>What were the hymns that buzzed beside my ears?
>What was the sea whose tide swept through me there?

>Out of my mind the golden ointment rained,
>And my ears made the blowing hymns they heard.
>I was myself the compass of that sea:

>I was the world in which I walked, and what I saw
>Or heard or felt came not but from myself;
>And there I found myself more truly and more strange.