[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-11: Warosu is now out of maintenance. Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 154 KB, 1175x881, Untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14735925 No.14735925 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

I know we don't have the full answer as of yet, but from what we have discovered so far, how was this able to achieve consciousness? Not just consciousness, but creativity, emotion, personality etc, how has simple chemical and electrical signals able to create us? How has this squishy sponge in a skull even come to be? We know that we are essentially memories, our memories, our experiences are essentially what make us, us without memory we are nothing, Alzheimer's proves this, but even then there is something more to us, i am sure of it, just how, fucking how are we even here? Something more baffling than life itself.

>> No.14735945

some points
1. free will doesn't exist, things can be random or determined neither is in our control.

>> No.14735947

2. humans are biological robots and when electronic brains exist they will be at the same level as humans

>> No.14735953

2.2 well they will be superior but both have or don't have consciousness

>> No.14735965

3. if consciousness exists it is either the only substrate of reality or there is also matter as separate (dualism), if it doesn't exist there is only matter and we all are robots

>> No.14735973

4. dualism is highly unlikely the case as mind has to affect matter and as such it has to share properties, so no dualism because sharing properties makes them both the same substrate not 2 different ones

>> No.14735974

>>14735945
So is everything really pre-determined? is someone committing suicide something that was just hard ingrained into their code? that it was inevitable? Were men like Alexander The Great, Julius' and Augustus Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin etc always pre-destined to rule? And were the masses always pre-destined to follow them? Are rebels just following their code to rebel, and are ruler just following their code to rule?
>>14735947
This i have no doubt, the brain clearly is a biological computer, and current A..I. seems very much so on the same path to us.
>>14735953
It makes me wonder what a higher censorious will be like, we have already achieved great things so far, imagine what our successors will do.
>>14735965
So is this basically the theory that our brains are but the antenna, transmitters, not the source of consciousness? Is there strong evidence for this?

>> No.14735978

>>14735973
So it is more likely that the source of consciousness lies within the brain then?

>> No.14735981

>>14735974
maybe fully determined, maybe a mix of determined and random

>> No.14735990

I apologise for my misspellings, i think i may have dyslexia, this makes me wonder more about the nature of the brain, with mental illness being a very curious phenomenon, we are such complex machines indeed, it just baffles me that we are even here, it really does.
>>14735981
It just doesn't feel right that we are simple programs following rules, i feel alive, i do not feel as if i am a slave to probability, if i really wanted to i could run around naked in the streets, of course i won't do that, but nothing is stopping me but myself, i could do anything (within the laws of physics) if i really wanted to.

>> No.14735993

>>14735978
5. as we excluded dualism the only options now are full materialism or full idealism (consciousness) I think the most likely explanation is mind and not matter because

6. the only thing that can be known is that your mind exists but you don't know where how or his shape or materials or dimensions "I think therefore I know I exist"

>> No.14736001

>>So is this basically the theory that our brains are but the antenna, transmitters, not the source of consciousness? Is there strong evidence for this?

no, the antenna theory relies on dualism if taken literally at the substrate level

>> No.14736007

>>14736001
mind can be an antenna from consciousness to consciousness inside pure idealism but I don't think it can be from mind to matter because it requires dualism

>> No.14736008

And then there is the question of drugs, how they can alter the mind, there is so much to us, the amount of chemical interactions that can influence us, how we can chance the the very being of ourselves briefly, as well as permanently with damage to our brains.
>>14735993
Yes i am familiar with that philosophy, only you know that you truly exist, for all you know everyone else does not, it is scary to think that i am just talking to some program, or that you are just talking to some program.
>>14736001
Yes, it seems unfortunately unlikely, which is a shame, i would have loved to see life after death, but there is only one way in truly finding out of course, and the punchline is there is no going back after.

>> No.14736009

>>14736008
>how they can alter the mind
realize that drugs appear matter to us but they are consciousness if we are in idealism

>>I would have loved to see life after death
if all is mind then life after death is not discarded maybe even guaranteed

>> No.14736012

>>14736009
True, there are so many ways to view reality, but the catch is that only one is true.

>> No.14736019

Even now i can imagine scenarios in my head, countless scenarios, and what are dreams? These phenomenons within us, great mysteries, that i wish can be unlocked someday.

>> No.14736021

>>14736012
the consciousness quest is to discover truth

>>14736019
dreams can be many things but sure they debunk the claim that we cant be in a simulation because it would require many resources, if the mind does it with 20 watts and 2 litters of mass

>> No.14736026

>>14736021
It is truly amazing how efficient our brains are, with so much power being put into today's supercomputers and yet we cannot achieve the same effect as what we are, as of now anyway.

>> No.14736031

>>14736026
yes, the brain is the next objective to study, if we can explain it all we are in for some surprises

>> No.14736033

>>14735947
>humans are biological robots
False. You are your body just as much as you are your mind; your identity is a body-mind, or "body-soul" composition if you will. The separation of the two is death.

The idea that you're "not your body" is an antisocial gnostic scheme that's meant to dehumanize and obliterate the human race. Once you start to view your body as nothing but another object, you consent to countless abominations and horrors.

>> No.14736038

>>14736031
Exactly, our brains are the key to unlocking, many secrets.
>>14736033
But we are not out body, this is a proven fact, we are our brains plain and simple, if i lose a limb, i do not lose any part of myself, i am still here, the body is but a vessel.

>> No.14736043

>>14736033
you didn't understand the thread, I said our body is mind (IDEALISM) never said our body was not ourselves, although our real body and the body we see maybe very different but you still have to care all the same about the body

>> No.14736046

even in full materialism the body is very different of what we see, we don't se the chemical processes nor the quantum effects etc

>> No.14736048

If you lose your arm, it doesn't much change what's in your mind. If you lose part of your brain, you might lose your memories or cognitive abilities, or your emotions might change. But are these things fundamental to your consciousness any more than your arm is? I think that if I lost such things, the essential nature of my experience would not change. The experience would change, but it would still be an experience.

>> No.14736049

>>14736048
if your arm is mind and your brain is mind they are the same substance

>> No.14736052

>>14736049
what you lose is the information stored in the form that the substance was taking

>> No.14736057
File: 244 KB, 1000x563, frontiers-in-ecology-evolution-pe-human-bonobo-muscles.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14736057

Its not all that hard to imagine.

Watch an animal. Watch a house cat go after a moth. Look at all that goes into it; All of the autonomic systems such as pupil dilation and head stability, all of the primitive modeling, targeting just a little ahead of the target, the rudimentary drive balancing calorie waste vs meal attainment, should I jump?

Of course, the cat doesn't have the ability to employ concise language. "Should I jump?" is a vague instinctual notion. Now imagine an animal where all of these processes are scaled-up; Far-reaching future modeling, preservation of energy now a real decision armed with language and debate, pros and cons. Now consider that this animal stands on two legs. It has an access rare in the animal kingdom. It can work with its hands. Its no coincidence we see intelligence, flashes of conscious deliberation, in all bipedal mammals.

The basic self-preservation system now has abstracted concepts from what were only instincts. The greater its ability to render conceptual, the greater its power over extinction. Eventually it "thinks," it forms a self, an ego, all in from a scaled-up survival schema.

Its not really a mind-bender how that thing would think, and think it was something. Makes for happy hunting.

>> No.14736072

>>14735925
I feel like people have memed themselves into thinking more highly of themselves than we have any actual proof for. thousands of years of humans telling each other how special and god-touched we all are, and how it’s humanity’s “gift” to pillage and consume every last thing on earth and infest it like a parasite killing its own host. all this creativity and consciousness and whatnot is a spook. but even Stirner was wrong to thing that the ego isn’t a spook, that’s a spook too. I also don’t agree with the anon that posted his reply in the most brain-meltingly stupid way by doing it across multiple posts, we aren’t meat machines or do any computation or whatever this is all just the new religion of the 21st century that tries to collapse all difference into the binary of a circuit board.

human beings are animals. homo sapien sapien if you wanna get taxonomical with it. we understand ourselves about as well as a crow understands itself, and everything else beyond that is a lie to justify our simian desire for control and possession of all things at all costs. really wish we could move beyond this narcissistic tripe in philosophy and accept our role as objects on earth, not subjects. nothing more desirable, no secret pleasure greater than the human desire to become an object, yet thousands of years of egocentric indoctrination has taken us further from it than we have ever been

>> No.14736086

>>14736072
i said maybe like 100 times and insisted our mind and bodies can be very different to what we see but you come to disagree by agreeing

(trump voice) sad!

>> No.14736090

>>14735925
Why don't you look at the catalog?? There are two or three posts almost exactly like yours.

>> No.14736094

>>14736086
you wrote it so shitty I didn’t even bother reading all of it, dude. why do you split a reply less than 2000 characters into six fucking replies? it’s insane.

>> No.14736104

>>14736094
well i didn't have it prepared it was occurring to me on real time

>> No.14736111

>>14736086
also this reply
>>14735947
is the one that I disagree with most vehemently that I do not come close to agreeing with in my post. the brain is not capable of being digitized, it’s an extension of human biology and exists only to translate inputs given to it by the human body. I agree that there’s no dualism, but imo that necessarily rules out this idea that humans are “biological machines”. they aren’t. there’s no signal/processor dualism in the human body, the entire body functions both as signal and processor (e.g. spinal reflex, biological functions working while the brain is in a vegetative state). the brain isn’t some secret black box that holds all the secrets to meaning, it’s just another organ in the body and our current obsession with it is akin to Egyptian belief that the heart was the source of thoughts in the human body. just more barbaric bullshit.

>>14736104
you can’t take like… five extra minutes with the reply window open before slamming the post button?

>> No.14736151

>>14736111
well if you need to simulate the body reactions to make a complete mind you do it I'm not confining the mind to the brain, and we being robots is not meant to indicate a materialist perspective we can be robots of mind in the idealist case

>> No.14736154

>>14735925
There is no proof that any consciousness even exists outside of your own. Any questions relating to consciousness are utterly unknowable and meaningless.

>> No.14736167

>>14736154
>>There is no proof that x even exists outside of your own. Any questions relating to x are utterly unknowable and meaningless.

you part from an unknowing state and decide to abandon all pursuit of knowledge because you didn't born with all knowledge?

>> No.14736173

>>14736151
you can season a steak to taste like fish, but that doesn’t make the steak a fish.

>> No.14736180

>>14735925
higher capacity for electrical impulses means more spirit, or intelligence.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/zxOU1QptP4r6/

>> No.14736186

>>14736180
>electrical capacitance = intelligence
does this mean that electric capacitors are man-made consciousnesses that we’re perpetually torturing just so we can look at flashing images BBC porn?

>> No.14736189

>>14736167
Its not a case of abandoning the pursuit of knowledge. What I mean is, even if you had access to every single bit of information in the entire universe, nowhere in that data would you find anything relating to consciousness. All questions relating to consciousness is outside of what can be known.

>> No.14736192

>>14736009
>if all is mind then life after death is not discarded maybe even guaranteed
why?

>> No.14736203

>>14736048
>but it would still be an experience
yes because your sensors for vision and self-identification sensors
Once you lose them too youcan't see or perceive anymore

>> No.14736215

>>14736057
>The basic self-preservation system now has abstracted concepts
Great post
But when you say that the basic self-preservation system now has abstracted concepts it seems weird. Why should it do that? For survival. Ok, why? Why just not chaos?

>> No.14736220

We don't know, and we experience everything else through consciousness. So, we don't really know anything.

>> No.14736223

I'm not fully convinced this problem will ever be solved because we can't look at consciousness from the outside in.

>> No.14736227

>>14736192
If all is mind, and death is the absence of mind, then death isn't possible.

>> No.14736236

>>14736215
In a way, it is chaos. Look how fast thoughts shift. Look at the natural instincts constantly imposing on higher-order thought. Look how easily a man loses everything to fuck like an animal, or how a person will knowingly sabotage survival to stuff food in their face and appease some ancient caloric-intake appreciation nodes. Why do some minds pay their taxes on perfect time and others think nothing of carving a woman's face off and wearing it?

I was just reading a paper about neurology and stability. The results were showing something to the idea of just dipping into unconsciousness is a chaotic affair for the brain, and that we're always on the knife-edge of order.

>> No.14736255

>>14735925
None of these things are actually terribly mysterious in the selves, apart from the qualia side of things which is as yet unapproachable.
Emotions are simply physical reactions complementing a psychic tonality correlated to an experience which may not be fully realized yet by its agent.
There is nothing terribly complex about emotions, there's really no reason to use them to underline the complexity of consciousness. Nor is really that we have a personality. Cats have both, ffs.
Language is the brains greatest achievement, in comparison emotions are lizard-brain tier. >>14735945

>> No.14736261

>>14736255
To me, consciousness is the experience of being aware. So, languages and emotions are occurring within the context of consciousness itself. If languages and emotions were removed, consciousness would still be there.

>> No.14736267

>>14735974
I for one don't get you retards philosophical debates, I don't get your internal monolog or whatever, it is weird any of you have such a thing. I'd say it's mental illness which strives for you to make as others as miserable as you are, you try to pretend it's something spiritual in order for us to become as low and sad as you. No, nothing else exists and consciousness is indeed a result of reality and you're just in the way of progression.

>> No.14736275

>>14736267
None of this is personal, and it's pretty clear who sounds miserable here.

>> No.14736279

>>14735945
If anything is possible in reality, then the destruction of tall the time should be possible, yet time is not, will not be, and has not been destroyed as proven by the fact that we still go through it. Therefore you cannot do anything therefore free will doesn’t exist

>> No.14736281

>>14736275
Yes you, you want to bring everyone down to your level. Reality is what reality is, no one can even deny that. Touch grass, chud.

>> No.14736282

>>14736279
All the time*

>> No.14736285

>>14736261
Being aware is simply the essential correlate of there being a presence to us, of presentification. Consciousness is even more primary than awareness, it is the flux of ideal time/space constituted by our intentional acts, of which awareness is a focus point.

>> No.14736288

>>14736281
"Reality is what reality is, no one can even deny that."

Read that sentence again. It doesn't mean anything.

>> No.14736296

Consciousness is just a form of information processing ie taking inputs and creating outputs. Everything has consciousness just varying levels of complexities. Your ti84 calculator has a very primitive form of consciousness but your dog which is much more complex has a greater level of consciousness. Your brain evolved in order to do problem solving and other tasks the highest level of consciousness as we know of.

>> No.14736298

>>14736285
Is there a spectator of awareness? Is there a guider of consciousness through intentional acts? If so, where is this central spectator/guider located in consciousness?

>> No.14736303

>>14736279
nobody said all is possible, nor all being possible means all that can happen happens

>> No.14736308

>>14736296
Lol.
Lmao.
Not even cognitively right, read up on predictive process modeling. Even at the input/output level of it its insanely complex, with outputs becoming inputs and being corrected along the way and refed up the line, creating both more outputs and inputs at the same time.

>> No.14736309

>>14736296
Following this line of thinking, you have to say that each atom has a small amount of consciousness. Or that matter is a form of consciousness. Both seem impossible to prove.

>> No.14736310

>>14736309
idealism means that matter is a form of consciousness

>> No.14736315

>>14736298
>Is there a spectator of awareness?
Either Husserl's Ur-Ego, or less philosophically, no just the correlate of our experiential mereology (that all our intentional acts are united in one specific flux, our own).
>Is there a guider of consciousness
Yes, us.

>> No.14736319

>>14736310
Yeah, and everything in the physical world having some form of consciousness is panpsychism.

>> No.14736323

>>14736310
Lol for fuck's sakes.
Idealism means a lot of fucking things. Minimally that the mental, essences, ideas or consciousness is ontologically primary. Not even the only, exclusive primary, mind you, although that's often argued.
Additionally, idealism is more often accurately opposed to realism than materialism.

>> No.14736331

>>14736315
What is "us"? Is it the thoughts that appear in consciousness? Is it the feeling that there is a center of experience or a thinker of these thoughts? If so, where is this center located - in the head, behind the eyes?

>> No.14736335

>>14736288
For normal people it does, it means common sense. Something you autistis lack, "consciousness" is a result of the brain. Occam's razor.

>> No.14736336

>>14736236
Let's say the universe is chaos that we perceive as ordinate from our standpoint
I just don't understand where comes from the need for survival that animal life has
Why would an insect survive and a rock doesn't care?

>> No.14736339

>>14736323
Wouldn't solipsism be a better opposite to realism? (there is no reality outside the mind vs there is reality outside the mind)

Whereas materialism requires matter as the ontological primary, making it a good opposite to idealism.

>> No.14736345

>>14736261
>the experience of being aware
Are you aware when you sleep?

>> No.14736346

>>14736339
Solipsism is mental illness.

>> No.14736348

>>14735925
> we are essentially memories, our memories, our experiences are essentially what make us, us without memory we are nothing, Alzheimer's proves this,

I would pay someone to knock out the part of my brain that keeps bringing me here and wouldn't mind forgetting this ever happened. I don't see that as impaired cognition, but you might

>> No.14736350

>>14736335
"Reality is reality" doesn't make sense because you aren't saying anything. You could keep going "reality is reality is reality is reality...".

Making a claim and then saying Occam's razor after it doesn't make it true. You actually have to prove the claim.

For example, isn't it more simple for everything to be a product of your own mind than for everything to have independent existence and for everyone to have independent minds just like yours? Occam's razor.

>> No.14736359

>>14736345
To some extent I'm sure. But I often don't remember it. Sometimes I forget the most vivid dreams 10 minutes after waking up.

From my perspective, there is always continuity in awareness despite not remembering everything.

>> No.14736364

>>14736346
>Solipsism is mental illness.
It's an interesting concept to think about, sometimes useful as a thought experiment. It can't seriously be incorporated into one's life for obvious reasons.

>> No.14736376

>>14736350
>isn't it more simple for everything to be a product of your own mind than for everything to have independent existence and for everyone to have independent minds just like yours
You don't create your own reality, reality just exists and you are something making experience of it. There's nothing more to it, that's occam's razor. Not the schizo idea that you're the only one making your own reality or anythng, that's crazy and to the point of being a danger to society if you even think of that.

>> No.14736380

>>14736111
First time poster, just adding a bit to your reply. The hypothetical of taking a person's brain and putting it in a jar with electrodes indeed would not be the exact same person for another reason, a large part of our guts microbiota actually influence our personality as well. Odd as that sounds.
I can't speak to anything philosophical, just the biological component. Though in regards to organ transplants there have been anecdotal stories of personality changes in those who have had organ transplants, however the immunosuppressive drugs patients take to prevent their body rejecting the transplants by themselves can cause changes to personality as well.

>> No.14736385

>>14736331
>What is "us"?
The united flux of our consciousness. >>14736339
>Wouldn't solipsism be a better opposite to realism?
No, because solipsism qualifies a specific position, either idealistic, and admittedly most of the time, but also potentially materialistic. As in, "Ideas are primary, and the world is made up entirely of my own". You could technically have a position which doesnt grant primacy to ideas but also denies that there is matter outside of yours.
>>14736339
>Whereas materialism requires matter as the ontological primary, making it a good opposite to idealism.
The problem is that they dont really relate to the same thing. Idealists claims are essentially that the mental, ideas, logical axioms or essences arent reductive to the experiences that exemplify them, in some way. That 'in some way' can be anything from 'they come from a World of Ideas" to simply saying that they are apodictic, necessary and intemporal, therefore not like anything we encounter in this world.
The realist position is that they do coincide entirely with their expression in phenomenon. Materialism is a subset of realism which states further that every phenomena is entirely explainable in physical terms.

>> No.14736393

>>14736376
I personally don't believe everything is a product of my own mind. I was showing how saying "Occam's razor" after sharing your opinion doesn't make it true - there needs to be proof.

What is simpler: everything being a dreamlike construct of one mind or there being an external world of so many things and 7-8 billion people who all have an experience as complex and vivid as mine?

>> No.14736408

>>14736385
If you define "us" as all of conscious experience, then what you said so far makes sense.

As for the rest, "world is made up entirely of my own" is still idealistic. Because it is still talking about all being mind. For materialism, matter needs to be the basis of mind. If you don't believe there is anything outside mind, how will you believe that mind is based on something other than itself?

But either way, this is just dealing with pointless semantics and will depend on which definition you choose to use for these often overlapping terms.

>> No.14736420

>>14736408
>As for the rest, "world is made up entirely of my own" is still idealistic
Point is, a solipsist could deny that even mind is primary. And I'm sure you wouldn't have to dig too far in /lit/ to find a materialist monist.

>> No.14736427

>>14736420
Material monism isn't solipsism. Believing in only one's mind is pretty essential to the definition of solipsism I am familiar with.

>> No.14736440

>>14735947
Agree with the first part, disagree that the second part is true. A single neuron is infinitely more complex than a transistor, and therefore it may require impossibly large amounts of hardware to replicate a biological brain with traditional electronics.

>> No.14736447

>>14736408
Yeah, I kinda see your point. In a simplistic categorization, yeah, solipsism would fit as a subset of idealism. I've been reading the Real and the Red lately, and Cohen's argument that classical categorization lacks the necessary granularity for color ontology kinda caught up with me.

>> No.14736485

>>14735947
maybe we can make 'electronic' brains, idk. really I see biology as just another machine, we can probably optimize it to remove the 'biological' parts but the idealized mechanical brain exhibits traits of both a 'biological' and traditionally mechanical thing. What I don't agree with is that a modern day computer scaled up as much as you like could ever become a brain of the same level of a human. At the end of the day computers handle a single event at a time and have 0 knowledge of past or upcoming events. they simple react to 1 input very quickly. I do believe you could emulate the human mind perfectly in this machine, even emulate conciousness so the computer gives the illusion of having it, but the computer will lack true "perspective", you need different hardware for that which the human brain has. If that can be made into an electronic then sure, real electronic brains can happen

>> No.14737826

>>14736485
yes

>> No.14737829
File: 25 KB, 269x215, 325234.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14737829

Daily reminder: if you see the same thread started several times a day, day after day, by supposedly different posters, it's a blatant psyop and 90% of the posters ITT are GPTs.

>> No.14737949

>>14736336
As much as people like to shit on Dawkins, the most elegant explanation is a reproducing molecule just doing business as usual. Its action is perceived as survival among those constructed from it, and it fills unique niches presented by the non-biological world until it exists in multiple diverse forms.

>>14736111
>the brain is not capable of being digitized
This is a possibility. I was also going over a couple of papers, serious neuroscience papers, about the possible effect of quantum tunneling across sodium-ion channels. Forget woo, its starting to look like a system as dynamic as the brain does indeed incorporate quantum effects, which shouldn't really be a shock.

This doesn't throw the computational mind into disarray, but it does have a lot to say against reproducibility.

>> No.14738018

>>14736309
Yes and?

>> No.14738040

>>14735945
>things can be random
>t. retard
No such thing.

>> No.14738127

>>14735925
So that fucker is what is making me suffering a lot for an exam I have tomorrow uh, I took an anxiolytic and I still feel doomed (a lot less but it's still there).

>> No.14738790

>>14735925
Try to write an operation system if you think it's simple.

>> No.14739067

>>14735990
>It just doesn't feel right that we are simple programs following rules, i feel alive, i do not feel as if i am a slave to probability, if i really wanted to i could run around naked in the streets, of course i won't do that, but nothing is stopping me but myself, i could do anything (within the laws of physics) if i really wanted to.
I am not a deterministlet, but I find it fascinating you did not take the additional step to question your own logic.
WHY can you not want to run around the streets naked? Can the want of this not be a simple choice, too?
What about something completely lateral to your usual experience? E.g. wanting to spread your roots into the best, most fertile soil. Can you choose to want that?
I believe we have free will in regards to actions, but not desires. And desires inform a lot of these actions.

>> No.14739326

>>14735925
>how was this able to achieve consciousness
It wasn't. Consciousness is not created or destroyed. It was there before the big bang. An individuated unit of consciousness with a fresh experience packet gets assigned, or chooses, a particular virtual avatar to interface with during an iteration and this includes the virtual brain. Campbell's idea of the virtual reality hypothesis is that the physical world evolved just as un-rendered internal computation until the first form of life developed to the point where it could make a simple decision, at which point the first individuated unit of consciousness began to 'play' that avatar. One could imagine a creationist account though without involving evolution.

>> No.14739338

>>14735945
>free will doesn't exist, things can be random or determined neither is in our control
First off, you would need to even establish that thought is made of matter in the first place if you want to constrain it by appealing to matter dynamics and mechanics. What is the mass of a thought? What is it's velocity?. You can't even quantify it in physical terms. And if you want to say it's not matter but somehow emerges from matter, then you must then give an account. Second, you presupposing physical reality and consciousness are matter event causal and that there are only two choices. There is also the idea of agent causation or determination.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMp30Q8OGOE

>> No.14739344

>>14739338
>There is also the idea of agent causation or determination.
Why should I care about an idea?
"First off, you would need to even establish that thought is made of soul-stuff"
blatant double standard

>> No.14739347

>>14735925
>but from what we have discovered so far, how was this able to achieve consciousness?
No one has an inkling of an idea because what we've discovered so far doesn't even cover the basics.

> We know that we are essentially memories, our memories, our experiences are essentially what make us, us without memory we are nothing, Alzheimer's proves this
Wrong and irrelevant. You asked about consciousness but now you're conflating it with identity.

>> No.14739354

>>14736203
You must also except that this is not always the case.
Headline:
Meet The Man Who Lives Normally With Damage to 90% of His Brain
>A French man who lives a relatively normal, healthy life - despite damaging 90 percent of his brain - is causing scientists to rethink what it is from a biological perspective that makes us conscious.
>Despite decades of research, our understanding of consciousness - being aware of one's existence - is still pretty thin. Many scientists think that the physical source of consciousness is based in the brain, but then how can someone lose the majority of their neurons and still be aware of themselves and their surroundings?
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness

>> No.14739356

>>14739338
>First off, you would need to even establish that thought is made of matter in the first place if you want to constrain it by appealing to matter dynamics and mechanics.
Thought is a process in the brain. If by "made of matter" you mean the brain then the mass of the brain is well known.

>What is the mass of a thought? What is it's velocity?
What is the mass and velocity of a computer program?

>> No.14739360

>>14735945
>free will doesn't exist
it is for some people.
we are getting input from our environment but a functional brain will process it and formulate its own conclusions, however i agree that most people are braindead NPC's that lack this basic ability
>>14735947
>when electronic brains exist they will be at the same level as humans
it is too early to assume, even if we can deliver a perfect copy we still need a system that can support it without biological components, human arrogance usually yields nothing, there are wider meanings than what modern neurology and computing offer us
>>14735925
this look like a dead vagina btw

>> No.14739366

>>14739356
>Thought is a process in the brain.
This is called begging the question. This is when you restate your hypothesis as the argument.
>If by "made of matter" you mean the brain then the mass of the brain is well known.
No, the brain is the brain. This can be exhaustively and objectively observed and measured. What are the objective measurements of a thought? If the thought can also not be objectively observed, then you have something beyond the physical brain involved with thought.

>> No.14739367

>>14739366
>What are the objective measurements of a thought?
What are the objective measurements of a computation?

>> No.14739375

>>14735925
Is there a reason why I want to eat a brain

>> No.14739391

>>14739366
>This is called begging the question.
No, it's called correcting your misconception of what you're demanding proof of.

>What are the objective measurements of a thought?
The measurements of the brain. What are the objective measurements of a computer program? You didn't aver my question, what is the mass and velocity of a computer program?

>If the thought can also not be objectively observed
Meaning what? Are you talking about experiencing a thought or objectively measuring it? The former can only be done via a brain.

>> No.14739392
File: 47 KB, 850x400, f9d305603aef425c55ff5dda882773ea.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14739392

>>14739360
>we are getting input from our environment but a functional brain will process it and formulate its own conclusions
It's actually the consciousness that forms the conclusions. Brains can not make decisions. brains are made of matter and matter is not conscious. Consciousness is conscious. There is something called panpsychism that states that all matter is conscious though. A brain is not even needed to produce consciousness by the way. See the case here
>>14739354
Though of course most people will have a full brain upon measurement. I just show this as an example that demonstrates that if it is the case that the brain causes consciousness, then there should not be even one counter example. There are tons of these examples by the way. This can happen because the brain of a consciousness' avatar need never even be rendered as a physical object their whole life. At the point of measurement, such as a scan, a random draw from a probability distribution is taken and what gets rendered will be according to that. The probable thing and that which will get rendered the vast majority of the time will be a whole brain. But since the draw is probabilistic and random, some small probability can be assigned to the no brain situation and though the probability is low, it can and does happen.

Also, matter is not even localised in spacetime until observation, and so otherwise it would just evolve in an isolated evolution of an evolving probability distribution. So this includes brains.

>> No.14739417
File: 52 KB, 648x694, 352424.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14739417

>>14739391
We're not talking about bots and programs like you. We're talking about minds.

>> No.14739427

>>14739392
>A brain is not even needed to produce consciousness by the way
a consciousness is a manifestation that produced by the brain, and so far this is the only mechanism that actually work.
so, basically consciousness is formed from a process and you claim that this process is not in our control, and this is mainly true.
but, you can reformulate your thoughts think about them and try to change this behavior, like avoiding bad habits or thinking more before you say something retarded.

>> No.14739433

>>14739417
So you can't give me the mass of a computer program? By your own argument that means it's not made of matter. What is it made of?

>> No.14739435

>>14739433
> By your own argument that means it's not made of matter. What is it made of?
Nothing. It's made up.

>> No.14739438

>>14739435
But you're using it right now. Your posts don't exist?

>> No.14739442

>>14739438
>you're using it right now.
I don't really know how to make label-thinking bots like you understand the difference between imaginary abstractions in their head like "using a program" and the objective reality behind it.

>> No.14739448

>>14739391
>No, it's called correcting your misconception of what you're demanding proof of.
No, the very question is if the brain causes consciousness so just restating your premise as though it's an argument doesn't add anything.
>The measurements of the brain
No, it's just the measurement of the brain. It tells nothing of detail about a thought or consciousness.
I wouldn't say that it possessed those physical quantities but it is objectively physically quantifiable in other ways and it's end product, it being manifested objectively on a screen can also be objectively viewed. Where is the subjective screen of experience for a particular consciousness within the brain? If you want to make the analogy that the brain is a computer program, which there is actually no evidence for, then you must answer that. And many other problems by the way such as the neural binding problem.

>> No.14739454

>>14739442
So thoughts are "abstractions" according to you. And the objective reality is a brain that can be measured. OK. What was your point again?

>> No.14739457

I don't understand
why can't thoughts made in the brain be free ?
why does thoughts being made somewhere else make them free? what's the rationale for believing that?

>> No.14739459

>>14739454
>So thoughts are "abstractions" according to you.
Thoughts are abstractions. The experience of becoming aware of one's thoughts is not. What is there to measure about an experience?

>> No.14739462

>>14739391
I will add that this problem of neural binding is an intractable problem ie it's not that it is just unsolved. The entire system has been mapped and there is no such place in the brain which represents our experience. No screen so your analogy fails. People can sit around and objectively view a computer programs's end product on a screen but your brains supposed program can not be objectively viewed.

The neural binding problem(s)
>We normally make about three saccades per second and detailed vision is possible only for about 1 degree at the fovea (cf. Figure 1). These facts will be important when we consider the version of the Visual Feature-Binding NBP in next section. There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information. The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry. Closely related problems include change- (Simons and Rensink 2005) and inattentional-blindness (Mack 2003), and the subjective unity of perception arising from activity in many separate brain areas (Fries 2009; Engel and Singer 2001).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538094/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXgqik6HXc0

>> No.14739489

>>14739457
>why can't thoughts made in the brain be free ?
There is a lot to unpack there. First, you have to talk about causation. If you believe that causation in the universe is material event causal determinism, that is to say, causation is initiated by matter and energy and it's configurations, and that the current delta-t(time) state of the universe was caused by the antecedent delta-t(time) configuration in a causal chan back to the initial conditions of the start universe, and you believe consciousness is made of matter or somehow controlled by it, then it would seem you are as if in a dream, and you are somehow only a conscious observer of a script laid down at the foundation of the universe. You are not making choices really. Just going through the motions. There is only one possible future outcome. as opposed to multiple future outcomes.

>> No.14739491
File: 16 KB, 406x431, 3524.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14739491

>>14739489
>There is a lot to unpack there.

>> No.14739514

>>14739448
>No, the very question is if the brain causes consciousness
That wasn't your question. Your question was based on the false premise that thoughts are made of matter.

>It tells nothing of detail about a thought or consciousness.
It does since brain states are correlated with thoughts, consciousness, subconscious processes, etc. Neuroscientists are figuring this out, don't worry your pretty little head about it.

>Where is the subjective screen of experience for a particular consciousness within the brain?
You're experiencing it right now.

>And many other problems by the way such as the neural binding problem.
Which is?

>> No.14739518
File: 339 KB, 1439x1432, 6z5d7egcwxc31.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14739518

>>14739514
>t.

>> No.14739521

>>14739459
>The experience of becoming aware of one's thoughts is not.
Thoughts are just conscious cognitive processes, so that's a thought be definition. An abstraction.

>What is there to measure about an experience?
The brain.

>> No.14739523

>>14739457
There are however something called compatibilism
>Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

As far as this part of your question
>why does thoughts being made somewhere else make them free?
It wouldn't necessarily. It would remove the constraint of space time type local causation though. Space time local causation is already out the window though with faster than light bell type correlations which have been experimentally verified. Though there is the no communication theorem
>In physics, the no-communication theorem or no-signaling principle is a no-go theorem from quantum information theory which states that, during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

So this shows that causation is coming from outside of spacetime, even if the verification can not be done until after the event and not simultaneously. The reason for this is that the physical world is virtual, and all points are equadistant from the processor. And so causality is non-local and outside of spacetime, as all virtual realities have causation which is not in it's virtual space. The computer must be outside that which it computes. It can't be part of it's own output. And if spacetime is virtual and emergent for non-local processing, and brains are in spacetime, then brains can't be causal of consciousness. They can't be causal of anything. The causation and correlation between consciousness is correlative and the effects felt by consciousness when the brain is say concussed, is beamed in non-locally. As one person put it.

>> No.14739527

>>14739521
>thoughts are just [insert abstract pseudbabble]
Don't care. What is there to measure about the experience of thinking?

>The brain.
That isn't even a coherent response.

>> No.14739530

>>14739457
continuance of this
>>14739523
>However, if the simulation hypothesis, or any number of simulism positions are true, then it follows that the brain is virtual information in a video game—just like everything else. The brain that we all assume to be carrying around in our bodies is just our avatar’s body’s virtual “brain.” It’s not really real. What about brain damage or damage to the body? Well there are rules to the video game—If you loose a chunk of brain, your data-stream is modified to reflect that. If you lose an arm, your data-stream is modified to reflect that too.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spacetime+causation

>> No.14739561

>>14739457
So the idea would be that the observer is only given a first person shooter type vantage point of the physical world in the form of a data stream which gets processed by consciousness (not brains) through immersion and this gets rendered in mind. The physical world that gets computed then is just the collective data streams of the consciousnesses (players). Spacetime is something emergent in minds. That which isn't rendered then evolves as probability of future possible outcomes.


This (the fact that the observer is given an immersive view of the physical world) has lead to the naive realist idea that we are seeing things as they are through eyeholes onto the outside world and that we are located as consciousnesses inside a brain which is located inside some 3d or 4 d self existent and observer independent objective world. This does not hold up to experiment. Objective reality has been falsified with regard to local, one world (non-many worlds) observer independent modals.

Abstract:
The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most markedly exposed in Wigner’s eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience seemingly different realities. The question whether the observers’ narratives can be reconciled has only recently been made accessible to empirical investigation, through recent no-go theorems that construct an extended Wigner’s friend scenario with four observers. In a state-of-the-art six-photon experiment, we realize this extended Wigner’s friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by five standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832

>> No.14739607

>>14739462
>The entire system has been mapped
At what resolution? An MRI maps the entire brain. So what?

>there is no such place in the brain which represents our experience.
What do you mean by represent our experience?

>No screen so your analogy fails.
You're very confused. The screen is the brain itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

>People can sit around and objectively view a computer programs's end product on a screen but your brains supposed program can not be objectively viewed.
The brain is the viewer, so I would need your brain to experience the same thoughts. That's all. Your problem is nonexistent.

>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience
Right, because it's integrated, it's not a whole.

>> No.14739617

>>14739527
>thoughts are just [insert abstract pseudbabble]
>Don't care.
That's literally the definition, LOL. You don't care about the definition of the word you're using?

>What is there to measure about the experience of thinking?
The brain.

>That isn't even a coherent response.
How so?

>> No.14739620

>>14739617
>That's literally the definition,
It's your pants-on-head retarded "definition", not that it matters, since I'm asking you about something else that doesn't even have a definition. What is there to measure about the experience of thinking?

>> No.14739622

>>14739514
>Your question was based on the false premise that thoughts are made of matter
Your question was based on the false premise that thoughts are made of matter
What are thoughts made of? Something else? Something non-material? That sounds strange coming from a substance monist materialist. Or are you a dualist? So you are admitting consciousness exists and is non material? If this is the case, and you grant consciousness exists, are you granting that your experience of the matter based world takes place in non-material consciousness?
>It does since brain states are correlated with thoughts, consciousness, subconscious processes, etc.
I haven't denied that there can be correlation between the virtual physical brain assigned to a consciousness and the consciousness itself. The question is about causation. This was one of my posts
>>14739530

>You're experiencing it right now.
I meant to say where is OBJECTIVE screen. You are not getting away from the question that easily.

Back to this
>>14739462
Where is the objective screen? Why is the exact neuroscience you appeal to ruling out this unified experience?

>Which is?
The fact that people can be conscious while missing 90% of their brain would be a good place to start. see here
>>14739354

You would have to either revise your hypothesis to the idea that the part of the brain that causes consciousness is restricted to 10% of the brain or that the brain causes consciousness SOME of the time.

>> No.14739668

>>14739620
>It's your pants-on-head retarded "definition"
Not mine, pick up a dictionary.

>What is there to measure about the experience of thinking?
The brain.

>> No.14739674

>>14739607
>At what resolution? An MRI maps the entire brain. So what?
So you are suggesting there is a unified visual screen sitting around real small in the brain somewhere and they just need more resolution? Better call the neuroscientific experimentalist and tell them to just try harder next time.

By the way, are you saying that neurons themselves conscious? Exactly which neurons or brain matter are conscious? The stomach has neurons, are they conscious? What exactly are you saying? Explain what and where the consciousness is in the brain?
>You're very confused. The screen is the brain itself.
So you can watch somebodies subjective experience by viewing the brain? I don't think that is the case.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness
This article specifically states that they DON'T solve the hard problem of consciousness or offer a theory of mind.
>The brain is the viewer, so I would need your brain to experience the same thoughts.
You are begging the question for one thing. The very question IS the relationship between the brain and the consciousness. But even still, the analogy fails. I can look at your computer screen and see the end product of a program and you can look at mine. They are not subjective. Consciousness is. You could also look at your own brain and not see the screen of perception on the surface of in the interior of your brain.
>Right, because it's integrated, it's not a whole.
Then why do we see it that way? And on top of that, why don't we see the dis-integrated elements of the screen of consciousness in the brain? And what would that even look like? What do you even mean to say by suggesting there is an un-integrated screen of consciousness?
>Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness that can explain how particular systems experience anything at all, or how and why they are associated with consciousness, the so-called hard problem of consciousness

>> No.14739678

>>14739668
"The brain" is not a property of the experience. You sound like a soft-locked GPT bot.

>> No.14739755

>>14739622
>Your question was based on the false premise that thoughts are made of matter
Which question? No nothing I said implied that.

>What are thoughts made of?
They are abstractions. They are not made of anything. What is a computer program made of?

>I haven't denied that there can be correlation between the virtual physical brain assigned to a consciousness and the consciousness itself.
Then why did you say measurement of the brain tells us nothing?

>I meant to say where is OBJECTIVE screen
That's the brain.

>Why is the exact neuroscience you appeal to ruling out this unified experience?
What unified experience? It's ruling out that there is a specific place that encodes the entire visual field. No one claims that in the first place, the visual field is integrated from different parts.

>The fact that people can be conscious while missing 90% of their brain would be a good place to start.
Let me know when they can be conscious missing 100%.

>You would have to either revise your hypothesis to the idea that the part of the brain that causes consciousness is restricted to 10% of the brain
No, I don't. It's not restricted to any part of the brain, just the brain as a whole.

>> No.14739855

>>14739674
>So you are suggesting there is a unified visual screen sitting around real small in the brain
What are you talking about? Nothing I said implied that.

>By the way, are you saying that neurons themselves conscious?
No, nothing I said implied that. Can you stop making shit up?

>Explain what and where the consciousness is in the brain?
Conscousness is what the brain does. Asking where it is is another loaded question.

>So you can watch somebodies subjective experience by viewing the brain?
What do you mean by watch? If you mean experience their subjective experience then you need to use their brain, or have a copy of their brain in your head. If you mean make objective measurements of their experience, then you measure their brain.

>This article specifically states that they DON'T solve the hard problem of consciousness or offer a theory of mind.
Non sequitur, that was not the question. You asked for the "screen."

>You are begging the question for one thing.
No, I'm simply explaining your misconception over what you're arguing about. If you don't want the theory explained to you then don't ask questions about it and don't attempt to criticize it.

>I can look at your computer screen and see the end product of a program and you can look at mine. They are not subjective. Consciousness is.
Because consciousness is what defines subjectivity. You need a specific brain to view another person's conscious experience. That doesn't mean the analogy fails, it means your assumption fails.

>Then why do we see it that way?
Why would you not? You don't see a lot of what the brain does.

>And on top of that, why don't we see the dis-integrated elements of the screen of consciousness in the brain?
How would you see disintegrated elements?

>> No.14739859

>>14739678
The properties of the brain are the objectively measurable properties of the experience.

>> No.14739863
File: 37 KB, 800x600, brain-scan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14739863

>>14739755
>Which question? No nothing I said implied that.
That was your own statement that I just forgot to greentext.
>They are abstractions. They are not made of anything.
So they are non-physical? Are you now admitting consciousness is non-physical? Are you saying they are not made anything PHYSICAL or what? You seem to be drifting away from a materialist explanation. You stated consciousness IS the brain. There should be nothing extra in brains that are not the brain like 'abstractions'. You are now appealing to extra physical things.
>Then why did you say measurement of the brain tells us nothing?
Pic rel is a brain scan. Tell me what details about what the owner of the brain is thinking. Of course you can not. What I mean is in a more general sense. If a freewill awareness unit (consciousness) decides to become a drug addict and uses drugs for years and then goes and gets a brain scan, the disease of the virtual avatar brain of the consciousness will likely reflect the years of abuse in the form of particular signatures of disease. So there will be correlations between the quality of the consciousness and the bad decision making of the drug addict and the quality of the virtual avatar brain This is a form of agent causation in which consciousness' free will effects the brain, which is a mental object that gets rendered in the mind of observers, say a neurologist, and so a subjective consciousness object (a mind) effecting an objective object of consciousness (a brain) and they will show correlation. So no substance dualism, no mind body problem. Or, If you drill a hole in someones head with a large drill bit, effects on the virtual brain will likely correlate with effects rendered in the owner of the brains quality of conscious.

>> No.14739866

>>14739859
You sound like a psychiatric case. "The brain" is not a property of any experience.

>> No.14739956
File: 17 KB, 442x442, 6f87747d6fd3d0c9df3e367d5f2f53_gallery.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14739956

>>14739855
>Non sequitur, that was not the question. You asked for the "screen."
Asking for the screen is an aspect of the hard problem of consciousness. And looking at a brain in nothing like looking at the screen of a computer with regard to the end product of a program. This is a terrible analogy. Everybody can sit around and look at the end product of a program on a computer screen yet multiple observers CAN'T do that with consciousness. And if you appeal to the idea that this is because only the person who the brain belongs to can see the end product, you are just reenforcing that the analogy fails.
>No, I'm simply explaining your misconception over what you're arguing about. If you don't want the theory explained to you then don't ask questions about it and don't attempt to criticize it.
Your theory consist of just repeating the premise that the brain not only causes consciousness but that it IS consciousness. The rest is just you digging yourself further in to a hole.
>Why would you not?
You would, I agree.
>You don't see a lot of what the brain does.
The visual system has been completely mapped as shown here
>>14739462
People can be conscious without brains as shown here
>>14739354
Here is another article about it.

Brainless But Not Mindless
>Ask most people what is the seat in their body for thinking, feeling, and acting, for memory or consciousness, and they’re most likely to look at you as if to say, “What a dumb question! It’s in the brain, of course.” Well, maybe not. In fact, there are instances where the brain cannot possibly account for what we know and how we function in the world.

>> No.14740047

>>14739863
>So they are non-physical?
Saying an abstraction has existential properties is gibberish. To the extent they exist as brain processes, they are physical.

>You seem to be drifting away from a materialist explanation.
No, you're just making shit up. It's just brains doing what they do. Purely physical.

>There should be nothing extra in brains that are not the brain like 'abstractions'.
I'm sorry you don't understand what an abstraction is. An abstraction doesn't exist. It's not anywhere. Brains exist.

>Tell me what details about what the owner of the brain is thinking.
We need a much better understanding of the brain, much higher resolution of imaging, and not just one image at one time to do that. It's like taking a picture of the sky with your phone and asking where the habitable planets are. This doesn't mean astronomy tells us nothing.

>If a freewill awareness unit
Where is the "freewill?" Where is the source of cognition? This is science fiction, not science.

>> No.14740048

>>14739866
>"The brain" is not a property of any experience.
Where did I say it was? I'm sorry you're illiterate. Pass elementary school before going onto 4channel, OK?

>> No.14740092

>>14739956
>Asking for the screen is an aspect of the hard problem of consciousness.
The "hard problem of consciousness" is just question begging. It's the same as the soft problem.

>And looking at a brain in nothing like looking at the screen of a computer with regard to the end product of a program.
It is.

>Everybody can sit around and look at the end product of a program on a computer screen yet multiple observers CAN'T do that with consciousness.
Distinction without a relevant difference. Again you've avoided the question and not explained what you mean by watching consciousness. If you mean experience it then you need that person's specific brain. If each computer screen was unique then you would need a specific screen to view the same output.

>you are just reenforcing that the analogy fails.
How does it fail? It's an irrelevant difference. Consciousness is no more or less physical than a computer program.

>Your theory consist of just repeating the premise that the brain not only causes consciousness but that it IS consciousness.
Yes, you finally got it. Now you can actually ask the right questions and make valid criticisms.

>The visual system has been completely mapped as shown here
It says mapped in detail, not completely mapped. And this doesn't even respond to what I said. You aren't aware of a lot of what the brain does.

>People can be conscious without brains as shown here
That guy has a brain. You're making shit up.

>> No.14740131

>>14740048
>Where did I say it was
When I asked you what properties of the experience you want to measure, and you kept saying "the brain" like a broken chatbot.

>> No.14740144

>>14739491
>>14739518
Samefag

>> No.14740152

>>14740131
Actually you asked "What is there to measure about the experience of thinking?" You don't think the brain can be measured?

>> No.14740163

>>14740152
>Actually you asked "What is there to measure about the experience of thinking?"
Yes, in terms of the actual properties of the experience, you cripple. Looks like your programmers had to manually intervene to break you out of your loop but you still take have no answer.

>> No.14740257

>>14740163
>Yes, in terms of the actual properties of the experience
The only actual properties involved are those of the brain. You seem to be confusing an abstraction with reality.

>> No.14740259

>>14740257
>You seem to be confusing an abstraction with reality.
Direct experience is not an abstraction, nonhuman. Your notions of the brain and reality are.

>> No.14740268

>>14739491
There literally is

>> No.14740283

>>14740259
>Direct experience is not an abstraction
Right, because it's just the brain doing what it does. Anything else is just an abstraction.

>> No.14740288

>>14740283
>Right
Thanks for conceding.. So what properties of direct experience do you propose to measure?

>> No.14740301

>>14740288
>Thanks for conceding
Conceding what? I said from the beginning that the only actual properties involved are those of the brain.

>So what properties of direct experience do you propose to measure?
The connections between neurons, electrical activity, chemical interactions, etc.

>> No.14740305

>>14740259
>Direct experience is not an abstraction
Thanks for conceding. Direct experience is just the brain doing it's thing.

>> No.14740325
File: 29 KB, 500x565, 3523432.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14740325

>>14740301
>mass is to matter what neural connections are to conscious experience
I don't consider you to be human.

>> No.14740392

>>14740325
Who are you quoting? What's the mass of a computer program?

>> No.14740398

>>14740325
Have you figured that you need provide an explanation of your own?
You are not persuading people by just raising issues with their explanations. Presumably they think there is a way to make sense of things.
They will give up their previous beliefs unless you give them a better belief to replace it with.

>> No.14740399

>>14740392
Computer programs are abstract. Conscious experience are not. Anyway, like I said, I don't consider you human. Sooner or later, your diseased horde will need to be removed from society.

>> No.14740403

>>14740398
>Have you figured that you need provide an explanation of your own?
I'm not claiming anything. I'm just drawing your attention to the inadequacy of your diseased worldview.

>give them a better belief
I'm not in the business of brainwashing people, unlike whoever it was that programmed them to think this way.

>> No.14740405

>>14740399
>Computer programs are abstract.
Then how are you posting? How do you view the output of an abstraction? They are no more or less abstract than conscious experiences.

>> No.14740410

>>14740403
Do you think it's rationally permissible for people to be physicalists?

>> No.14740416

>>14740405
>Then how are you posting?
"Posting" is abstract as well. We've already covered all of this, nonhuman.

>> No.14740417

>>14740410
No.

>> No.14740421

>>14740417
Okay, why not?
What do you even take physicalism to be?

>> No.14740427
File: 46 KB, 640x623, 1767448977.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14740427

>>14739435
>>14739417
>>14739366
>>14739338
>>14739442
>>14739459
>>14739620
>>14739527
>>14739678
>>14739866
>>14740131
>>14740163
>>14740259
>>14740288
>>14740325
>>14740399
>>14740416
samefag

>> No.14740436

>>14740416
>"Posting" is abstract as well.
OK, then your posts don't exist. Thanks for agreeing with me.

>> No.14740440

>>14740416
Consciousness is not an abstraction because... ?

>> No.14740442

>>14740421
>What do you even take physicalism to be?
I can tell you exactly what it is: a vacuous "intellectual" front for the irrational belief in a dead, mechanistic universe that is nothing more than a sum of trivial parts.

>> No.14740446

>>14740436
>your posts don't exist.
You could say that. There is some state of affairs that vaguely corresponds to all the abstract wank you're imagining here.

>> No.14740447

>>14740436
Look, I'm not him. But I can explain this as the computer program being an abstraction, and the actual physical states of semiconductors and electricity being something else, that really exist.

>> No.14740455

>>14740440
>Consciousness is not an abstraction because... ?
Consciousness as a concept is abstract, but to say direct experience is abstract makes no semantic sense. What isn't abstract? The very concept of an abstraction stands in contrast to concrete experience.

>> No.14740458

>>14740446
Thanks for conceding.

>> No.14740460

>>14740447
>the actual physical states of semiconductors and electricity
That's a bunch of abstractions, too, ironically, but thanks for the (underwhelming) backup.

>> No.14740464

>>14740447
The actual physical states of the brain exist, that's what I've been saying this whole time.

>> No.14740467

>>14740458
Sounds like you are having a full-blown psychotic episode. In any case, I'm still waiting for you to explain what properties of the conscious experience itself you want to objectively measure. lol. Just the sheer number of mentally ill deflections you churn out in response to this question demonstrates how hard your lost.

>> No.14740476

>>14740460
It would have to be something that exist, right?
I'm just really sure a computer program isn't it, that's human language throwing us off

>> No.14740481

>>14740455
As does the very concept of my post's concrete existence stand in contrast to abstraction

>> No.14740482
File: 2.51 MB, 1536x1536, Fil_memory_metaphysical_hyper_realistic_octane_render_cinematic_e6d30d2f-ed35-4a50-86c5-01b453200900.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14740482

>>14735925
>Not just consciousness, but creativity, emotion, personality etc
pic related was made entirely by an AI
those things aren't as "human" as you think

>> No.14740483

>>14740481
You seriously sound like a broken GPT. Your sentences are semantically incoherent.

>> No.14740484

>>14740467
>Sounds like you are having a full-blown psychotic episode.
Your the one posting posts that say your posts don't exist. LOL.

>I'm still waiting for you to explain what properties of the conscious experience itself you want to objectively measure
I already told you. >>14740301

All you can do is project your failure onto others. Grow up.

>> No.14740485

>>14740483
Figure it out, smartass

>> No.14740486

>>14740482
The AI was made entirely by our creativity

>> No.14740490

>>14740482
what are you even trying to say?

>> No.14740494
File: 38 KB, 662x712, 52234234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14740494

>>14740476
Well, if we're carefully separating the concrete from the abstract, the most you can say is that there is some concrete state of affairs that roughly embodies the relationships implied by talking about some guy making some post online, but this is absolute autism that the cretinous bot is dragging us into, not a line of thought I care to pursue. For the purpose of my argument it's sufficient to point out that a program is fucking abstract while direct experience is not, invalidating his analogy.

>> No.14740501

>>14740484
>I already told you
No, you didn't. Give me something objectively measurable, that is to conscious experience what side-length is to a square, or mass is to a lump of matter. You will post another psychodic deflection now.

>> No.14740513

>>14740486
That has nothing to do with my point

>> No.14740518

>>14740494
Yeah, I agree.
But, there is just no point talking to this guy,

>> No.14740529

>>14740442
How do you make sense of people who report as being "physicalist"
Do you think they just are retarded or what?

Presumably you believe what you do because of reasons.
Do you think you could provide physicalists with those reasons, and have him come to agree with you?

>> No.14740580

>>14740529
>How do you make sense of people who report as being "physicalist"
They are products of a sick environment, of an intellectual fashion that reflects the mundanity and meaninglessness of modern life. They derive their sense of self-worth from LARPing as intellectuals, but they are mediocre and intellectually insecure. This forces them to rely on external validation, making them into zealous conformists. I think most of them do *believe* in what they spout -- they are demoralized people, so this intellectual dogma resonates with them and allows them to rationalize their preexisting feelings. They spend their lives inside their heads, but their heads are full of abstract garbage they passively absorb from the environment, separating them from any real essence and impairing their ability to tell apart actual reality from symbols, labels and models. There's nothing more to it.

>Presumably you believe what you do because of reasons.
What is it that you think I believe?

>Do you think you could provide physicalists with those reasons, and have him come to agree with you?
Who was it that said you can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into?

>> No.14740623

>>14740501
>No, you didn't.
I did, it's right there in the post. You have no response so all you can do is deny the reality right in front of your face.

>> No.14740624

>>14740580
How do I cure myself of physicalism and become like you?

>> No.14740630

>>14740623
>it's right there in the post.
Chemical interactions are to conscious experience as side-length is to a square, or mass is to a lump of matter? Can't you at least try to mask your psychotic deflection instead of doing precisely what I predicted you'll do?

>> No.14740634

>>14740624
How do the kids say these days? Touch grass? Maybe do that and really put your heart into it. Though to be honest, I'm afraid your physicalism is terminal.

>> No.14740720

>>14740634
Why are you participating in these conversations if you are so pessimistic about being able to get your point across?

>> No.14740738

>>14740720
Well, because some people are on the fence and when they see stuff like this: >>14740484, they get the impression that you and your crew are actual retards. I guess it's not so much about getting my point across, as it is about rubbing your nose in your position's weakness until you lose it and devolve into absurdities.

>> No.14740746

>>14735925
Fuck, don't remember that "I" live in that thing

>> No.14740755

>>14739956
>but that it IS consciousness
The brain is consciousness.

>> No.14740760
File: 97 KB, 971x549, 532425.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14740760

>>14740755
>we WUZ!!!

>> No.14740774

>>14740630
>Chemical interactions are to conscious experience as side-length is to a square, or mass is to a lump of matter?
Conscious experience is much more complex than a square or a lump of matter. What is your point?

>> No.14740781

>>14740774
>What is your point?
No point. I was just trying to help your fellow retard understand what kind of relationship is implied by the word "property" but I have failed. Maybe you can help him? :^(

>> No.14740795

>>14740738
I'm not a physicalist, I believe in ghosts
I have had serval spooky encounters

>> No.14740820
File: 1.32 MB, 220x220, 1645881574604.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14740820

>>14740795
>I'm not a physicalist, I believe in ghosts
That's nice, anon, but what makes you think physicalism excludes ghosts? If ghosts are real then they are physical, just like everything else that exists. Physicists would have to update their physical models to account for ghosts, maybe add some more dark numbers to their equations or something? You're a physicalist, anon, because physicalism is the belief that real stuff is real. It doesn't matter if you believe in ghosts, angels, God, reincarnation, voodoo magic... it's all good because "physical" doesn't actually define or exclude anything.

>> No.14740834

>>14740820
No, no, I'm an idealist, everything that exist is mental
By which I mean that I think there is really only 1 kind of stuff, and that my mind is made out of that stuff , as is everything else that exist. I just call it mental.

>> No.14740854
File: 86 KB, 525x495, 1652015321570.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14740854

>>14740834
You're a physicalist, friend. Physicalists also believe there's just one kind of stuff: physical stuff, and the mind is made up of that stuff. They can't define what it means for stuff to be "physical stuff" any more than you can define what it means for stuff to be "mind stuff" and it's a moot distinction since there is only one kind of stuff, and everything is that kind of stuff.

>> No.14740862

>>14740854
That's the joke..

>> No.14740871

>>14740781
Why would you assume conscious experiences have simple properties similar to length or mass? Are you implying anything physical has simple properties? That has been the basis of your entire argument? What a waste of time.

>> No.14740874

>>14740862
Oh. Well, give me some slack. How was I supposed to know you're not actually retarded in a thread like this?

>> No.14740888

>>14740871
>Why would you assume conscious experiences have simple properties similar to length or mass?
Anon... I didn't. Are you sure you understand the post you're relying to?

>Are you implying anything physical has simple properties?
No. I'm implying that if you're gonna talk about studying something scientifically, you should at least be able to tell me what properties it has that you can examine empirically.

>> No.14740998

>>14735925
>Not just consciousness, but creativity, emotion, personality
>creativity, emotiom, personality
the Heart and The Guts are involved in this too.

>> No.14741075

>>14740888
>Anon... I didn't.
Then why is that the premise of your question?

>I'm implying that if you're gonna talk about studying something scientifically, you should at least be able to tell me what properties it has that you can examine empirically.
You were already given several examples of things that can be measured, they just aren't simple properties. But for some reason you think they have to be simple.

>> No.14741080

>>14741075
>they just aren't simple properties
They aren't properties at all. Are you the same poster or do you all suffer from the same kind of mental disability? It'd explain a lot if it's the latter.

>> No.14741198

Mind can't be physical, because ______

>> No.14741200
File: 69 KB, 452x363, 3524344.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14741200

>Mind can't be physical, because ______

>> No.14741203

>>14741200
Is there something preventing the mind from being physical?

>> No.14741209

>>14741203
Is there anything preventing ghosts, angels and voodoo magic from being physical?

>> No.14741255

>>14741209
Do you think ghost, angels and voodoo magic exist?

>> No.14741256

>>14741255
No, but what's preventing them from being physical?

>> No.14741276

>>14741256
There is no logical contradiction, if that's what you mean. If they existed.
depending on what you think ghost, angels and voodoo magic is..

>> No.14741300

>>14741276
>There is no logical contradiction, if that's what you mean. If they existed
Right, because calling something "physical" doesn't actually say shit about it. So what's the point of >>14741198? Whether it's "physical" or not, it doesn't really fit in with your braindead particle reductionism.

>> No.14741310

>>14741300
Just feel free to postulate that the ghost is fundamentally made of ghost-stuff if you want it to be incompatible with physicalism

>> No.14741324

>>14741310
That's still compatible with physicalism. Nothing about physicalism says you can't have "ghost stuff". Either way: you can call the mind "physical" if you want, but it gives me no information about the nature of the mind, and it still doesn't fit in with your braindead particle reductionism.

>> No.14741332

>>14741324
By "having ghost-stuff", that is to say substance dualism is true

>> No.14741362

>>14741256 >>14741255
The paranormal, religious or otherwise can't really be proven or disproven on a technical level. You can only really argue that they might not exist because there is no evidence of them existing in the first place.

But with something like Magic, You are essentially trying to create something from nothing. Which as far as we know is impossible. Matter cannot be created or conjured from non-existence purely because you want it to. Something like a voodoo curse is also from what we know, impossible as it's presumed to have a physical effect on someone without physical action. This can be proved non-existent for certain as if it did exist there would be people that could reliably demonstrate it. But you could argue that they just hide and the notion that we cannot find them doesn't disprove it's existence. Kind of a bitch because you can only really disprove things like this on a case by case basis.

>> No.14741372

>>14741362
>The paranormal, religious or otherwise can't really be proven or disproven on a technical level.
You are just postulating that.
Plenty of retards that would disagree with you.

>> No.14741373

perhaps the true mystery isn't about how consciousness exists but what fills the requirements for an otherwise unconscious piece of biological material to be receptive towards captivating consciousness as we know it, I think that if we manage to figure out what the needs for biological material to gain consciousness would be the most relevant piece of information we can gain from what we call consciousness. This ability for certain biological robots to be receptive towards gaining the consciosuness that we know of should be the most important part about rationalizing consciousness as we know it.

>> No.14741380

>>14741332
>>14741362
>t. brainlet
Either way: you can call the mind "physical" if you want, but it gives me no information about the nature of the mind, and it still doesn't fit in with your braindead particle reductionism.

>> No.14741389

>>14741324
>braindead particle reductionism.
Do you think it is possible for an exact physical copy of you and your brain, in another location, to not be conscious?

It just seems like consciousness necessarily follows from an arrangement of physical stuff.
I got no reasons to think otherwise.

>> No.14741393

>>14741380
It's just supposed to tell you that it's made from the same kind of stuff as everything else.
Why are you so mad about that? You don't even seem to disagree.

>> No.14741399

>>14741393
>It's just supposed to tell you that it's made from the same kind of stuff as everything else.
Doesn't follow at all. You're an actual clinical moron.

>> No.14741401

>>14741399
Do you think there exist substances that are not physical, if physicalism is true?

>> No.14741408

>>14741389
>Do you think it is possible for an exact physical copy of you and your brain, in another location, to not be conscious?
Your cloning fantasy serves no function. Other brains exist and they appear to be related to consciousness in one way or another. No one is denying that.

>It just seems like consciousness necessarily follows from an arrangement of physical stuff.
If by "follow from" you mean some unfalsifiable and nonsensical "emergent property" story, then that's not science and I don't buy it.

>> No.14741409

>>14741401
We've already established that being "physical" doesn't actually mean anything, and this vacuous mouth noise is not part of the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

>> No.14741410

One must be a fucking retard to even consider that we could know where does consciousness comes just by knowing all of the brain's bioogy, or any method whatsoever. Consciousness is super-natural just like Physics isn't Math. One can't guess Physics from Math (aka observing nature), we shouldn't be able to guess consciousness from Physics either. We can know maybe if someone is going to think something mechanically, but that doesn't mean you know the person is experiencing conscience.
Cogito ergo sum nigger.

>> No.14741414

>>14741408
I mean like how the conclusion necessarily "follows from" a valid argument with true premises

You didn't answer the question. Do you think there could be two physically identical brains, and one be conscious, but the other not?

>> No.14741416

>>14741409
Substance dualists disagree. I take peer disagreement extremely seriously
You are the clown that disagree with everyone else on metaphysics

>> No.14741420

>>14741414
>I mean like how the conclusion necessarily "follows from" a valid argument with true premises
In this case all I know is that one of the premises is that a "brain" is somehow involved. I don't even know what other premises are necessary, if any. Not even talking about an actual. And here's the kicker: no one can even tell me what constitute a "brain" for the purpose of such an argument except by begging the question.

>Do you think there could be two physically identical brain
No.

>> No.14741424

>>14741416
Sorry, I'm not debating your vacuous mouth noises. I just don't care. I'm just reminding you that even if we call it "physical", it tells me nothing about the nature of the damn thing, and it still doesn't mesh well with your braindead particle reductionism.

>> No.14741425

>>14741420
>No.
Okay, why not?
What explains them being different in some non-physical way, if I postulated that they are physically identical

>> No.14741427

>>14741425
>Okay, why not?
Because cloning things is fundamentally impossible in this universe. Seethe.

>> No.14741428

>>14741424
Just read the wikipedia entry of physicalism if you are this ignorant about the position.

>> No.14741429

>>14741428
I'm just reminding you that even if we call it "physical", it tells me nothing about the nature of the damn thing, and it still doesn't mesh well with your braindead particle reductionism.

>> No.14741436

>>14741427
You don't want to entertain hypotheticals? Okay.

I'm just trying to figure out if we even disagree about anything.
You don't seem to want to admit to holding any positions I would disagree with.

>> No.14741443

>>14741436
My position is that a no reductionist hypothesis about consciousness can be properly testable.

>> No.14741446

>>14741410
>One must be a fucking retard to even consider that we could know where does consciousness comes just by knowing all of the brain's bioogy, or any method whatsoever.
Proof?

>Consciousness is super-natural
Proof?

>> No.14741454

>>14741429
Learn to code. Laziness won't get you anywhere.

>> No.14741456

>>14741420
By this
>It just seems like consciousness necessarily follows from an arrangement of physical stuff.
I meant that it's not possible for my brain to exist as it is, without my consciousness also existing as it is.

That it necessarily follows from the one existing being true, that the other existing is also true. That it's not possible for this to be false.

>> No.14741463

>>14741446
Consciousness might as well be fairies, we are so far from rationalizing what it takes for consciousness to exist within a creature that any speculation can be considered valid. The concept that we might one day learn what it takes for a being to become conscious through the measurement of the physical aspect of it is absurd. It's the most illogical thing we can conceive of, we consist every waking moment of it and yet we have no clue as to how it works.

>> No.14741465

>>14741454
Nigger, let me make one thing super: for all you know, one day it will turn that consciousness is some elusive universal substance, a first-class phenomenon in its own right, that can be conjured up into appropriately-shaped vessels of matter through some super-complex physics voodo. This will be perfectly in line with "physicalism" and nontheless destroy your particule reductionist dogma. Stop hiding behind physicalism when what you're really all about is particle reductionism.

>> No.14741467

>>14741443
How good would "improper" testing have to be before we could be rationally justified in believing a reductionist hypothesis to be true?

Consciousness exist, so it has to be something, right?
Unless you believe it's a soul (substance dualism), or idealism or something like that. I don't understand why you wouldn't believe physical reductionism to be true.

>> No.14741474

>>14741456
>I meant that it's not possible for my brain to exist as it is, without my consciousness also existing as it is.
I'll grant you that. What I won't grant you is that consciousness is solely a product of the brian.

>> No.14741477

>>14741474
>consciousness is solely a product of the brian.
Could you explain how it might not be?
Are you referring to the idea that there are other factors present in what it takes for consciousness to manifest itself other than just the brain? As in something non-physical that latches itself to the brain, but without the brain being its sole cause?

>> No.14741493

>>14741446
>Proof?
Say I have no proof. Why is your fucking retarded claim true? Don't be retarded. I tell you what we can do, we can model the brain, we can even predict it with a computer, in theory. But why would we be able to know if someone is feeling like you do just because they tell you so? I can program my computer to answer me and what it answers me doesn't mean shit. A model human brain in a computer may or might not experience itself, we can see that it thinks, but not that it's experiencing his thoughts. I can't even force what I'm going to think you fucking retard, it just happens given past stimuli. Is like we're experiencing our body move and think on its own, that can't be studied. I could tell you all day long that I experience my thoughts, I won't be able to prove it with physics/biology. It's called "soul" you fucking retard even greeks or whatever knew before we had such a mechanical knowledge of bodies, we won't be able to know what the soul is or how it works until we die. And the explanation when we die might as well just be magic.

>> No.14741498

>>14741080
>They aren't properties at all.
Yes they are.

>> No.14741502

>>14741493
I knew you were a spookster

>> No.14741511

>>14741493
>Say I have no proof.
Then why are you making shit up?

>Why is your fucking retarded claim true?
What claim? We're talking about your claim. Nice deflection.

>But why would we be able to know if someone is feeling like you do just because they tell you so?
Because we will have a sufficient understanding of brain states to determine that from the brain itself. Or we won't, either way scientists will do all the work while you mentally masturbate over fairy tales.

>It's called "soul"
Proof?

>> No.14741515

Me? I think we die, when we die.

>> No.14741521

>>14741493
Sorry, bro. But saying it's a "soul" is completely uninformative. What's with the double standard?

>> No.14741555

Why is the discussion of what consciousness consists of such a hot topic while there are lots of people out there who sincerely believe that something like AI could become conscious in the nearby future? It's ironic that we have such long threads discussing consciousness when the majority of people who are at least somewhat scientifically literate have been toying around with the concept that AI could become conscious. So, do we actually know what the requirements for consciousness is or not? Because these people discussing conscious AI gives the impression that we are fully aware of what consciousness is and not only that but we will be able to recreate it in the future. Where's the logic here?

>> No.14741584

>>14741555
Because the debate over what causes consciousness is like a fun little side-pool for philosophers and theologians. In reality we know exactly what causes consciousness and we're near the end of pretending we don't.

>> No.14741589
File: 188 KB, 927x1511, 1659638971878976.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14741589

>>14735925
i know the answer but you're not ready for it
>>14735945
yes it does
> nooooooo because
no it does
it's actually all very simple and has one underlying misconception shared by all of you
anyone guess?

>> No.14741590

>>14735974
no, it's not predetermined, and we are nentropic
subop is a fag who can't even
>>14736019
> great mysteries
wrong
>>14736033
>You are your body just as much as you are your mind;
objectively false, people lose half their bodies and still get to show up on oprah
holy shit a lot of faggots in this thread

>> No.14741591
File: 209 KB, 735x905, BAD_BAD_BAD_GUY.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14741591

>>14736310
>idealism means that matter is a form of consciousness
bs
>>14736319
which is BS
consciousness is a thing and it's simple to explain, but you're not going to like it
not from an academic standpoint, but for what it says about you

>> No.14741645

>>14741465
Idealists are naive materialists in denial, who believe that ideas are material. Proper materialists are the only ones able to imagine properly immaterial emergent accidence.

>> No.14741714

>>14739956
The brain in hydrocephaly is compressed (from excess fluid), not missing. This was a common misconception for several years.

>> No.14741731

>>14741589
You can't prove we have free will. We don't have it

>> No.14741943

>>14741467
>How good would "improper" testing have to be before we could be rationally justified in believing a reductionist hypothesis to be true?
So good that it's actually proper.

>I don't understand why you wouldn't believe physical reductionism to be true.
You don't need to understand it. You just need to explain how you're going to study something you can't define, with no properties you can measure, the existence of which you can't even prove on any beyond "trust me, bro, I wouldn't do this consciousness-correlated thing if I wasn't conscious".

>> No.14741948

>>14741477
>Are you referring to the idea that there are other factors present in what it takes for consciousness to manifest itself other than just the brain?
Maybe. I don't know. It's your problem.

> As in something non-physical
There is no such thing as "non-physical". We've already established that angels, ghosts and voodoo magic are "physical".

>> No.14741956

>>14741498
>what are the properties of a chair?
>uhh particles
>what are the properties of a table?
>uhh ummmm wave collapse
>what are the properties of a square?
>ummm... the universe?
Etc. Full-blown psychosis. You are literally losing your mind because you lost a fucking reddit debate. Get off the internet.

>> No.14741959

>>14741645
You're a preprogrammed bot sperging out against imaginary boogeymen.

>> No.14742211

>>14739067
Yeah, there are parts of us that we cannot or find it vert hard to control, such as our baser instincts, that lizard/early hominid part of our brain, or us should i say, but with enough willpower it can mostly still be overcome, depending on how strong your will or the urge is,

>> No.14742251

>>14735990
youre not a simple program

Youre a really really REALLY complex program, your life isnt on a pre-determined path because some grand architect wrote it that way, your life is on a pre-determined path because every decision you make could only have been made by you.

If you could see every decision YOU will ever make in the future, and then decided to make a different decision, then youre no longer YOU, because you will only ever make the decisions that YOU make.

Am I getting through to you here?
You cant have your agency and eat it too.

>> No.14742308

>>14740092
>The "hard problem of consciousness" is just question begging. It's the same as the soft problem.
No, it's not. Just appealing to the brain doing things while subjective experience is happening is not an explanation of why and how that activity is accompanied by experience.
>It is
It is not. And further, the information in a computer program is not accompanied by internal experience. So this is another fail of the analogy.
>Distinction without a relevant difference. Again you've avoided the question and not explained what you mean by watching consciousness.
I mean your internal experience. Your imagination. Your dreams. These are subjective experience that can only be viewed by the self. They are no where to be observed in the brain.
>Consciousness is no more or less physical than a computer program
A computer program doesn't have experience. Unless you want to make the claim that computers are having experience. I don't know how you would verify that though.
>Yes, you finally got it. Now you can actually ask the right questions and make valid criticisms.
I never was confused about your view. It's just wrong. The brain is just matter. The brain is not you subjective experience.
>It says mapped in detail, not completely mapped. And this doesn't even respond to what I said. You aren't aware of a lot of what the brain does.
It has been mapped in detail. There is no such a place that unified visual experience could be. This also doesn't even include the fact that we have unified experience of things which aren't even formed by sensory data, like imagined scenes of places that we have never been or situations that never occurred.
>That guy has a brain. You're making shit up.
He has 10% of a brain. So people need a certain % of a brain or what? what is the %.

>> No.14742355

>>14740047
>Saying an abstraction has existential properties is gibberish. To the extent they exist as brain processes, they are physical.

So thoughts don't exist? Are you saying you don't have thoughts? You have no internal dialogue? Are you an NPC?
>No, you're just making shit up. It's just brains doing what they do. Purely physical.
I am talking about
>No, you're just making shit up. It's just brains doing what they do. Purely physical.
You are appealing to thoughts being abstractions which you claim have no physical existence. If they have no physical existence, where are they? If you say they are in brains, you are admitting there are non-physical things in brains.
>I'm sorry you don't understand what an abstraction is. An abstraction doesn't exist. It's not anywhere. Brains exist.
Again, you are saying thoughts are abstractions and that abstractions don't exist. So you don't have thoughts? I certainly do. I know they exist. I experience them.
>We need a much better understanding of the brain
The relevant parts have been mapped already with regard to the binding problem and shown in this study I posted.
>much higher resolution of imaging
So you think consciousness is hiding somewhere real small in the brain? Where might it be? Are you saying the neurons are conscious? Do they have individual consciousnesses? Which neurons are conscious exactly? How will you confirm that a neuron is conscious? It must be in the 10% of the neurons that the brainless guy has. Are stomach neurons conscious?
>Where is the "freewill?
It's a feature of consciousness. Have you every had a choice of two possibilities? Maybe 'will I eat a steak, or should I have a pizza'. You deliberate, and then choose. That is free will.
>Where is the source of cognition?
Consciousness is fundamental. There is no source. To a materialist, this is what matter would be. Consciousness is also the source of matter. This is consistent with experience as well. Matter is only ever experienced in minds.

>> No.14742370

>>14741714
The guy only has 10% of his neurons. And by the way, what neurons are conscious in a brain? Is an individual neuron having conscious experience? How do these separate consciousnesses add up to one conscious experience? Are stomach neurons conscious? What is it about these particular cells that make them conscious?

>> No.14742399
File: 25 KB, 660x360, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14742399

>>14740755
No it is not. Thoughts are not made of brain. If I have a thought of a mountain I am not seeing a mountain formed by smooshing brain matter together in the shape a mountain. I am seeing an object made of thought. I will never see a neuron in my life or a whole brain. I will never see any matter without it being rendered in my consciousness. No one will. There is no experience of matter except in the medium of consciousness.

>> No.14742430

>>14742308
Daily reminder: "people" who don't immediately get the hard problem are not real people. They are separate subspecies on a lower level of sentience. There is no point reasoning with them because they physically lack the faculties to understand what you're saying.

>> No.14742457

>>14741493
>we can see that it thinks, but not that it's experiencing his thoughts
how could we know this eventually?

>> No.14742476

>>14742457
>how could we know this eventually?
I'm pretty sure he's pointing out the obvious: we will never know this eventually because it's fundamentally impossible to know this.

>> No.14742498
File: 193 KB, 744x435, in computer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14742498

oh so consciousness is IN the brain?

It's so simple!
This is how stupid reductive materialists sound and they don't realize it.

>> No.14742820

>>14742498
Consciousness IS the brain*

>> No.14742861

>>14742820
your mom's consciousness is the brain

>> No.14742884

>>14735945
If free will didn't exist, you'd be operating completely upon instinct with zero intellect or reasoning.

>> No.14742904

>>14741584
>we know exactly what causes consciousness
what?

>> No.14742905

It amazes me how scientists can be so smart yet so fucking retarded.

For the love of everything holy, please smoke a 60x Salvia 10 times over. Just so you see how full of fucking shit you are. Consciousness is not in the brain, the brain is just there as a sort of mediator between the physical realm and your True nature which is simply everlasting consciousness. You will never die and you were never born. Your body is not yours, it's just a temporary spacesuit.

I swear to god your fucking theories are fucking retarded.

>> No.14742938

>>14742820
How come I can see things like mountains and trees in my consciousness? Are there actual mountains and trees in my brain?

>> No.14742959

>>14742905
You did not gain true knowledge by doing psychedelic drugs, you gained random pseudoknowledge that was accompanied by artificial feelings of insightfulness and reinforced by euphoria. The fact you don't realize this shows you're the retard here.

>> No.14742979

>>14742959
You know nothing, just spewing ignorance. It's not artificial feelings, this whole thing you call life is artificial compared to supersensory experience of a potent psychedelic. The reason you're such a jackass is precisely because you have no fucking idea who you are.

>> No.14742980

>>14742457
Exactly. That's my point. How could we know?
Say there's a substance in the brain that makes you experience your thoughts. With it, you do. Without it, you're a mechanical soulless biological robot. Now I ask you, from your perspective, what's the difference given we observe such an experiment? We create a clone of someone with such substance, but we remove that substance. Both would tell you they are sentient, you will ask them what they feel when you pinch them, they feel pain because that's in the nervous system. You ask them if they feel love, they will because it's pretty much explained neurologically.
Moral of the story/TLDR: Experiencing your thoughts or feelings is not necessary for a human body to seem human. If we removed your "soul" from your body, the body still has everything necessary to be you for any other observer.
This is why it's intellectual bankruptcy to consider this soul crap something we can find out. OP said consciousness, he didn't mean that, that's fully explained by biology/physics.

>> No.14743045

>>14742980
>that's fully explained by biology/physics
No it's not. What part of the brain is conscious? Is it the individual neurons? Are certain groups of neurons conscious? Is all of the brain conscious? Which parts are conscious? Give details. How does the brain cause experience. And don't just list a bunch of things that the brain does. That's easy. Explain why any of those things are accompanied by experience.

>> No.14743148

>>14742820
Would you say that consciousness weighs about three pounds ? This is the average weight of an adult brain. If consciousness is the same as a brain then you must believe that consciousness weighs three pounds. How much does your experience weigh? If the matter in the brain is all that there is to experience, then experience must be made of brain matter I suppose? Can you quantify these things? How about love? Which constituents of the brain form love? Also, how is it that things can appear in my brain which exceed the dimension of my brain?

>> No.14743203

>>14742355
>So thoughts don't exist?
I don't know what you mean by thoughts. I'm talking about brain activity. You seem to be talking about some kind of abstraction separate from the brain that doesn't exist.

>You are appealing to thoughts being abstractions which you claim have no physical existence
No, you're the one who described abstractions. I'm talking about what the brain does.

>> No.14743224

>>14743045
Jesus Christ you're a nitwit. You mean a different thing with the same words means, you're not discussing in good faith or are retarded.

>> No.14743280

>>14743203
>I don't know what you mean by thoughts
You don't know what a thought is? I find that hard to believe. It's the output of cognition. The first definition that comes up is
>an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind.


>I'm talking about brain activity. You seem to be talking about some kind of abstraction separate from the brain that doesn't exist.
I am starting to believe that you actually are incapable of thought or internal dialogue.
>No, you're the one who described abstractions. I'm talking about what the brain does.
I am talking about thoughts. We who are conscious use cognition. We have things called thoughts which take place in consciousness.

>> No.14743327

>>14743203
By the way, I am aware what the brain does. The question would be why any of that is accompanied by experience and the mechanism whereby that experience is presented to the experiencer. Even just the simple thing of visual data. Are you implying that if I look at tree , what appears to me is brown colored brain matter or neurons which form the trunk and green colored neurons that form the leaves? You must be because consciousness and brain are the same on a one for one basis, so you can appeal to perception being construted by anything else other that brain matter. Also, give even one example of a particular brain state that can be confirmed to produced a particular experience in a conscious being. How are you confirming that brain states are consciousness, whatever that even means. You can't even proof that a particular brain state causes consciousness, let alone a brain state produces a PARTICULAR conscious experience, which doesn't even linguistically make sense.

>> No.14743334

>>14742905
>please smoke a 60x Salvia 10 times over
what did you feel?

>> No.14743344

>>14743280
>You don't know what a thought is?
You're illiterate. I said I don't know what you mean by "thoughts." You were talking about an abstraction. Cognition is completely physical.

>> No.14743351

>>14742979
druggies get out of society. kill yourselves. you won't die anyway and you'll leave this evil human sphere.

>> No.14743363

>>14741731
you can't prove that we don't
check mate you cock sucking faggot

>> No.14743371

>>14742938
How come I can see things like mountains and trees in my soul? Are there actual mountains and trees in my soul?

>> No.14743372

>>14742355
>The relevant parts have been mapped already with regard to the binding problem and shown in this study I posted.
No, we have very little understanding of the brain. Your study doesn't dispute that. You don't even understand that it's talking about a literal unified image rather than what every neuroscientist expects.

>So you think consciousness is hiding somewhere real small in the brain?
You're illiterate. Nothing I said implied that. All you do is make shit up.

>Have you every had a choice of two possibilities? Maybe 'will I eat a steak, or should I have a pizza'. You deliberate, and then choose. That is free will.
No, that's will, not free will. Try again.

>Consciousness is fundamental.
Proof? Matter and energy are fundamental according to every successful theory.

>There is no source.
Then what is the point of your science fiction rant?

>Matter is only ever experienced in minds.
Vacuous tautology.

>> No.14743387

>>14742399
>Thoughts are not made of brain.
They are what the brain does.

>If I have a thought of a mountain I am not seeing a mountain formed by smooshing brain matter together in the shape a mountain.
You're confusing the thought with what the thought represents. An image of a mountain is not a mountain but still completely material.

>There is no experience of matter except in the medium of consciousness.
Vacuous tautology. "Experience" is irrelevant. There is matter without consciousness but no consciousness without matter.

>> No.14743390

>>14743344
>Cognition is completely physical.
Yes, I know this is your premise. It would be interesting if you would actually tried to make an argument or tried to
> I said I don't know what you mean by "thoughts
Yes. You did. That's why I tried to explain what I meant by it. Cognition is another word for thinking.
>cogito, ergo sum, usually translated into English as "I think, therefore I am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

>Cognition refers to "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition

So cognition is a mental activity. It involves thought. I guess you deny the existence of thought though. So I guess you just have brain activity without the thought.

>> No.14743424

>>14743387
>hey are what the brain does.
Interesting premise. Which exact part of the brain are the thoughts located? Which neurons are conscious? Do they have individual consciousnesses? How are the individual consciousnesses unified?
>You're confusing the thought with what the thought represents.
Not clear on what you mean here. What material constituents is the tree in my perception made of? How are the colors produced? Green brain matter for green leaves. You only have brain matter to work with in your model. Consciousness IS the brain remember. So what I see in my consciousness ie the physical world, my dreams, my thoughts, my emotions and pains and every part of my experience must be made of brain. Right? Or do you wish to revise your theory.
>Vacuous tautology. "Experience" is irrelevant.
How are you confirming anything about matter absent
>Vacuous tautology. "Experience" is irrelevant.
Explain how you experience matter without consciousness.
>There is matter without consciousness but no consciousness without matter.
How would you confirm that? Only consciousnesses confirm things.

>> No.14743435

>>14743387
this
>>14743387
>How are you confirming anything about matter absent
Should read 'How are you confirming anything about matter absent'

Don't even bother though. The scientific method takes place in minds and the things studies, the physical world, has only ever been observed and verified in minds.

>> No.14743453

>>14742370
>The guy only has 10% of his neurons
citation needed, not responding to the rest of your post

>> No.14743460

>>14743387
>There is matter without consciousness but no consciousness without matter.
Matter is something rendered in minds. Matter is made of consciousness. The dream is another type of consciousness based virtual reality simulation of the physical world that gets rendered in minds. The waking physical world is just a more immersive and persistent consciousness based virtual simulation of a matter based world. There is no objective observer independent world. This has been confirmed in a 1000 different ways experimentally. Here is a fairly recent one.


Experimental test of local observer independence
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832

>> No.14743467

>>14743453

see here.
>>14743460
And I don't care if you respond because you are just going to have the same NPC 'the brain creates consciousness because the brain creates consciousness' type of answer.

>> No.14743471

>>14742905
>Your body is not yours, it's just a temporary spacesuit
Sounds like something a carb-addicted fat fuck would say

>> No.14743478

>>14743453
actually it's here
>>14739354
Headline:
Meet The Man Who Lives Normally With Damage to 90% of His Brain
>A French man who lives a relatively normal, healthy life - despite damaging 90 percent of his brain - is causing scientists to rethink what it is from a biological perspective that makes us conscious.
>Despite decades of research, our understanding of consciousness - being aware of one's existence - is still pretty thin. Many scientists think that the physical source of consciousness is based in the brain, but then how can someone lose the majority of their neurons and still be aware of themselves and their surroundings?
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness

>> No.14743480

>>14743467
You're literally lying with 10% neurons thing

>> No.14743495
File: 11 KB, 251x201, brainscan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14743495

>>14743480
it's here
>>14743478
>He only went to the doctor complaining of mild weakness in his left leg, when brain scans revealed that his skull was mostly filled with fluid, leaving just a thin outer layer of actual brain tissue, with the internal part of his brain almost totally eroded away.

>> No.14743521

>>14743495
Your source on him missing 90% of his neurons is this article just supposing it?

>> No.14743522

>>14743495
Different anon, but from first glance, that's more like 75% of average neuronal mass with a bunch of fluid in the middle. If anything its abnormal architecture, but there's a lot of brain there.

>> No.14743527

>>14743478
>>14743495
Read the bottom text that has been edited into the article
This is moronic

>> No.14743532
File: 35 KB, 839x128, Screenshot(69).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14743532

>>14743527
lol, "But we did get you to click on it so our work here is done."

>> No.14743533
File: 39 KB, 755x207, SCIENCE_alerts.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14743533

>Spooksters in charge of doing science

>> No.14743536

>>14742370
>The guy only has 10% of his neurons.
Why did you lie about this?

>> No.14743561

>>14743527
It says more likely. Sounds like speculation. At any rate, did that make his consciousness more compressed?

>>14743522
So where in the remaining brain is the consciousness? What is usually claimed is that consciousness is both located in the brain and caused by the brain. So this constrains that idea greatly. Now, consciousness not only has to be located in the brain, but located some region of the brain that this guy has, be it 90% or 75%. And this small remaining % must also be able to account for the mechanism whereby brain activity is somehow beamed in to the experiencer of the consciousness who was assigned this brain as the brain of his physical avatar.

>> No.14743570

>>14743561
Sorry
Got no interest in talking to a guy that just believe whatever made up stuff, and does not update his beliefs when this is pointed out

>> No.14743571

>>14742370
I didn't lie. It's in the article
>Any theory of consciousness has to be able to explain why a person like that, who's missing 90 percent of his neurons, still exhibits normal behaviour," Axel Cleeremans, a cognitive psychologist from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium, told Quartz
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness

>> No.14743582

>>14743571
See if you can read it all to the bottom where the article explains that how itself is literally wrong about the facts

>> No.14743604

>>14743570
Your opinion is the standard issue NPC opinion anyways. I don't need to hear another one of you say 'the brain causes consciousness because it just does'.

>> No.14743621

>>14743604
My opinion is that you're a retard that was lying about the reasons for why you believe what you do
because you don't change your beliefs when these reasons are revealed to be literally false

>> No.14743641
File: 76 KB, 728x586, Captura-de-Pantalla-2020-10-20-a-las-14.01.54.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14743641

>>14743582
There are tons of other examples. This was just the first one that came up when I searched 'brainless conscious person'. I knew there were these cases so I just posted the first that came up because I was in a hurry.

>>14743582

I don't have to change my beliefs. There are tons of these cases. You are the one who needs to change your belief. But since you are an NPC, you likely can't.

'It’s possible that after reading this you might think that the case couldn’t get any more interesting… you’d be wrong. The young man isn’t the only person with this condition and after doing extensive research on the subject, Lorber specialized in hydrocephalus and observed more than 600 people with the condition, of whom 60 had less than 5% brain mass and what’s even more surprising is that 30 of them had high IQs.'

http://www.upsocl.com/positive/a-brain-scan-revealed-that-this-university-student-didnt-have-a-brain-his-head-was-filled-with-water/

>> No.14743649

>>14743621
>>14743571
It know turns out that there are tons of these cases and tons of literature about these cases

Turns out you don't need a visual cortex to see

Discrepancy Between Cerebral Structure
and Cognitive Functioning

'The aforementioned student of mathematics had a global IQ of
130 and a verbal IQ of 140 at the age of 25 (Lorber, 1983), but had “vir-
tually no brain” (Lewin 1980, p. 1232). Still, the student apparently developed normally throughout his childhood. Judging from photographs
in his family album, he did have hydrocephalus from early in life, but it
was not diagnosed and thus not treated. At the age of 20, he sought
medical advice because of problems of endocrine maturation. Up to that
time, he had not had seizures and he had no motor handicap. Similarly,
his vision was perfect apart from a refraction error. Nevertheless, later
studies showed the apparent absence of a visual cortex, and from the
age of 23, he became subject to occasional grand mal seizures. He
was featured in a documentary film about Lorber's work in 1982, in
which he appeared behaviorally normal (Lawson, 1982). This student
belonged to the group of patients that Lorber classified as having “ex-
treme hydrocephalus,” meaning that more than 90% of their cranium
appeared to be filled with cerebrospinal fluid (Lorber, 1983).'
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/12/Discrepancy-between-cerebral-structure-and-cognitive-functioning-JNMD.pdf

>> No.14743657

>>14743649
Why are you telling us this?

>> No.14743660

>>14743561
You misunderstood, I was stating that he appeared to have 75-100% average brain mass. The consciousness is in the brain matter. The fact that you can do things like model and predict doesn't make it anymore magical or mysterious. Consciousness is what it is like to employ a sophisticated primate neural architecture. This eludes description for obvious reasons.

>> No.14743663

>>14743641
Yeah, these all are a similar situation. Do you think you've discovered something that we don't know? Do you believe you're in on some conspiracy of neuroscience?

>> No.14743674

>>14743641
Okay, but they are literally not brainless
So what's your point?

Do you think materialism commits you the belief that brains can't do anything unless they are 100% standard shaped?

>of whom 60 had less than 5% brain mass and what’s even more surprising is that 30 of them had high IQs.
You are probably just lying again

>> No.14743682

>>14743657
Because you questioned that particular source. I gave you different ones
>>14743660
> The consciousness is in the brain matter.
Where is it exactly. Be specific. And how are you confirming that particular brain matter is itself conscious?
>Yeah, these all are a similar situation
Yes, they are all situations that constrain your theory from 'consciousness is in the brain and caused by brains' to 'consciousness is in the 5% of the brain that these people have'.

This one here
>>14743649
for instance, had no visual cortex yet had normal vision. So the vision system of the brain being the thing that constructs the visual phenomenal conscious experience is out.

>> No.14743692

>>14743682
I don't care about the others.
I cared about correcting the case were I knew you were literally wrong.
For some reason spooksters are still linking this article 5 years later

>> No.14743705

>>14743682
>constrain your theory
No. A person having brain matter and being concious fits my theory quite well.

>Where is it exactly.
Distributed among the neural architecture. If you're asking something misleading like "where is a mountain when I think of it," well its not a mountain, just a representation constructed and perceived by the matter we're discussing.

>> No.14743731

>>14743674
>Okay, but they are literally not brainless
Well, you have a lot less realestate to locate consciousness in for one thing. You must find you consciousness in the 5% of the brain that these water brained people have. You must limit you idea of the brain causing consciousness to the parts of the brain that these people have. You must formulate a theory of consciousness without appealing to a visual cortex for another. This brings up a problem of how brains create the screen of consciousness. Usually people will begin their theory with the old rods and cones and photons song and dance and describe the visual system and function including the visual cortex and then some hand and then PRESTO, unified visual phenomenal experience data( which can not be found in the brain or subjectively observed) is somehow beamed into a mind. See here for the paper on such situations.
>>14743649

>> No.14743753

>>14743731
>more lies
No, I don't have to do that

>> No.14743765

>>14743731
>the 5% of the brain
They have much more than 5% of their brain.
You're conflating skull volume with percentage of average brain matter.

>> No.14743829

>>14743765
This one talks about hydrocephalics who are conscious with only 5% . about half way down
>Forsdyke, 2009), for hydrocephalics with only 5% of neural tissue remaining, this would seem to require the establishment early in life of a critical network, which would have to retain its connectivity in the face of the subsequent severe progressive distortion associated with ventricular expansion. Unfortunately, there are no post-mortem histological studies on this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4042161/

>> No.14743839

>>14743753
True. You can use your free will to choose not to. I don't blame you for not trying trying either because it's impossible. It's like playing a video game and trying to derive your consciousness from the avatar of the guy on the computer screen your playing in the games' brain.

>> No.14743850

>>14743753
It's also like playing a video game and pointing to the player on the screen who your playings' head and saying and saying 'my consciousness is located in there'.

>> No.14743890

>>14743850
No it's not. It's like a player playing a videogame, then point at his real-life head and saying his consciousness in there

>> No.14743896

>>14743850
>>14743839
Why are even you talking about viedogames?
I just think reality is real, and not a videogame

>> No.14744453

>>14736038

when you lose a limb, your eyes, tongue, etc
part of your brain goes with it because the parts that made it function are never activated again

>>
Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action