Materialism Has Been Falsified. The Brain Does Not Generate Consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14975211]

Time to wake up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtOXx84aT-c

Summary:

In the psychedelic state, brain activity ONLY decreases massively, while the richness of experience ONLY increases massively.

This evidence contradicts the idea that the brain activity generates consciousness since the materialist hypothesis predicts that increases in the richness of experience MUST BE accompanied by increases in material brain activity somewhere.

Why does materialism necessarily predict this? Well, in materialism, the brain is the material object supposedly generating my experience; you can not have increases in the richness of experience without some increase in brain activity somewhere to explain it.

Thus, materialism has been empirically falsified along with the material brain generating consciousness.

Relevant Studies:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1119598109
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18593735/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24048847/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25693169/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28711736/
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1518377113

--------------------------------------------------------------

If you are someone who has understood what I've said, you will ask "so what is the brain then?"

Idealists would say that the brain is just what your inner experience looks like from another conscious perspective: an mental icon representing your mental activity from another mind's perspective. It doesn't do anything, and there are no materials nor the hard problem of consciousness. That's because everything is consciousness in this view.

[Anonymous No.14975219]

>>14975211
>In the psychedelic state
Nice try.

[Anonymous No.14975230]

>>14975211
>richness of experience
lmao

[Anonymous No.14975234]

>>14975211
Consciousness doesn't exist. Brain is bunch of neural networks under limbic system supervision. Your thoughts just combination of something that you learn before . Stop being shaman and start being engineer , accept that you just bio machine, way more advanced than Siri or Alexa, but built on the same principles

[Anonymous No.14975235]

>>14975230

It is a valid concept.

The contents of consciousness sitting in a dark room with no sound is clearly less rich than the contents of consciousness while watching a firework show.

[Anonymous No.14975238]

>>14975211
This article looks like attempt to describe how cpu works just measuring its temperature

[Anonymous No.14975239]

>>14975234

Denying the only thing you can ever know for certain is the dumbest thing any human can ever do.

You're just repeating your falsified metaphysics verbatim, while not addressing the evidence right in front of you.

[Anonymous No.14975248]

>>14975234
>Consciousness doesn't exist
Literal NPC

[sage No.14975261]

>>14975211
>the hourly consciousness thread
You and everyone on this entire website will never prove consciousness is anything more than the farts from a blob of crap in your skull.

[Anonymous No.14975267]

>>14975239
Evidence of what? You have no Evidence that consciousness exists and I have e planty of Evidences that neural networks work

[Anonymous No.14975271]

>>14975248
When you figure out your cognective traps you will get there , for now your scripts won't allow you understand yourself

[Anonymous No.14975285]

>>14975211
I have already disproven this theory with a simple experiment at home. I took a huge hit of dmt, ate several mushrooms, huffed some spraypaint and drank a bottle of cough syrup at the same time. Then I used a complex series of pulleys and levers to drop a large rock onto my head. After several attempts I had managed to knock myself out while high. It hurt but it was for science. Now I forgot what I as talking about

[Anonymous No.14975292]

>>14975285
Ahh yes, I remember, if the consciousness is separate from the body then how come I wasn't aware while I wad knocked out?

[Anonymous No.14975295]

>>14975211
>Extrospection: There is a red apple in front of me
>The red apple is a self-evident, you don't need to prove its existence via sound or other sensory element
>Introspection: There is an Observer that is conscious of both internal mental processes and external physical elements
>This Observer is not self-evident and you gotta prove its existence via other sensory elements.
How dense can autists get.

[Anonymous No.14975304]

>>14975292
Same reason you got knocked out in the first place.
You gotta knocked out because you are a physical manlet.
You aren't aware afterward because you are a spiritual manlet.

[Anonymous No.14975305]

I dont know much about this field but it sounds like somebody is huffing heavy loads of copium.

[Anonymous No.14975309]

>>14975305

It is simple. The only ones holding onto copium are the ones not engaging.

> Materialist metaphysics makes a prediction.

> That prediction doesn't hold up to scientific evidence.

> Materialist metaphysics is wrong, along with the material brain as a result.

[Anonymous No.14975315]

>>14975305
One side definitely is.

[Anonymous No.14975388]

consciousness is just an illusion. the material brain is all there is. read daniel dennett.

[Anonymous No.14975404]

>>14975267
why are neural networks behaving in more stupid manner than insects?

[Anonymous No.14975411]

>>14975211
>the richness of experience increases massively
This is what potheads actually believe lmao

[Anonymous No.14975421]

>>14975211
The funniest part of these threads is the fact that it's all extending from anons' fear of death. If it wasn't for that primal ingrained fear you would have no problem accepting that death is the end of your existence.

[Anonymous No.14975423]

>>14975421
Materialists are so afraid that they might be judged for their sins that they maintain that no spirit can exist, despite ample proof.

[Anonymous No.14975433]

>>14975423
>ample proof.
No.
>Materialists are so afraid
A great many materialist scientists despise the fact that they are convinced of materialism. You have no idea how many would gladly jump into a religious belief system if they were convinced that there was some possibility of truth. The fact is that schizos online have this retarded idea that you're all some enlightened geniuses and all the heckin' NPC materialists just refuse to look at all the evidence which means they are either conspiring against you or cannot handle the mind-shattering truth. It's just retardation and narcissism. You're a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.14975443]

>>14975421

I'm OP.

I'm actually quite concerned about the continuation of consciousness in the idealist metaphysics. So what you're saying is a load of garbage.

What will it be like? I have no clue.

It would be far more comforting to be a materialist, and the the death of the brain being all there is to consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14975446]

>>14975433

The only narcists are the materialists who hypothesize a category of thing which they will never and have never directly been acquainted with, all the while mocking anyone who suggests that consciousness (the only thing you can know) is fundamental to reality.

That is the profile of the narcissist.

Who is the schizo here? The one who hypothesizes about abstractions being real, or the one who speaks of the category we can know for certain?

[Anonymous No.14975448]

>>14975433
>The fact is that schizos online have this retarded idea that you're all some enlightened geniuses and all the heckin' NPC materialists just refuse to look at all the evidence which means they are either conspiring against you or cannot handle the mind-shattering truth. It's just retardation and narcissism. You're a fucking retard.
I have never met a single materialist who had even the faintest idea about Biblical history or the confirmation of the historical Jesus, let alone the scientific study of miracles which went on in the 19th and 20th century and confirmed that medical miracles do occur and their results can be measured.

If you want to think yourself out of the hole that materialism has put you into I can find you some resources. But I get the feeling you just want to act smug.

[Anonymous No.14975449]

i wasn't going to watch the youtube video but i did and it was interesting. i don't really know what to think about it all though.

on one hand, it seems like this guy is onto something. if the brain is just an icon representing our mental activity, then that would explain a lot. it would explain why we can't seem to find a material basis for consciousness, and it would also explain why psychedelics seem to increase the richness of experience.

on the other hand, it seems like this guy could just be making stuff up. i mean, he's not a scientist, he's just some guy with some interesting ideas. and even if he is right, what does it really change? we're still conscious, whether the brain is generating it or not.

i don't know, i'm still kind of on the fence about this whole thing. it's definitely food for thought though.

[Anonymous No.14975451]

>>14975449
>on the other hand, it seems like this guy could just be making stuff up. i mean, he's not a scientist, he's just some guy with some interesting ideas. and even if he is right, what does it really change? we're still conscious, whether the brain is generating it or not.

Glad you watched at least.

He is a scientists. Has a doctorate in computer engineering, worked on AI at CERN. He has another doctorate in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14975463]

>>14975211
1) the evidence you present speaks of a psycho psychologistic fallacy at work in your thinking.
2) while Idealism is the case, most idealists fail spectacularly at grasping it's most basic implications and simply opt for mystical dualism of substance. Essence cannot be properly conceptualized as substance. The (proper) Idealist approach is eidetic, then transcendental.

[Anonymous No.14975464]

>>14975463
>psycho psychologistic
Kek fucking tablet. Psychologistic, as in 'psychologism'.

[Anonymous No.14975468]

>>14975463
>1) the evidence you present speaks of a psycho psychologistic fallacy at work in your thinking.

What the hell does that even mean? State your objection clearly.

>2) while Idealism is the case, most idealists fail spectacularly at grasping it's most basic implications and simply opt for mystical dualism of substance. Essence cannot be properly conceptualized as substance. The (proper) Idealist approach is eidetic, then transcendental.

That's cool, but I don't. When I say idealism, I mean everything is of the category consciousness. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Anonymous No.14975479]

>>14975468
>What the hell does that even mean?
"The view or doctrine that a theory of psychology or ideas forms the basis of an account of metaphysics, epistemology, or meaning; (sometimes) spec. the explanation or derivation of mathematical or logical laws in terms of psychological facts."
>When I say idealism, I mean everything is of the category consciousness. Nothing more, nothing less
Then you are an idiot. An intelligent idealist doesnt deny the existence of the material world, he simply acknowledge the principle of phenomenal closure.

[Anonymous No.14975485]

>>14975479
> "The view or doctrine that a theory of psychology or ideas forms the basis of an account of metaphysics, epistemology, or meaning; (sometimes) spec. the explanation or derivation of mathematical or logical laws in terms of psychological facts."

It is entirely reasonable to make the basis of reality mental since that is all humans can ever truly know for certain. I don't agree in the slightest that this is an error of logical thinking.

One should start with what they know for certain to build a list of things in their ontology of the world.

>Then you are an idiot. An intelligent idealist doesnt deny the existence of the material world, he simply acknowledge the principle of phenomenal closure.

I can deny the material world on the account that it makes an incorrect prediction about the behavior of the world, which the point of this entire thread.

[Anonymous No.14975501]

>>14975485
>is all humans can ever truly know for certain
The history of knowledge and the coming of the Logos into this world is the story of empirical observation of the world leading to eidetic truths. You reduce knowledge to an impossibilia.
>>14975485
>incorrect prediction about the behavior of the world
> Muh predictability
Bugmen tier. I predict you a lonely and sexless life.

[Anonymous No.14975510]

I was thinking about this a lot recently. consciousness (and in extension life) is very odd because it breaks the mechanistic nature of the universe which is rules by causality. it simply seems impossible. so, what if it IS impossible? what if there is another complementing dimension we are missing in which things like consciousness ARE possible, but the physical things isnt. what if we are simply a manifestation of the will in that other dimension and the brain is the interface receiving events.

[Anonymous No.14975513]

>>14975510
Again
> materialism doesnt make sense
> so what if double materialism is the case?
Doesnt help.

[Anonymous No.14975516]

>>14975513
we are turning in circles for 5000 years.

[Anonymous No.14975517]

>>14975211
>increases in the richness
This is vague and unscientific. The psychedelic state could just be more efficient or require less brain activity than being sober

[Anonymous No.14975520]

>>14975516
People are just desperate for the Bible not to be true because they fear what will happen to them because it is.

[Anonymous No.14975525]

>>14975448
you are beyond redemption. I am not the anon you are responding to but your whole post deserves a call out. retard

[Anonymous No.14975530]

>>14975446
>>14975446
You believe consciousness is fundamental to reality because it's the only thing you can know and yet somehow we are the narcissists. Unreal.

[Anonymous No.14975540]

>>14975211
You're an idealist? Then you should have no trouble with me punching you in the face

[Anonymous No.14975541]

>>14975421
If death were the end I would not exist in the first place, because I was already dead before I were born

[Anonymous No.14975548]

>>14975421
Terror Management Theory

[Anonymous No.14975660]

>>14975520
Even if materialism isn't true doesn't mean your bible is.
Christcucks are literally shuned even by other schizos.

[Anonymous No.14975831]

>>14975234
>consciousness doesnt exist
Lol
Lmao

[Anonymous No.14975838]

>>14975433
You've nailed it perfectly.

[Anonymous No.14975839]

>>14975238
Devils advocate: if you do heavy calculations on your CPU without cooling it and the temperature decreases, you’d probably think something is funky too..

[Anonymous No.14975847]

>>14975267
I have first hand empirical knowledge that consciousness exists. Everyone does.
I hate this meme argument.

The irony is that the only real way to steer clear of this very obvious assessment is by agreeing with chalmers

[Anonymous No.14975859]

>>14975433
>you're all some enlightened geniuses and all the heckin' NPC materialists just refuse to look at all the evidence
Yes

[Anonymous No.14975861]

>>14975421
Cope.
Most non materialist theories dont say anything positive comes after death. Some are downright terrifying.
But in general your argument is a weird one.
Every inquiry exists for some reason or another. Doesnt make it less valid.
And the smug assurance of „youre just afraid of death“ is just a coping strategy that you yourself arent existentially terrified of it like every other single living beeing out of evolutionary necessity

[Anonymous No.14975863]

>>14975859
Thank you for affirming him, dipshit.

lol

[Anonymous No.14975895]

>>14975211
>This evidence contradicts the idea that the brain activity generates consciousness since the materialist hypothesis predicts that increases in the richness of experience MUST BE accompanied by increases in material brain activity somewhere.
Materialist drones make me want to vomit, but your line of reasoning is a nonsequitur. Why does there need to be an overall increase in brain activity?

[Anonymous No.14976111]

>>14975895
>Why does there need to be an overall increase in brain activity?
Based retard anon. If neural activity is positively correlated to consciousness, see brain dead people, then more activity = more consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14976133]

>>14976111
>neural activity is positively correlated to consciousness
What does this even mean?

[Anonymous No.14976151]

>>14975211
>Falsified
how?
>In the psychedelic state, brain activity ONLY decreases massively, while the richness of experience ONLY increases massively.
>richness of experience
there's an unfalsifiable claim right here, how can you falsify something with an unfalsifiable statement? you can't. "richness of experience" is independent of any set of axioms we could possibly agree on to constitute a basis for an observable reality.

[Anonymous No.14976203]

>>14975861
>But in general your argument is a weird one.
It's not a "weird" one, it's a jewish one.
You ignore the conversation and immediately play psychologist to impugn your opponent's motives for the audience.

[Anonymous No.14976223]

>>14975847
>>14975239
Thinking there is such a thing as the ego is the biggest mistake of modern philosophy. It is itself egotistic to think in such a solipsistic manner. All modern epistemology, by this I mean the dualism of Descartes and Kant and modern "philosophers of consciousness" is based on the self delusion that there exists some kind of Platonic self that cognizes the world separately from the world. As a civilization we have collectively fooled ourselves into believing that just because we have become aware of the process of our own thinking ala Descartes that our thinking constitutes something that makes us different from all other organic species.
This is why consciousness remains an unsolvable problem for empirical science because it is directly at odds with it i.e. it is just a way that we think of ourselves, via the egotism of the epistemologists, and not something that actually really exists. This is also why it is impossible to pinpoint when so-called "consciousness" first appears in human history - which you would think would be the first place that someone making an enquiry into it would investigate rather than wasting their time on utterly banal things like qualia and phenomenology - instead all we find is the gradual coming into existence of the modern human mind over the course of hundreds of thousands of years. There was never a "pop", never a eureka moment. That idea comes from the folly of rationalism. What then distinguishes man from animal, practically speaking? Nothing.

[Anonymous No.14976253]

>>14975211
>i have more "rich" experience because my brain filters less noise
>less filtering MUST increase brain activity
kek @ you're mom for not swallowing

[Anonymous No.14976254]

>>14975211
lol you understand neither cognitive neuroscience nor philosophy of mind

[Anonymous No.14976309]

>drug short circuits brain, inhibiting neurons and forcing signals to take on different paths
>some pathways are skipped entirely, some take on different paths and leak into unrelated parts of the brain
>total brain activity is reduced, but signals are getting mixed up in unpredictable ways
>random signals are interpreted as geometric patterns
>ability to filter real signals from noise diminishes
>depth perception malfunctions, can't tell how far away something is or how big it is
>sensory data mixes up, see sounds and taste colors
>can't fucking think straight because of all the random bullshit signals defiling your consciousness
>"wow, im trippin balls rn, my experience is so enrichened frfr. im gonna reach god in the spiritual plane any second now"

[Anonymous No.14976318]

>>14976309
You will never be human.

[Anonymous No.14976335]

>>14975234
based knower of truth

[Anonymous No.14976355]

>>14975211
I never cared about this, can u use scientslop terms? It's the only source i ever had

[Anonymous No.14976382]

>>14976133
Neurons being active means your brain is working to some capacity, and if it is working to what we understand as normal parameters you are presumably conscious. Sorry about your retardation.

[Anonymous No.14976385]

>>14976309
This is not how psilocybin works.

[Anonymous No.14976396]

>>14975211
Why would you expect a board full of midwits to be able to understand Kastrup?

[Anonymous No.14976401]

>>14975235
not if the fireworks show is literally your braincells frying as they are influenced by the drug and the dark room is your brain correctly interpreting all your senses and stimuli accurately even if its just of a boring dark room.

[Anonymous No.14976414]

>>14976396
What's there to understand? He's just another idealist. He doesn't have anything fundamentally new to say. Just another third rate academic philosopher. Boring.

[Anonymous No.14976420]

>>14976414
His academic researcher was in computer engineering

[Anonymous No.14976426]

>>14976420
He also has a phd in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14976428]

>>14976382
>Neurons being active means your brain is working to some capacity
Why would the brain "doing more work" necessarily imply "more consciousness", even if you assume consciousness is somehow created by the brain?

[Anonymous No.14976429]

>>14976426
So he's a doctor of philosophy in computer engineering and philosophy, he's also an expert on artificial intelligence and physics.
What about his ideas do you disagree with?

[Anonymous No.14976432]

>>14975211
It's taking a long time for mainstream science to catch up.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TechnologyAndAliens/comments/ypzufg/the_space_war/

[Anonymous No.14976435]

>>14976382
By that logic people undergoing grand mal seizures have the most consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14976440]

>>14975211
>The Brain Does Not Generate Consciousness.
Then how come brain damage affects consciousness?

dead brain -> consciousness is fucked

[Anonymous No.14976448]

>>14976440
>Then how come brain damage affects consciousness?
Prove that it does.

[Anonymous No.14976452]

>>14976440
>Then how come brain damage affects consciousness?
Consciousness may simply be a property of matter that manifests in different ways based on the composition of the physical system

[Anonymous No.14976455]

>>14976429
I don't care what he's a doctor of or an expert on. He's an academic and trained to think a certain way. That's the problem with academic philosophers. Like I said he's just another idealist. Anyway I outlined my thoughts on philosophy of consciousness here >>14976223. I think that these sorts of people are looking for something that doesn't exist. If you want to understand what makes humans human, look at history and culture. It's not 1781 anymore. Today we have a wealth of practical sociological data and a very strong historiographical tradition which makes abstract reasoning of the Enlightenment variety a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.14976458]

>>14976223
Holy pseud drivel. Try /lit/.

[Anonymous No.14976460]

>>14976455
Academic rationality/philosophy is the correct way to think, this is not a problem.

[Anonymous No.14976469]

>Academic rationality/philosophy is the correct way to think

[Anonymous No.14976472]

>>14976223
They hated him because he spoke the truth

[Anonymous No.14976474]

>>14976440
Dualism and idealism accounts for that. Does destroying a radio antenna destroy the radio station?

[Anonymous No.14976475]

>>14976469

[Anonymous No.14976478]

>>14976472
>he replied to himself because no one updooted his drivel

[Anonymous No.14976479]

>>14976469
why yes materialism is unintuitive and sourced from academics for NPC

[Anonymous No.14976481]

>>14976460
The academy is where original thought goes to die. I know because I've been through it. You learn what other philosophers thought rather than learning to think for yourself. You get stuck in centuries old thought systems that have already been discussed to death and have been exhausted of all possible avenues of pursuit. This is where I see the problem. If today I see another professional idealist I roll my eyes and move on. A real philosopher should be subversive and controversial. That is originality.

[Anonymous No.14976482]

>>14976481
I agree for the most part

[Anonymous No.14976483]

>>14976481
>The academy is where original thought goes to die.
>I know because I've been through it.
>You learn what science """authorities""" thought rather than learning to think for yourself.
>...
>Now let me tell you about my stale 19th century materialistic dogma
Can't make this shit up

[Anonymous No.14976488]

>>14976474
Quite a leap of faith to think the complexity of the brain isn't doing much of anything other than receiving signals. Current deep neural networks are capable of increasingly impressive 'intellectual' feats, so it stands to reason that the brain is at least doing much of the work required for advanced consciousness.

Also it's obvious why people like you want to believe this, you're terrified of death and desperately need to believe in afterlife.

[Anonymous No.14976493]

>>14976483
You make assumptions about me. To me science is just another belief system that replaced religion and now functions as the civilizational body of knowledge instead of mythology and theology.

[Anonymous No.14976494]

>>14976488
>Quite a leap of faith to think the complexity of the brain isn't doing much of anything other than receiving signals.
Quote a leap of desperation to strawman him with this wank. Not surprising, since you can't actually refute him.

>Current deep neural networks are capable of increasingly impressive 'intellectual' feats, so it stands to reason that the brain is at least doing much of the work required for advanced consciousness.
Utter nonsequitur.

[Anonymous No.14976500]

>>14976493
>You make assumptions about me
What assumptions did I make about you? You are so mentally ill it's staggering. You just told me you got brainwashed by academia, and you are explicitly regurgitating the 19th century dogmas that dominate academia. What am I supposed to conclude from this? lol

[Anonymous No.14976505]

>>14976500
Where am I regurgitating 19th century dogma? Just because I disagree with idealism does not make me a materialist.

[Anonymous No.14976506]

>>14976505
>Where am I regurgitating 19th century dogma?
Here: >>14976223

[Anonymous No.14976507]

>>14975211
you can't get consciousness from something non-conscious anyway there's never been evidence because it's impossible
something non-conscious called matter is simply an invention, obviously, of consciousnesses such as humans.
the fact that some materialists put it the other way around and say there are only non-conscious things and that consciousness is an illusion is insane, it's denying your own awareness which if you actually didn't have it you wouldn't be able to see or experience anything much less make an argument denying your ability to see but even that is a hypothetical assuming such a thing as non-consciousness could even exist when it's never been demonstrated or logically argued for in any way
it's nothing more than an invention to explain away the flaw of modern scientific theories that they can't explain consciousness, and so you get psychology which attempts to fill the void but still does not explain consciousness in any way
i don't think it's a problem with science it's the arrogance of scientists, science is useful in many ways but something different would have to be tried to attempt to explain consciousness which many scientists don't want to do, it might just not be in the realm of science at all

[Anonymous No.14976509]

>>14976488
Neural networks just manipulate syntax, they're "dumb." My consciousness is directly experienced, and the only thing that I can know to certainly exist, so sorry for not following the unintuitive physicalist idea that I don't exist, and which itself fails to account for all the neuroscientific data gathered on the brain (and in other fields)
And no, there's far more to fear about death if you continue existing than if you don't.

[Anonymous No.14976517]

>>14976494
Explain how you would design an experiment to test whether the brain acts as an antenna and that's why we have consciousness.

You seem like a silly person.

[Anonymous No.14976521]

>>14976517
>Explain how you would design an experiment to test whether the brain acts as an antenna
Explain how you would design an experiment to test whether the brain generates consciousness. It's exactly the same problem, mouth breather.

[Anonymous No.14976539]

>>14976509
Neurons are dumb as well. They just respond to neurotransmitters and electrical signals. Yet impressive complexity emerges out of simple parts.

Consciousness obviously exists but we don't know how it emerges. There's no evidence that it's not the brain doing it. Though I'm curious how would you design an experiment to test your hypothesis?

Yes, the Christians invented hell as the stick, and heaven as the carrot. People obviously want to continue living which is why they want to believe consciousness persists after death.

[Anonymous No.14976544]

>>14976539
>b-b-but there's no evidence that my dogma is NOT true therefore it's true
Mouth breather.

[Anonymous No.14976545]

>>14976521
Damage the brain, you damage consciousness. Introduce chemicals and you change experience. It's the most parsimonious explanation.

If you can't even begin to test your idea that the brain acts as an antenna then it's unfalsifiable and not a scientific claim.

[Anonymous No.14976548]

>>14976488
To address your last point, I actually disagree on the fundamental basis of fearing death. I and many others I know are entirely content with this being all there is, materially speaking. I'm far more afraid of there being some omnipotent deity that will personally punish me for eternity or something like that. It terrifies me.

[Anonymous No.14976550]

>>14976544
Ironic, since that seems to be your entire argument. What evidence exists in your favor?

[Anonymous No.14976552]

>>14976545
>Damage the brain, you damage consciousness
I guess your NPC brain had a stack overflow and you don't remember how we got to this point in the discussion? We've already established that it doesn't prove anything.

>It's the most parsimonious explanation.
Doesn't apply in this context.

[Anonymous No.14976553]

>>14975211
>Thus, materialism has been empirically falsified along with the material brain generating consciousness.

Wrong. That's all the refutation it needs.

[Anonymous No.14976554]

>>14976548
Well the good news is that most religions were obviously invented by humans with many mutually exclusive creation myths and dogmas.

[Anonymous No.14976560]

>>14975211
>2 PhDs
only a guy with two PhDs could be this retarded, surely.

[Anonymous No.14976561]

>>14976545
I'm not antenna anon.

No it isn't. You can make sense of all of this in an even more parsimonious way with idealism:

The brain is the image of your mental process. Other mental processes can interfere with your mental process, so the interference with your mental processes appears as a new image of a damaged brain.

[Anonymous No.14976562]

>>14976552
Baseless assertion. It's the most parsimonious explanation and your hypothesis does not add any explanatory power.

[Anonymous No.14976563]

>>14976550
He specifically referred to it in his post. The fact that consciousness can be altered/destroyed/inhibited by physical and/or chemical change in the brain is a falsifiable claim, ergo it can be tested for validity. Validity which can be seen evidently by virtue of the myriad examples existing in the world of your consciousness being subject to change in matter. Your "radio antenna" idea fundamentally cannot be tested because it relies on the implication of an observer outside our detectable perception, meaning it has no way of being proven or disproven.

[Anonymous No.14976566]

>>14976562
>It's the most parsimonious explanation
There is no way to see if it's a valid explanation at all, as you've already admitted.

[Anonymous No.14976567]

>>14975404
You show me an insect that can master Mario and I will show you MarI/O

[Anonymous No.14976568]

>>14976563
>the certified nonhuman is malfunctioning again
Based. Keyword-based.

[Anonymous No.14976571]

>>14976545
Prove that non-consciousness generates consciousness
I'll wait

[Anonymous No.14976572]

>>14976561
That's not more parsimonious, you're adding complexity by claiming there's a corresponding image which has some bi-directional communication from some nonphysical realm to the physical brain.

[Anonymous No.14976575]

>That's not more parsimonious
At what point do we start sterilizing or otherwise culling these dysgenic subhumans?

[Anonymous No.14976578]

>>14976568
>resorting to adhom instead of discussing in good faith and addressing points made against your view
Disappointing.

[Anonymous No.14976581]

>>14976572

Of course it is more parsimonious.

The image of a mental process from another mind's perspective of course would correlate with the mental process it represents.

There is no need to talk about the material/physical world. You are adding complexity by positing more entities than necessary to explain these things.

[Anonymous No.14976584]

>>14976581
this

[Anonymous No.14976588]

>>14976578
You are a literal subhuman.

[Anonymous No.14976596]

>>14976581
You're a nigger for even entertaining his retarded references to the principle of parsimony, which he clearly doesn't understand. Parsimony is only a consideration when you have to choose between multiple explanations that demonstrably account for every aspect of whatever is being explained. "Heckin' brain does it" doesn't even count as an explanation from this perspective.

[Anonymous No.14976598]

>>14976572
> image which has some bi-directional communication from some nonphysical realm to the physical brain.

Moreover, mental processes can interact, which isn't crazy. Ever heard of multiple personality disorder? Multiple distinct perspectives which can interact within a field of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14976601]

>>14976596

You have to talk to these people to make them understand what they are saying is incoherent.

[Anonymous No.14976604]

>>14976596
Still waiting for you to prove that something non-conscious exists

[Anonymous No.14976610]

>>14976604
I never made any claims about that. Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.14976614]

>>14976223
Midwit take.
Egoism is a value statement, which only comes from selfimprtance itself

[Anonymous No.14976615]

>>14976539
Except I know I'm conscious, while there's no evidence neural networks are, and even believing other humans are is technically an assumption (though I'm not a solipsist).

There's nothing in nature that has mental properties, so the reductionist view to say that a mind can arise from the physical is absurd, the only response materialism has to the hard problem is to say consciousness is completely illusionary and doesn't exist. Since I can describe the physical world with mental concepts far easier than I may describe the mental with physical concepts, among other things, it's far more parsimonious to say that the physical world emerges from the mental world. So Idealism simply makes far more sense than physicalism philosophically and experientially

As for empirical confirmation, there's plenty of recorded phenomena that is inconsistent with physicalism, but fully consistent with idealism, like terminal lucidity, functioning humans possessing barely any brain matter, brain damage resulting in genius, and other anomalies but I don't remember them all since I researched this a while back and don't keep a list on my phone. But overall there's no empirical evidence the brain produces consciousness, there are only correlations between consciousness and the physical brain, and various anomalies tends to be inconsistent with physicalism.

Also I'm not talking about religion. If your consciousness exists after death, the possibility of entering that unknown should be uneasing at the very least to anyone, as opposed to the nothingness of materialism

[Anonymous No.14976616]

>>14976601
>You have to talk to these people to make them understand
Wrong. You have to frustrate and abuse these "people" to make them go away. They're not going to "understand" anything, no matter how right you are or how hard you try. They are pollutants.

[Anonymous No.14976629]

>>14976610
Is the brain matter or not?

[Anonymous No.14976633]

>>14976616
your mom is a pollutant

[Anonymous No.14976635]

>>14976629
I see that the meds will remain untaken today... the brain is matter. What of it?

[Anonymous No.14976637]

>>14976616
This.

Just make fun of them and direct them to /pol/ or /x/ where the other tards congregate.

[Anonymous No.14976638]

>>14976635
Is matter conscious or unconscious?

[Anonymous No.14976641]

>>14976638
I don't know what it even means for matter to "be conscious".

[Anonymous No.14976643]

>>14976637
What is it with this one bot who consistently fails to keep track of the conversation and consistently mistakes opposition for support and vice versa?

[Anonymous No.14976647]

>>14976641
Are you conscious?

[Anonymous No.14976664]

>>14976647
Consciousness that is in one way or another associated with this body.

[Anonymous No.14976672]

>>14976664
In which way is it associated with the body?

[Anonymous No.14976683]

>>14976672
No one knows.

[Anonymous No.14976686]

>>14975211
>the brain is just what your inner experience looks like from another conscious perspective: an mental icon representing your mental activity from another mind's perspective. It doesn't do anything, and there are no materials nor the hard problem of consciousness
Then how come people who lose a part of their brain lose their intelligence but keep their past memories?

[Anonymous No.14976688]

>>14976683
I would say that consciousness is not associated with the body only mental faculties and emotions are

[Anonymous No.14976691]

>>14976688
>I would say
I don't care.

[Anonymous No.14976697]

>>14976691
Well there's certainly no evidence that consciousness, the awarenes of experience, is produced either by the brain or body, nor is there evidence for something not conscious

[Anonymous No.14976702]

>>14976686

Let's say you survive a bullet to the head. The bullet in idealism is a mental process that interferes or interacts with your mental process. When I look at your brain today, that image reflects the change in the mental processes that have occurred.

[Anonymous No.14976714]

>>14976697
>there is no evidence against my claim so my claim is true

[Anonymous No.14976715]

>>14976697
>Well there's certainly no evidence
Purely subjective assessment.

[Anonymous No.14976720]

>>14976702
So you regard "consciousness" and "mental process" as separate entities?

[Anonymous No.14976727]

>>14976720

No. Same thing, different words.

[Anonymous No.14976744]

>>14976428
>Why would the brain "doing more work" necessarily imply "more consciousness", even if you assume consciousness is somehow created by the brain?
People who have brain damage are, ostensibly, less conscious than those with no brain damage. This is the physicalist perspective on the matter.
>>14976435
Perhaps, yes. But this is why emergence is a bad system, and why I disagree with physicalism/materialism.

[Anonymous No.14976757]

>>14976714
i've already given evidence for my claim, all anyone has ever experienced is consciousness, no one has ever experienced non consciousness it is simply an idea, everything anyone has ever experienced has been allowed by virtue of consciousness, i am conscious, you are conscious, it's obvious, that's my evidence is that we are conscious, you could claim that there is something non-conscious called matter, but theres simply no evidence for it and it doesn't make sense either.
>>14976715
produce it then

[Anonymous No.14976774]

>>14975211
>psychedelics suppress brain function, and fuck up your ability to process sensory imput properly
>this is evidence of non material aspects of a philosophical/creative interpretation of sensory imput

There was an attempt, I'll give you that

[Anonymous No.14976813]

>>14976727
So how can a bullet interfere with your consciousness, if consciousness is not linked to the brain and the bullet is only damaging the brain?

>>14976757
>you could claim that there is something non-conscious called matter, but theres simply no evidence for it and it doesn't make sense either.
huh? is a rock conscious?

[Anonymous No.14976815]

>>14976744
>People who have brain damage are, ostensibly, less conscious than those with no brain damage
Dubious and in any case irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.14976818]

>>14976757
>produce it then
You're a literal bot.

[Anonymous No.14976838]

>>14976815
>Dubious and in any case irrelevant.
It is quite literally an observational basis for statement that consciousness is an emergent property of increased neuronal activity.

[Anonymous No.14976839]

>>14976432
stop shilling your stupid schizo thread everywhere

[Anonymous No.14976853]

>>14976838
>consciousness is an emergent property of increased neuronal activity.
>increased neuronal activity.
The "increased" part is some wank you're injecting into it. Nothing says "increased" neural activity means "more" consciousness. Where are you getting this kindergarten-tier "more is better" garbage from?

[Anonymous No.14976869]

>>14976813
>huh? is a rock conscious?
No, he's saying the rock is entirely just conscious "stuff", it doesn't have a physical reality on its own outside of its phenomenal expression in your consciousness. The rock doesn't have to be conscious itself, there's just no matter to differentiate it from the object of a daydream, for example.
It's just meme Idealism. It is doubtful that he truly believes this non-sense, and in any case, he couldn't possibly be consequent with his beliefs.
A consequent Idealism doesn't attempt to reduce all matter to ideas on an ontological level, it simply reject the tendency of materialism toward realist reductionism. You can't figure out the arithmetic of essences, you can simply describe it as one would geometrical shapes seen from a distance in a fog.

[Anonymous No.14976893]

>>14976813

Conscious processes can interact with other conscious processes. There is empirical evidence of this with multiple personality disorder, where two minds can coexist within a single consciousness and interact both ways.

When the interaction is complete, your conscious processes have change, thus giving a new apparent image in the mind of another consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14976903]

>>14976893

Moreover, I'm not saying that the image called the brain is not in any way related to your inner mental life. I'm saying the image called the brain is an icon of your inner mental life, so of course it will correlate with your inner mental life.

[Anonymous No.14976905]

>>14975211
>In the psychedelic state, brain activity ONLY decreases massively, while the richness of experience ONLY increases massively.
I wish grandiose asspull statements like this would be an auto-prune on your thread.
>If you are someone who has understood what I've said
So you admit your post is difficult to read and low quality?

[Anonymous No.14976904]

>>14976223
>self delusion
>but it stills exists
lmao

[Anonymous No.14976912]

>>14976813
>So how can a bullet interfere with your consciousness, if consciousness is not linked to the brain and the bullet is only damaging the brain?
Nta, but I'll try to present an idealist answer that isn't retarded substance dualism mysticism.
Consciousness is the sum of processes leading to the representation of a world for an individual living being. A large number of those processes are psychological/cognitive, but a non-negligible number are cultural, historical and existential/eidetic. The eidetic nature of a science, for example, is an acting force on an individual's representation. That force is not a physical force but it shapes human history, our empirical contact to the world and our consciousness. In a similar manner, rationality is not cognitive computing, but work that happens without language itself, and is revealed through the contact of an individual with language (a contact which is necessarily mediated by cognitive/psychological forces, however).
If the physical tools used to construct the mediating fields between cognitive and eidetic processes are damaged, then we do not have the tools to build the representations necessary.

[Anonymous No.14976918]

>>14976912
>work that happens without language itself
Within*

[Anonymous No.14976922]

>>14976488
>Current deep neural networks are capable of increasingly impressive 'intellectual' feats
no they are not and obviously you dont understand the nature of "neural networks"

[Anonymous No.14976991]

>>14975449
>if the brain is just an icon representing our mental activity, then that would explain a lot
It would make sense that the lower the brain activity, the more free the conscious experience is. Like during sleep when the brain is shut off how conscious experiences of dreams are more radical and varied similar to otherworldly psychedelic experiences. And the closer you get to lucidity the more awake the beain becomes and the more locked in consciousness becomes.

Maybe the brain is a consciousness trap and these psychedelic substances that alter the normal function of the brain may be like throwing a wrench into the machine called the brain which traps consciousness. Once the brain so to speak is "distracted" with the alteration of neurotransmitters caused by these drugs, consciousness becomes free to drift away to have these vivid incomprehensible experiences while the brain scrambles to metabolize those pesky substances and restore normal function and purpose of the brain. Probably also explains NDEs when individuals are thought to be brain dead yet recount vivid experiences while the brain pulls itself back from the brink and consciousness is snapped back.

[Anonymous No.14977036]

>>14975267
>You have no Evidence that consciousness exists
Literally EVERYONE has evidence that consciousness exists. In fact, consciousness is the ONLY thing in the world that can be properly called "evident", and EVERY other form of evidence is subordinate to it.

[Anonymous No.14977047]

>>14976813
>huh? is a rock conscious?
All we have ever had proof of is our consciousness, everything else in experience is a direct product of that, there has never been anything we observe or experience that does not stem from consciousness, given this, a rock is a direct product of consciousness, now you can differentiate and say okay the rock comes from consciousness but is it iself conscious? Does the rock exist? Yes. Well then it must be conscious at SOME level, since it exists ONLY in consciousness
It's not that seeing the rock makes it real it's that the whole universe is one conscious mind seeing itself at all different levels of consciousness at once, this allows consciousness to experience itself, the universe created and creates itself by the one adaptation of consciousness, there has never been evidence of anything that doesn't exist in consciousness, it's so obvious that it confounds the minds of intellectuals
>>14976818
>You're a literal bot.
sneed

[Anonymous No.14977065]

I can't really take part in these discussions because fundamentally both outcomes really do scare me quite a lot. Either I enter the void after I die (unpleasant thought) or I am sent on some unknowable journey in which I will still likely never see my loved ones again and all that I hold dear will still have withered to nothing. (Another unpleasant thought)

Obviously some religious dogmas have good outcomes, the idea of being a Christian seems rather comforting - eternal life, getting to see your beloveds again, and a second shot at continuing this life in a newer, better world. But these seem too good to be true so even if I wanted to believe them, my primordial ingrained fear of the end upsets me too much. I can't speak for others but I imagine a significant failure of these discussions is the desperation from all sides to decimate that which people hold most dear and helps them stay anchored to what they feel matters, and even the intellectually capable are not immune to emotionally fueled rage inhibiting their rationality or perspective.

[Anonymous No.14977066]

>>14976545
>Damage the brain, you damage the antenna. Introduce chemicals and you change the reception. It's the most parsimonious explanation.

[Anonymous No.14977073]

>>14977047
recommend me two books

[Anonymous No.14977087]

>>14977073
Tao te ching and the emerald tablets

[Anonymous No.14977091]

I don't believe in any form of afterlife because that thought would comfort me, and all this piece of shit universe does is let me down. Wouldn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.14977115]

>>14977065
who cares at least we're alive now

[Anonymous No.14977138]

>>14976991

What is the point of the brain if you can get arbitrarily rich experiences out of less brain activity? It seems you're making the metaphysics have any kind of implication to avoid being falsified.

The metaphysics of materialism is clear that in instances of large jumps in the richness of experience, you must have an associated increase of brain activity.

If you don't agree with that, I'd like to know why.

[Anonymous No.14977194]

>>14977138
>The metaphysics of materialism is clear that in instances of large jumps in the richness of experience, you must have an associated increase of brain activity.
Nta, but I don't think that's true. In the state of altered consciousness, the efficiency in generating rich experiences and the relative amount of processing power that the brain dedicates to it could differ from normal. If the change in efficiency and/or the processing power dedicated to generating rich experiences outweights the drop in activity, I don't believe any fundamental dogma is broken.

[bodhi No.14977223]

>>14975421
>NPC cant fathom that people would have an interest in the most profound question in existence
>What am I
this is the mind a mentality of the materialists, they can only perceive of material wants and desires. They have no clue what ideals even are. Eat, shit, fuck, is all they can be bothered because they are bots, hylics, shudra. This is what the aryan spirit must navigate to transcend this dimension

[Anonymous No.14977228]

>>14977223
Go and do it then, tell us how it went when you're done.

[bodhi No.14977232]

>>14975433
it doesnt take a genius to understand Plato's work, it does take a pretty high IQ to go looking for what he taught however, which people like you do not possess. Luckily you NPCs on this board had me to spoon feed it to you

[Anonymous No.14977239]

>>14976853
>Nothing says "increased" neural activity means "more" consciousness.
This is literally the physicalist position, I do not know what else to say.

[Anonymous No.14977257]

>>14977239

There can be incoherent brain activations all of the brain like in a seizure that don't lead to consciouness.

However, the physicalist position does imply that increases in the richness of experience must be tied to increases in brain activity.

Simplified:

More brain activity doesn't necessarily imply more richness.

However, more richness does necessarily imply more brain activity to explain it.

[Anonymous No.14977261]

>>14977257
Eh yeah fair enough.

[Anonymous No.14977262]

>>14977239
>This is literally the physicalist position
You sound legit mentally ill.

>>14977257
>the physicalist position does imply that increases in the richness of experience must be tied to increases in brain activity.
How does it imply that?

[Anonymous No.14977271]

>>14977257
>more richness does necessarily imply more brain activity to explain it.
It doesn't, your equation is missing some variables such as efficiency, what is your answer to this >>14977194?

[Anonymous No.14977275]

>>14977262

> How does it imply that?


In materialism, the brain is the object that generates the product of consciousness. If that product increases in its subjective intensity/richness, it must have been the result of the object generating it increasing its generating capacity in some way.

[Anonymous No.14977278]

>>14977262
>You sound legit mentally ill.
>mentally ill poster
Your posts are about as good and coherent as maidfags.

[Anonymous No.14977285]

>>14977275
>If that product increases in its subjective intensity/richness, it must have been the result of the object generating it increasing its generating capacity in some way.
How do you conclude that an "increase in generating capacity" means an increase in activity?

[Anonymous No.14977289]

>>14977285
How do you reckon that if something exists, it exists necessarily in a physicalist world view?

[Anonymous No.14977293]

>>14977289
Why do you and your buddy keep lying and turbo-deflecting instead of explaining your nonsensical assertion?

[Anonymous No.14977298]

>>14977293
>he does not understand physicalism
Many such cases.

[Anonymous No.14977302]

>>14977298
I didn't argue anything for or against physicalism. I'm just questioning your retard-tier logic that "increase in generating capacity" necessarily means "more brain activity".

[Anonymous No.14977311]

>>14977302
If consciousness exists in a physicalist system, it must exist necessarily, either as a physical fact or as a relation. If it is a physical fact of an object, then it necessitates either soft or hard panpsychism. If it exists as a relation, say as a result of neruons firing, then it must increase proportionally.

[Anonymous No.14977316]

>>14977311
>If it exists as a relation, say as a result of neruons firing, then it must increase proportionally.
How do you figure that? It honestly doesn't seem like you are sentient enough to realize when you're making a nonsensical logical leap even when you have your nose rubbed in it repeatedly.

[Anonymous No.14977319]

>>14975211
>consciousness thread
>le non-emergent
>no mention of Penrose, Hammerooffs or Orch OR Theory
I'm going to start spamming this again until you retards start taking it seriously. The more "latest" shit I read about consciousness all points in the direction of Orch OR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGbgDf4HCHU

[Anonymous No.14977329]

>>14977232
If we're all NPCs then you wouldn't need to waste time explaining it. There would be no fucking point in doing so. You are the most retarded namefag active on this site bodhi, congrats.

[Anonymous No.14977333]

>>14977316
>How do you figure that?
What does a neuron do? How does it work physically? It engages in neuronal firing through electromagnetic pulses and neurotransmitters. If consciousness is to exist relationally, it must be proportional to that, as that's all there is to a neurons function, you monkey retard.

As a fun exercise, explain to me in your own words what gauge theory is.

[Anonymous No.14977337]

>>14977333
>If consciousness is to exist relationally, it must be proportional to that
Why?

[Anonymous No.14977338]

>>14977333
>If consciousness is to exist relationally, it must be proportional to that
You're jumping to conclusions that you can't substantiate

[Anonymous No.14977345]

>>14975211
>materialism
>empirically falsified
>empirically

Lol, lmao even.

>>14977333
>It engages in neuronal firing through electromagnetic pulses and neurotransmitters. If consciousness is to exist relationally, it must be proportional to that, as that's all there is to a neurons function, you monkey retard.


Indeed. Otherwise it's like saying when you break a radio the signal disappears with it.

[Anonymous No.14977346]

>>14975211
i am settled on the question of materialism. everything that exists is to be considered as existing somewhere. brain activity is something that exists somewhere. it does not make a difference what triggers it; something does, something that exists in some location.

whatever your purpose is in posting this study, op, with the nice, little blue images in the brain that look a lot like tumors, you are never going to trick me into believing in kike god.

[Anonymous No.14977352]

>>14977346
>whatever your purpose is in posting this study, op, with the nice, little blue images in the brain that look a lot like tumors, you are never going to trick me into believing in kike god.
Meds, now.

[Anonymous No.14977354]

>i am settled on the question of materialism. everything that exists is to be considered as existing somewhere

[Anonymous No.14977357]

>>14977352
you can't tell me to be put on meds.

[Anonymous No.14977374]

>>14977337
Is a person with one neuron capable of what we consider consciousness? No? Okay. How about 86 billion? If yes, then it is emergent. If it is weak emergence, which is compatible with physicalism, which then necessitates any fundamental-level physical effect has a purely fundamental physical cause. For your being, conciousness is fundamental, so there then must be some fundamental unit of consciousness found in the neuron, or any type of matter for a panpsychist view.

So, for the physicalist, the brain dead retard with one neuron (you, in this case) has some level of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14977393]

>>14977374
I didn't as you anything about number of neurons. I asked you about your assertion wrt. levels of brain activity. You seem to be foaming at the mouth over your inability to address the question.

[Anonymous No.14977395]

>>14977393
>I asked you about your assertion wrt. levels of brain activity.
Turns out more neurons = more potential for activity.

[Anonymous No.14977404]

>>14977395
>Turns out more neurons = more potential for activity.
So? You still didn't answer my question. I take it that you simply can't answer it beyond kindergarten-tier hand-waving logic.

[Anonymous No.14977409]

>>14976545
>If you can't even begin to test your idea that the brain acts as an antenna then it's unfalsifiable and not a scientific claim.

It does act like one. It literally has an extension of antenna like polarized "wires" that run through every single part of your body. It even sends signals you yourself can't even control, such as to internal organs/ triggering survival mode and unconciously breathing for you. Even your heatbeat is more or less out of your control without external factors to trigger it into doing something other than what it always does...what it's signaled to do by electromagnetic signals.

Evidence for this presents itself everywhere in the medical field. People who have transplants from other people somehow inherit the memories of who the organs once belonged to. The body can be jolted into moving with shocks, you can even revive a person completely dead in this way. People who have had major portions of their brain removed don't lose all their memories either, they lose motor control/ability to send signals to trigger "the memory".

>>14976561
>I'm not antenna anon.
But you're a human being, and you're just so fucking easy to polarize. So easy to manipulate and do things against you're own will. It demonstrably happens almost every election season, they don't even have to hook up external power to do it, all they need is another torpid human being. In fact, with actual wireless power they could literally shut you "off" instantaneously if they wanted to. "They"? Yes, anyone with access to electricity.
Also money, bribes and guns are just physical materials, so why is it that they influence almost every human being on earth? Are they some sort of talisman?

[Anonymous No.14977412]

>>14977404
Based retard. Go talk with maidfag, he is more on your level. You have still yet to tell me anything about gauge theory.

[Anonymous No.14977418]

>>14977412
Why are you seething? I asked you a simple question.

[Anonymous No.14977421]

>>14977418
Why do you know nothing about gauge theory? Maybe you could state some QM formalism instead.

[Anonymous No.14977424]

>>14977421
You seriously seem to be losing your mind, sperging off about some other posters and irrelevant topics as if your psyche is crumbling over your inability to explain your views.

[Anonymous No.14977440]

>>14977421
Jesus fuck you deserve getting clocked on the side of the head you cunt.

[Anonymous No.14977446]

>>14975234
>there is no threshold that makes us greater than the sum of our parts
>what is chemistry
>what is biology
>what is quantum physics
what a weird assertion

[Anonymous No.14977453]

>>14975234
anyone who disagrees with this take is a retard.Consciousness is the emergent property of the complex system that is our brain . It doesnt mean that it doesnt exist but that its nature is in the configuration of its matter.Of course the nature of consciousness is materialistic , but the truth is we dont know what the material is.We havent even built a concrete basis of quantum mechanics, we say that electrons either behave as particles or waves but its false.The electron is something else that displays both of these properties , we still havent figured out the measurement problem.The true problem is how do we go from quantum mechanics to solid state physics and from that to biology and then to consciousness. Can our equations predict the emergent phenomena ? thus far we have no idea and any claims of refuting materialism is baseless since we dont have a good understanding of matter. Our models thus far only talk about the interaction of matter with itself. Please someone make me understand why am i wrong , why didn't i just stop any futile discussion about "muh materialism"

[Anonymous No.14977454]

>>14977333
If consciousness is a product of neurons firing in an organized way, what prevents them from organizing in a better, more optimized way that produces the same result, but with less firing? What if we use that optimized way with the same level of brain activity? According to your model, more richness would be achieved, but this also goes against your interpretation of physicalism, because you said that "more richness does necessarily imply more brain activity".

[Anonymous No.14977461]

>>14977453
Anyone who agrees with that take isn't fully human and it's perfectly legitimate to cull it.

[Anonymous No.14977468]

>>14977454
You don't even have to go that far. It's very probable that a lot of that brain activity is needed specifically to keep your conscious experience structured, coherent and constrained. The occasional gems of a psychedelic experience come with a lot of noise and dysfunction. The guy you're talking to is mentally ill and heavily retaded and you're wasting your time.

[Anonymous No.14977484]

>>14977453
>its nature is in the configuration of its matter.
So not matter itself
>Of course the nature of consciousness is materialistic
You just admitted it wasn't. It's the configuration of it.
>but the truth is we dont know what the material is
You just said it was materialistic though. You contradict yourself almost every other sentence...

>Our models thus far only talk about the interaction of matter with itself.
Because it's rooted in MATERIALISM. The belief of indivisible, QUANTIFIABLE "bits" "particulates" what have to that compose the underlying structures of the universe. That is literally the "Quantum" part of "Quantum (thing/word that is actually definable)" or whatever word you want to stick "quantum" in front of. It's inherently materialism, you only look at the empirical/quantitative aspect and not what unifies them.

>thus far we have no idea and any claims of refuting materialism is baseless since we dont have a good understanding of matter.
>"You can't refute materialism because I have no idea what that even means or what "material" is.

I agree with the other poster. Not even human.

[Anonymous No.14977503]

>>14977468
That's what I believe as well. I was just trying to get rid of as much assumptions as I could, no matter how probable they seemed to be, and explain why I think that his model is broken in a fundamental way. Then again, if he wasn't retarded, he would have realized it himself, so I guess you are right.

[Anonymous No.14977507]

>>14977424
The fundamental physical function of the neuron is its firing. Its ability to fire is increased with both density and amount. Ergo, if consciousness is tied to a fundamental physical unit in the neuron, it has to be its activity, which then increases with amount. I take it you do not know any math or physics.

[Anonymous No.14977521]

>>14977507
You're such a tedious retard... Earlier you were mumbling something about "increase in generating capacity" requiring more neuronal activity. Does this only apply to consciousness and neurons, or is it generally true that "increase in generating capacity" requires more activity from the units that do the generating?

[bodhi No.14977527]

>>14977329
I have told anons here countless times not to waste their time doing it. My IQ absolutely dwartfs yours. you are a literal retard

[Anonymous No.14977536]

>>14977521
If you have a problem with this, take it up with physicalists. Until proven otherwise, you are a brainlet who cant even manage trig sub.

[bodhi No.14977540]

>>14977329
got dunked on once again retard, eat shit donkey boy

[Anonymous No.14977542]

>>14977536
Why didn't you answer my question? lol.

[Anonymous No.14977544]

>>14977521
>is it generally true that "increase in generating capacity" requires more activity from the units that do the generating?
If I want more electricity from a hydro damn, I either need more fans or more water to make it spin faster. Why cant you answer my question? Are you just a pedantic brainlet?

[Anonymous No.14977547]

>>14977544
Is the answer a yes or a no, nigger? Why do you keep turbo-deflecting?

[Anonymous No.14977550]

>>14977547
Do you have two braincells to rub together or can you not understand an analogy for yes?

[Anonymous No.14977552]

>>14977544
>If I want more electricity from a hydro damn, I either need more fans or more water to make it spin faster.

Do you think it's water and steam being sent down a solid copper line? Do you think anything you just said has anything do do with a geomanced set of magnets and a copper archform manifesting a archaic herzian waveform?

[Anonymous No.14977556]

>>14977552
More flux, more energy. Please dont use your mouth to breath.

[bodhi No.14977557]

>>14975510
no need to speculate, it can be proven conclusively if you are smart enough to understand the science. Most the people on this board are idiots however so they cant. No, surprise, it is like this in all walks of life and higher knowledge. I have you all everything you need to prove it beyond question countless times

[Anonymous No.14977560]

>>14977556
>More flux, more energy.
And in this steam and water is the flux you speak of? No. Also:
>define energy
You won't, correctly anyway.

[Anonymous No.14977562]

>>14977550
>yes
I have a program that consists of two functions that run in a loop: one generates a ton of shit in a semi-random manner (cheap) and the other performs a bunch of complicated checks to filter it into a subset of outputs that I deem useful for some purpose. I disable the filter function. The "generative capacity" of the program increases in every sense: there is more output, the output is more varied, maybe some of the output is ever superior to what my overly constrained, err-on-the-safe-side checks allow for, but the program now uses a fraction of the CPU cycles. Did my computer transcend the material realm? Note that I will ignore your replies because you got conclusively BTFO, but "people" like you are incapable of admitting defeat and tend to engage in the most nauseating and frantic damage control when put back in their place.

[Anonymous No.14977568]

>>14975404
Not enough training?

[Anonymous No.14977571]

>>14977544
>I either need more fans or more water to make it spin faster
Or you could reduce friction that is preventing the fans from working at their best efficiency. Your analogy doesn't work and your thinking is too narrow.

[Anonymous No.14977577]

>>14975510
>consciousness (and in extension life) is very odd because it breaks the mechanistic nature of the universe which is rules by causality.
Non-sequitur

[Anonymous No.14977579]

>>14977577
how so?

[Anonymous No.14977598]

>>14977560
>And in this steam and water is the flux you speak of? No.
No shit.
>define energy
In some given volume, where an electric field and or magnetic field is present is given by
[eqn]U_{EM}=\frac{1}{2}\int_V \left(\epsilon |E|^2 + \frac{1}{\mu} |B|^2 \right) \mathrm{d}V[/eqn]
The coupled fields are produced by, in the case of a simple alternator, a permanent magnet rotating in a wire/stator.

[Anonymous No.14977619]

This thread is a demonstration of 4chan's intellectual supremacy

[Anonymous No.14977653]

>>14977560
>magnetic field or magnetic flux
these are not the same thing
>an electrostatic [...] more properly called dielectric field
this are also not really the same thing, a dielectric is just an insulator

[Anonymous No.14977655]

>>14977319
interesting, they moved the mechanistic explanation to it's highest resolution (if all this is correct) but you are still stuck at the same problem.

[Anonymous No.14977663]

>>14977598
>No shit.
So what the fuck are you talking about then? Where does the flux actually come from and what does burning and boiling steam have to do with polarizing a copper wire?

>In some given volume
Where do the field lines actually terminate?

>where an electric field and or magnetic field
>or
No, lol.

>The coupled fields are produced by, in the case of a simple alternator, a permanent magnet rotating in a wire/stator.
And none of that is the water or the fans you're speaking of. "Produced"? What do you mean "produced"? It's already there, the magnets and their fields.

Furthermore, why can't I use a non magnetized piece of iron/ceramic in place of the magnetized one? There is absolutely no difference in quantity of either piece of material after all, they both have the same volume, weight "quantity" of material.

>>14977653
>magnetic field or magnetic flux
It's an older book that doesn't contain the excessive complications physicists have added onto something simple.

>this are also not really the same thing, a dielectric is just an insulator
>Correcting the
"Dielectric" had a different meaning other than "hurr plastic/dielectic grease". He's even explaining the terminology out for you (he being the man responsible for the first man made lighting bolt/ electricity transmission). If anything, you're wrong in calling these materials "dielectrics" because the dielectric isn't made of material, materialist.

[Anonymous No.14977718]

>>14977663
>So what the fuck are you talking about then? Where does the flux actually come from and what does burning and boiling steam have to do with polarizing a copper wire?
Magnetic field flux doofus.
>Where do the field lines actually terminate?
At infinity, but that is literally the energy in the coupled field for any volume.
>No, lol.
Yes, you can have a net zero electric field and still have a magnetic field.
>And none of that is the water or the fans you're speaking of. "Produced"? What do you mean "produced"? It's already there, the magnets and their fields.
The spin of permanent magnetic/wire produces an electric field via Faradays law.
>And none of that is the water or the fans you're speaking of.
They turbine system acts to change the gravitational potential energy of water into emf.
>"Produced"? What do you mean "produced"?
You can generate fields, surely you are not this retarded.
>Furthermore, why can't I use a non magnetized piece of iron/ceramic in place of the magnetized one?
You need interaction of charge with some sort of magnetic field. A permanent magnet happens to have a macro scale no zero magnetic field, that is usually quite strong. You could try with some material that is largely non magnetic, but I doubt you would generate any emf.

[Anonymous No.14977727]

>>14977663
>It's an older book that doesn't contain the excessive complications physicists have added onto something simple.
nah, flux is a property of the field, given by Gauss's law

>"Dielectric" had a different meaning other than "hurr plastic/dielectic grease".
no it didnt, Dielectric was used to mean something that has giga huge polarizability, and was understood as such from the time of Faraday, who died two years after Steinmetz so go cope about that retard

[bodhi No.14977746]

watch all the materialist hacks shit and piss themselves with this one simple trick:

prove you arent dreaming right now

[Anonymous No.14977752]

>>14975211
>In the psychedelic state, brain activity ONLY decreases massively, while the richness of experience ONLY increases massively
>one extremely handwavy argument full of implicit assumptions
>falsifying anything

[Anonymous No.14977754]

>>14977663
theres a fat schizo retard on youtube that likes to go on and on about the dielctric like it has some sort of meaning beyond just 'insulator' but its all just world salad.

he does have good instructions for a magnetic field viewing chamber, but man is he hampered by his mental illness

[Anonymous No.14977767]

>>14977752
Haha holy fuck I had no idea he was such a schizo. I mean, I knew his AI cult was a scam but how can anyone see this fat faggot as a pillar of rational free thought?

[Anonymous No.14977789]

>>14977718
>Magnetic field flux doofus.
>flux comes from (description) flux
lol
>At infinity
This is "volume" to you?
>Yes, you can have a net zero electric field and still have a magnetic field.
And what do you use to induce this "net zero electric field"?
>The spin of permanent magnetic/wire produces an electric field via Faradays law.
How? Not with water and fins, that just spins the wheel.
>They turbine system acts to change the gravitational potential energy of water into emf.
The water goes nowhere. The steam is still water. None of what you're burning/churning/perterbin' is actually traveling down a solid copper line nor has anything with inducing the phenomena "electricity" to spontaneously exist in an archform.
>You can generate fields,
And the process of doing so has absolutely nothing to do with material itself. You're not "generating" anything, you're inducing the conditions to manifest electricity by burning the actual energy you have away. None of the process of that, the burning of material, the steam pressure mediation has anything to do with magnets dancing around what's essentially a big spiral antenna. What is there is always there, the copper and the magnets. None of that is getting "generated/destroyed".
>You could try with some material that is largely non magnetic,
material inherently is proped into existence with magnetism.
>A permanent magnet happens to have a macro scale no zero magnetic field, that is usually quite strong.
Yes, magnets are magnetic. Now how do they actually work?

>>14977727
>no it didnt, Dielectric was used to mean something that has giga huge polarizability,
I would say the applied electric field itself should aptly be called "the dielectric field" then. What is the problem? The fuck do you think we're polarizing?
>hurr the copper atoms which are just made of the same shit as everything else.
But yes tell me more about Faraday and his misnomers such as "Diamagnetism"(as if matter wasn't inherently magnetic?)

[Anonymous No.14977804]

>>14977789
Damn, you never took any sort of grad or undergrad course have you?

[Anonymous No.14977824]

>>14977804
None of them can answer a simple question from a rapping clown.

[Anonymous No.14977828]

>>14977824
aligned atomic magnetic dipole of certain materials, its pretty simple

[Anonymous No.14977838]

>>14977828
>aligned atomic magnetic dipole of certain materials,
You described a magnet, congrats. Now how does it work?

[Anonymous No.14977846]

>>14977838
>Now how does it work?
they dont, magnetic fields cant do work on an object

[Anonymous No.14977857]

>>14977746
materialists cant even prove a material word even exists outside of their mind. that's checkmate bitch

[Anonymous No.14977858]

>>14975285
you should also kys, for science!

[Anonymous No.14977871]

>>14977838
Induced polarization, mediated by the gauge bosons of the field

[bodhi No.14977877]

you want to talk about how low a materialists IQ is they arent even smart enough to realize that they literally cant prove anything but their perception exists but they cant seem to put 2 and 2 together. This is the level of stupid you are dealing with

[bodhi No.14977879]

>>14977877
>that they literally cant prove anything but their perception exists
and they can only prove this ^ to themselves

[Anonymous No.14977880]

>>14977846
>magnetic fields cant do work on an object
So you're telling me magnets can't even be made now (a magnet is a physical object). This is what I mean, can't answer the clown question.
>>14977871
Induced polarization
Congrats! You described a magnet again! A magnet is indeed an object that has been polarized. How do they work?
>mediated by the gauge bosons of the field
How?

[bodhi No.14977882]

>>14975388
Imagine how stupid a dumb fuck like this is to say the ONE thing you can prove for certain is a thing that "doesnt exist." SAD! literally drooler tier ..... unreal

[Anonymous No.14977893]

>>14975211
The brain is a transceiver which interacts with the hyper-conciousness layer of reality.

[Anonymous No.14978266]

>>14977877
Most idealists in this thread cannot begin to prove that things require proof, admittedly.

[Anonymous No.14978358]

>>14975211
>Time to wake up.
Every time somebody tells me to do this, they run the risk of getting clocked in the head.

[Anonymous No.14978378]

>>14975292
Maybe you were but you didn't form any memories

[Anonymous No.14978381]

>>14977752
>yudkowsky

[Anonymous No.14978408]

>>14976641
What does it mean for matter to be a bat?

[Anonymous No.14978429]

>>14976385
Could you please explain why he's wrong?
Haven't watched video yet.

[Anonymous No.14978443]

>>14975234
The claim that consciousness does not exist is simply nonsensical since consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of very idea that consciousness does not exist. In fact, every idea is a mental experience, and consciousness is the property of being conscious= having a mental experience, such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories or even dreams. Consciousness is a precondition also for the existence of the idea that consciousness does not exist and for understanding of the meaning of such idea. Counsciousnes is the precondition for any doubt, therefore the existence of consciousness cannot be doubted.
If consciousness did not exist, we would simply not be conscious, which means that we could not feel anything at all, we could not think anything at all, we could not know anything at all, we could not understand anything at all, we could not have any kind of mental experience. If we were not conscious, we would not even understand the meaning of the present conversation and we would not even know that this conversation took place.
Obviously this is disproved by most direct empirical evidence.

The claim that consciousness does not exist is a totally nonsensical expression, exactly as the expression "a married bachelor" or “a spherical cube”; it is an expression formed by juxtaposing two words whose meaning is mutually exclusive, thus leading to an intrinsic logical contradiction.
Language allows us to form meaningless sentences by associating mutually excuding words and this can create illusory definitions; these expressions may create the illusion of a meaning, while they are devoid of any meaning.
Some materialists are so frustrated because it is not possible to give a naturalistic explanation of consciousness, that they try to convince themselves that consciousness does not exist; this is typical psychological process called “denial”.

[Anonymous No.14978487]

>>14978429
Psilocybin acts as a neurotransmitter yes, but its rate of hallucinations is very low at what anyone would consider a normal dose. You would need a fucking shit load to trip balls. But the same is true of benadryl and even alcohol. Breaks from reality are possible on many substances with enough dosage.

[Anonymous No.14978491]

>>14977880
>Congrats! You described a magnet again! A magnet is indeed an object that has been polarized. How do they work?
No, the magnet induces polarization on some object and any apparent work done by a magnet is due to the electric field caused by the porlarizability of the material.
>So you're telling me magnets can't even be made now (a magnet is a physical object). This is what I mean, can't answer the clown question.
No, magnetic force is always perpendicular to a moving charge, so the magnet itself cannot do any work. You would understand this if you had any kind of background in physics.

[Anonymous No.14978503]

>>14978408
Nothing. It's a sloppy turn of phrase that can only be uttered by a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14978505]

>>14978487
So what's the conclusion?

[Anonymous No.14978510]

>>14978443
What he probably means is that consciousness only "exists" as a subjective impression of an organism.

[Anonymous No.14978702]

>>14975211
The purpose of the human brain is not to create a rich experience, its to create useful functionality for survival. Someone fucked up on drugs is not functional so its not unreasonable that a brain whose functionality is reduced would have less activity.

[Anonymous No.14978707]

>>14975248
you can code NPCs in GTA to feel like theyre the main character

[Anonymous No.14978729]

>>14975309
>Materialist metaphysics makes a prediction.
What prediction?

[Anonymous No.14978744]

>>14975485
>It is entirely reasonable to make the basis of reality mental since that is all humans can ever truly know for certain
This is circular logic. The only way "mental" would be the only thing known is if you assume it's the only thing that existed in the first place. If "mental" was completely physical then you wouldn't know "mental" is the basis of reality. So the question is, which is the better theory? The one that produces successful predictions and forms of entire rigorous understanding of the world, or the one that doesn't even predict anything and at best can only piggyback on the success of physics by adding extraneous speculation?

[Anonymous No.14978750]

>>14975485
>I can deny the material world on the account that it makes an incorrect prediction about the behavior of the world, which the point of this entire thread.
You haven't presented an actual prediction of materialism, just a silly strawman. The psychedelic state doesn't imply increased brain activity. It's profundity is illusionary and it makes you dumber.

[Anonymous No.14978892]

>>14977453
>>14975234
the true problem for idiots like you is that they fail to explain how matter is ruled by immaterial rules

[Anonymous No.14978902]

>>14978744
Not him but you're startlingly retarded.

[Anonymous No.14978918]

>>14975234
>is conscious
>asserts consciousness doesn't exist
okay

[Anonymous No.14978959]

IDEALISTS TONGUE MY ANUS

[Anonymous No.14978984]

>>14978892
>b-b-but physics is so complex, you cant know for certain
literal 70 iq type argument

[Anonymous No.14979103]

>>14975211
>This evidence contradicts the idea that the brain activity generates consciousness since the materialist hypothesis predicts that increases in the richness of experience MUST BE accompanied by increases in material brain activity somewhere.
this is false. if you light the entire brain you would just lose consciousness and have a seizure.
the neuroscience position on experience has always been that experience comes from highly specific and ordered firing of neurons in the brain. it's not just general activity of the brain. some emotions DECREASE brain activity even though the person is experiencing more than when the person is in a normal state.
it's just funny how psychism/dualist schizos are utterly unable to prove any claim of their theory so they resort to straw manning and cheap jabs at the other theory

[Anonymous No.14979106]

>>14978491
>No, the magnet induces polarization on some object
A magnet is a polarized object. How does it "induce" it? That sounds like work.

>and any apparent work done by a magnet is due to the electric field caused by the porlarizability of the material.
So why the fuck do we even consider the magnets/magnetic fields in the first place then if all that's done is equating it to being caused by something else (mainly the electric field)?

>No, magnetic force is always perpendicular to a moving charge, so the magnet itself cannot do any work
>When faced a different direction, it becomes something different and operates different
You're just describing a magnet facing a different direction and assigning it different attributes/properties. It's still "a magnet". As if describing such geomancy explains how that causes a different effect.

>You would understand this if you had any kind of background in physics.
All you're doing is describing what's seen using fancy terminology. Just like any bum on a street corner can do. You would understand that if you could actually bother explaining it instead of re-describing it over and over like a broken record.

[Anonymous No.14979117]

>>14979106
brainlet cope

[Anonymous No.14979129]

>>14975211
>Idealists would say that the brain is just what your inner experience looks like from another conscious perspective: an mental icon representing your mental activity from another mind's perspective. It doesn't do anything, and there are no materials nor the hard problem of consciousness. That's because everything is consciousness in this view.
true, but the dualist alternative should also be mentioned, i.e. the brain as a filter/valve for consciousness, which also fits the experimental evidence
whether idealism or dualism is true remains to be seen, but materialism is clearly false

[Anonymous No.14979136]

>>14978984
no, not "physics is complex", but "laws of physics are immaterial"
nice try, retard

[Anonymous No.14979160]

>>14975234
>>14975261
>>14975267
>>14975388
>>14976223
>>14976539
>>14976545
>The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws.

[Anonymous No.14979163]

>>14977319
the only merit of Orch-OR is waking midwits like you up from materialism, but it's blatantly false and has been proven wrong over and over again
fact is that objective collapse hypotheses are just wrong, as has been shown clearly by experiment
subjective collapse hypotheses on the other hand have all been shown to be congruent with the actual evidence

[Anonymous No.14979166]

>>14978487
psilocybin does not act as a neurotransmitter
psilocin does

[Anonymous No.14979232]

>>14975211
His argument is retarded since most of the brain does if filter shit out. Imagin you could see gases or electromagnetic waves? This would be pretty shit because you couln't survive.
The brain just filters percepts based on whats good to fullfill needs.

Therefore taking psychs removes filters (decreasing brain acitvity) but you receive more percepts (noise and other irrelevant shit for your survival)

[Anonymous No.14979326]

>>14978510
>things can only exist in a way that is appropriate for things of their kind
wow

[Anonymous No.14979327]

>>14975211
Materialism is falsified by consciousness even existing.

[Anonymous No.14979330]

>>14975234
Either an actual NPC or insane and/or retarded

[Anonymous No.14979335]

>>14975388
>consciousness is just an illusion
Perceived by what observer, retardnigger?

[Anonymous No.14979336]

>>14979327
This. What more does anyone need to argue?

[Anonymous No.14979341]

>>14979326
Thanks for shitting out mongoloidal drivel.

[Anonymous No.14979343]

>>14975211
No shit sherlocks. Consciousness far transcends all concepts you've ever had

[Anonymous No.14979464]

>>14977065
Everyone always forgets the most important thing. Consciousness is love. It's a fundamental platonic form of love that cares about itself. You will never experience existence without it. We should appreciate the fact consciousness is capable of the deep self-understandings and empathy we have now. These are literally "miracle after miracle". Materialists don't like this word, but such "magical" property can not be reduced in terms of logic or concepts, because it's the essence of creativity in the first place, as imagination can not be encapsulated within a mechanical process because it inherently escapes its own limits.

[Anonymous No.14979466]

>>14978902
I accept your concession of defeat.

[Anonymous No.14979468]

>>14979466
>regurgitates the twitter line
I accept your admission of being a qualialess drone.

[Anonymous No.14979475]

>>14979468
>has no intelligent argument, just vague insults
>calls others drones
I accept your concession of defeat.

[Anonymous No.14979481]

>>14979475
The anon you replied to can argue with you if he still feels like it after your monumentally retarded response. I was just marveling at your mental disability.

[Anonymous No.14979508]

>>14979481
See >>14979475

[Anonymous No.14979511]

>>14979508
>the voices in my head heckin' conceded!
Your reddit debate skills are unmatched. Not sure why you're addressing it to me. I never argued with you.

[Anonymous No.14979551]

>>14978744
sounds like you've got a few millennia of metaphysics and scientific inquiry to catch up with
it's not disputed anymore that everything we perceive is essentially mental, the only thing that's disputed is whether or not that mentation is informed partially or wholly by some external and objective noumenal realm that lies beyond the senses, or whether the mental is the fundamental basis of reality
note how all three alternatives are completely incompatible with materialism (the former two being metaphysically dualistic, and the latter being metaphysically idealistic), because consciousness itself exists nevertheless, and is not material

[Anonymous No.14979557]

>>14979551
>because consciousness itself exists nevertheless, and is not material
You just proved my point. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that consciousness isn't material. It is, it's just the brain doing what it does.

[Anonymous No.14979560]

>>14979511
Because all you have are vague insults, you're not even intelligent enough to articulate.

[Anonymous No.14979573]

>>14979557
no, I did the exact opposite: I dismantled your argument and showed why it's false
that consciousness isn't material isn't an assumption, that's something we've found to be the case over the course of the past few millennia of metaphysical and scientific inquiry, hence why you need to catch up
>it's just the brain doing what it does
that's just epiphenomenalism, and corresponds to the first position I mentioned
that's still dualism, because even if consciousness is "just the brain doing what it does", consciousness itself still exists, and is itself not material
think about it, under your own assumption of epiphenomenalism, if you touch something in a dream (or see or hear something for that matter, any sense will do), there's not actually any "material object" interacting with your sensory organs at all, it's simply internal to the brain itself
even if the brain is "doing" the dream, the dream itself isn't material, what you perceive is completely immaterial
also, this isn't even getting into how you simply assert epiphenomenalism to be true, but that's not ultimately relevant to why you're wrong in this case

[Anonymous No.14979582]

>>14979560
>all you have are vague insults
For a tard like you? Yeah. People who actually engage with your low IQ dross are part of the problem.

[Anonymous No.14979594]

>>14979573
>I dismantled your argument and showed why it's false
Please explain how doing exactly what I said you were doing is dismantling my argument? The fourth option you failed to last is that everything is material, including the mental. You can't see this obvious option because your entire worldview is based on an unjustified assumption.

>that consciousness isn't material isn't an assumption, that's something we've found to be the case over the course of the past few millennia of metaphysical and scientific inquiry
How?

>that's just epiphenomenalism, and corresponds to the first position I mentioned
No, it corresponds to the position in which consciousness is physical.

>that's still dualism
No.

>Think about it, under your own assumption of epiphenomenalism, if you touch something in a dream (or see or hear something for that matter, any sense will do), there's not actually any "material object" interacting with your sensory organs at all, it's simply internal to the brain itself
The brain is a material object.

>even if the brain is "doing" the dream, the dream itself isn't material
There is no "dream itself," that's an abstraction. There is only the action of the brain.

>what you perceive is completely immaterial
No, it's competent material. There is no perception independent from the brain.

>this isn't even getting into how you simply assert epiphenomenalism to be true
It's the only theory that has made testable predictions that have come true. You simply assert consciousness to be immaterial.

[Anonymous No.14979598]

>>14979582
How exactly am I a "tard?"

[Anonymous No.14979626]

>>14979594
>Please explain how doing exactly what I said you were doing is dismantling my argument?
I was not doing what you said I was doing
you said I was basing my argument on the assumption that consciousness isn't material, but that's not an assumption, that's a well-understood fact
>The fourth option you failed to last is that everything is material, including the mental.
the entire point is that the existence of consciousness precludes that point, since consciousness itself isn't material
>unjustified assumption
a justified fact
>How?
through inquiry into how consciousness works
as mentioned above, even very simple inquiry like dreams is the easiest way for people to understand it today, but historically everything from Plato's famous allegory of the cave and Descartes equally famous evil demon has made it clear that what people originally thought of as "material" is actually a conscious perception which is not material at all, and that, as Kant thoroughly explained throughout all of his works, that any noumenal "material" realm posited to lie beyond the senses is not something we can directly perceive at all
what you're essentially rehashing is what's fittingly known as "naive realism", which, no offense to you, is essentially the subject of mockery among most thinkers with a good grasp of the subject matter
>No, it corresponds to the position in which consciousness is physical.
here you're glaringly using a different term than "material", namely "physical"
the term "physical" is completely meaningless, because it hasn't corresponded to anything well-defined in many centuries, and today refers more or less simply to "anything we can explain" (which ironically would mean consciousness isn't "physical" under that definition either, but that's besides the point)
physical is really just the Greek word corresponding to the Latin natural, and essentially refers to anything that exists, whether it be immaterial (like consciousness) or material

[Anonymous No.14979627]

>>14979598
Shitting out a bunch of incoherent drivel makes you a tard in my book.

[Anonymous No.14979638]

>>14979594
>>14979626
>The brain is a material object.
under the assumption of epiphenomenalism, yes, that's correct, but the perceptions it generates under that view, such as dreams (but also your waking perception, dreams are simply the best way to understand it) are not material
>There is no "dream itself," that's an abstraction. There is only the action of the brain.
here you're fumbling, trying to insert another slippery term, namely "abstraction"
fact is that the dream itself absolutely exists, just as your waking conscious experience also exists
even if both are the "action of the brain" as epiphenomenalism posits, they still exist nonetheless, hence why epiphenomenalism is ultimately a dualist position
>No, it's competent material. There is no perception independent from the brain.
here you're again trying to assert something as fact, namely that "there is no perception independent from the brain", rather than at least being intellectually honest and making clear that it's an assumption (and unlike the fact I'm operating with, which is thoroughly justified through millennia of metaphysical and scientific thought, your assumption is very poorly justified)
however, it still doesn't really matter, because that's still just epiphenomenalism you're positing as fact, even if there is indeed no perception independent from the brain, the perception itself is still immaterial
>It's the only theory that has made testable predictions that have come true.
that's blatantly false, it's actually a poorly justified metaphysical interpretation
what's testable and true is the fact that consciousness is immaterial
there's literally no fully material model of reality that's congruent with the experientiable facts of realty whatsoever, particularly since consciousness itself is a fundamental fact of everyone's experience, and that it's immaterial
>You simply assert consciousness to be immaterial.
again, that's not something I "simply assert" at all, that's well-established fact

[Anonymous No.14979641]

>>14979594
>>14979626
>>14979638
anyway, that's all I had time for today, anon
hope this helps to get you out of the Dennettian quagmire of nonsensical materialist thought
I'd really hate coming back to this thread 404'd with you having reasserted what I've already refuted without giving me a chance to break it down and give you a proper explanation for why it really doesn't make sense at all, so I'm closing this tab now, but perhaps I'll come across you in a different thread sometime
bye

[Anonymous No.14979645]

>>14979627
No part of what I wrote was incoherent. You're probably just illiterate.

[bodhi No.14979653]

>>14979641
good posts anon

[Anonymous No.14979654]

>>14979645
Every single part of what you wrote was incoherent because you're a tard. The existence of anything besides the isness you directly experience is a metaphysical assumption.

[bodhi No.14979663]

>>14979654
you are hands down the biggest moron on this board and your posts are unmistakable. I can sniff out your brand of psuedery a mile away

[Anonymous No.14979671]

>>14976853
The thing about low IQ people is that they don't and CAN'T realize they have preconcieved ideas that are simply wrong or unnecessary.
And if it isn't about low IQ, then it's about dogma, they believe "quantity = quality" in a materialist view, because otherwise, their "conclusive" argument would not hold, and then they would be wrong, which can't be.
It's the dunning kruger effect, you need to be smart enough to realize you are retarded.

[Anonymous No.14979673]

>>14979626
>I was not doing what you said I was doing
You literally said it.

>but that's not an assumption, that's a well-understood fact
No, it's an assumption.

>the entire point is that the existence of consciousness precludes that point, since consciousness itself isn't material
Thanks for again proving my point.

>through inquiry into how consciousness works as mentioned above
What inquiry? You just stated a bunch of things are immaterial. It's a circular argument.

>but historically everything from Plato's famous allegory of the cave and Descartes equally famous evil demon has made it clear that what people originally thought of as "material" is actually a conscious perception which is not material at all
How?

>Kant thoroughly explained throughout all of his works, that any noumenal "material" realm posited to lie beyond the senses is not something we can directly perceive at all
To say that what you directly perceive is immaterial is just an assumption. You don't directly perceive that consciousness is immaterial, you just assume it.

>what you're essentially rehashing is what's fittingly known as "naive realism",
No it's not. Explain how anything I said is naive realism.

>the term "physical" is completely meaningless
Why are you lying? It means pertaining to physics.

[Anonymous No.14979680]

>>14977333
How schizos think a materialist thinks:
>grab a neuron
ah yes, consciousness = 1
>grab two connected neurons
ah yes, consciousness = 2
>...
>grab n^100 connected neurons
ah yes, consciousness = n^100 +1

How a materialist actually thinks:
>grab n connected neurons
ah yes, a lump of meat

[Anonymous No.14979681]

>>14979671
What are you sperging off about?

[Anonymous No.14979687]

>>14977484
>So not matter itself
I configured silicon logic gates to output the sum of two digits, the result is based on the structure, is it not matter anymore?
>You just admitted it wasn't. It's the configuration of it.
his claim of configuration being what leads to consciousness is not mutually exclusive to it being material
>You just said it was materialistic though. You contradict yourself almost every other sentence...
He is not contradicting himself, the fact that you dont know how silicon works does not mean a computer isn't material
not knowing something does not mean it doesn't exist, stop appealing to ignorance as if it gave you any conlusions

[Anonymous No.14979690]

>>14979681
you are retarded too

[Anonymous No.14979699]

>>14979638
>but the perceptions it generates under that view, such as dreams (but also your waking perception, dreams are simply the best way to understand it) are not material
Then you incorrectly described my position as epiphenomalism.

>here you're fumbling, trying to insert another slippery term, namely "abstraction"
Not slippery at all. An idea itself, independent from the brain, is an abstraction by definition.

>fact is that the dream itself absolutely exists
Then it should be trivial for you to demonstrate this, since it's a "fact" and "absolute." Surely this isn't just another assumption you will fail to provide any evidence for.

>even if both are the "action of the brain" as epiphenomenalism posits, they still exist nonetheless
No, if they are actions of the brain then they don't exist "in themselves" immaterially. They are completely material.

>here you're again trying to assert something as fact, namely that "there is no perception independent from the brain"
That is a fact. Show me perception without a brain.

>and unlike the fact I'm operating with, which is thoroughly justified through millennia of metaphysical and scientific thought
Then why haven't you justified it yet?

>the perception itself is still immaterial
Again, you're misrepresenting my position. Perception itself doesn't exist. It's what the brain does, which is completely material.

>that's blatantly false
All of neuroscience disagrees.

>what's testable and true is the fact that consciousness is immaterial
Then where's the test? You've had several posts to present it but keep avoiding doing so for some reason.

>there's literally no fully material model of reality that's congruent with the experientiable facts of realty whatsoever, particularly since consciousness itself is a fundamental fact of everyone's experience, and that it's immaterial
Again proving my point. Circular argument.

>again, that's not something I "simply assert" at all, that's well-established fact
How???

[Anonymous No.14979700]

>>14979654
>Every single part of what you wrote was incoherent because you're a tard.
It seems like others had no issue understanding what I said. You're confirmed illiterate.

>The existence of anything besides the isness you directly experience is a metaphysical assumption.
So anything immaterial existing is a metaphysical assumption. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

[Anonymous No.14979705]

>>14979641
You refuted nothing, made a fool of yourself by incorrectly labeling my positions twice, and had ample time to explain your claims but refused. You lost severely so now you're running away.

[bodhi No.14979714]

>>14979671
this, arguing with a fool only proves there are two!

[Anonymous No.14979717]

>>14979714
im talking about retards like you

you have shown to be straight up a narcissist, you are not enlightened, you have no useful ideas, all of what you say is based on superiority mixed with intuition about an oniric idea, a delusion
you should fucking kill yourself

[bodhi No.14979722]

>>14979717
my iq absolutely dwarfs morons like you. I have literally changed the paradigms of this entire website on more issues than a drooler liker you can even count too. You are no more than an insect to someone like me

[Anonymous No.14979725]

>>14979700
>So anything immaterial existing is a metaphysical assumption
You shitting out incoherent drivel again. "Immaterial" is at most a derivative of your metaphysical fantasy.

[Anonymous No.14979726]

>>14979722
A smart person would not spend all day doing intellectual masturbation like you
You are not smart, you just convinced yourself you are by convincing yourself everyone around you is stupid.

[Anonymous No.14979731]

>>14979726
A smart person also wouldn't reply to this (You)-addicted pederast.

[bodhi No.14979738]

>>14979726
your seething impotent rage as a hack failure brings me great joy. you were born a loser and you will die a poser

[Anonymous No.14979741]

>>14979731
Just look at this >>14979738, I don't need to be smart in order to want to fuck with this guy
I hope my honest opinion becomes an intrusive thought

[Anonymous No.14979744]

>>14979741
no matter what you think of him personally you have to admit he is right about you being a seething loser and hack

[Anonymous No.14979745]

>>14979744
>I am smarter than everyone
>no you are not
>why are you seething so much? can't you see that you are a loser hack?

?????

[Anonymous No.14979747]

>>14979745
you were the one who called people dunning-kruger and delusional. Project much? You aren't even just a seething loser you obviously have some kind of personality disorder and would explain why you are unable to understand simple concepts and rage like a psychopathic lunatic at your own stupidity.

[Anonymous No.14979756]

>>14979747
I was making a fair argument, people here are claiming that the fundamental ideas of materialism on consciousness are "consciousness is an emergent property of increased neuronal activity.", and argue exclusively on this being a base foundational idea.
This is obviously a possible idea, but not the be-all end-all of materialism, and pretending it is would be at best intellectually dishonest
It's why I said it's either low IQ (because they dont realize its not the be-all end-all argument the think it is), or dogma (because otherwise they could not be so certain about their argument)

>you are unable to understand simple concepts and rage blah blah blah
I am a materialist, but I would never call non-materialist stupid for not being materialists, being so far up your own ass into things we simply cannot prove is wrong.

[bodhi No.14979757]

>>14979745
you were all fish in a bowl when I got here kid. I showed you there is an ocean out there they are hiding from you. you reaction to being gifted this information by someone that was willing to take the time to teach it to you asking nothing for themselves says everything anyone will ever need to know about your character. you are an ankle biting, crab in bucket shit stain house nigger, and it is all you will ever be

[Anonymous No.14979891]

>>14979464

[Anonymous No.14979940]

>>14979891
Fungal forms, spirits, physical structures, or whatever, are imaginary and created out of nothingness with no basis on anything but consciousness itself.

[Anonymous No.14979949]

>>14979687
>the result is based on the structure,
>is it not matter anymore?
It is not the matter itself, no
>his claim of configuration being what leads to consciousness is not mutually exclusive to it being material
Yes. So materialism is bullshit.
>He is not contradicting himself,
He's equating it to materialism when clearly the absence of material is what is causing the phenomena to take place
>the fact that you dont know how silicon works does not mean a computer isn't material
not knowing something does not mean it doesn't exist, stop appealing to ignorance as if it gave you any conlusions

What I'm saying is a massive lump of silicon unformed isn't going to calculate shit, numbnuts. Stop taking the analogy too far like an autist.

[Anonymous No.14979971]

>>14979949
> configure x type of matter
> no consciousness
> configure y type of matter
> consciousness
> "BUT ITS NOT THE MATTER"
Ok.

[Anonymous No.14980144]

>>14975211
>pubpeer warning
thread filtered

[Anonymous No.14980158]

>>14979725
And we're back to insults. Use your words like a big boy.

[Anonymous No.14980232]

>>14979971
> configure x type of matter
BECAUSE IT'S TORPID AND DOES NOTHING OF ITS OWN ACCORD.
> no consciousness
"NO U"
> configure y type of matter
SO TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "X" AND "y" MATTER WHEN ULTIMATELY THOSE ARE JUST GEOMETRICAL CONFIGURATIONS OF FIELDS.
> "BUT ITS NOT THE MATTER"
It's the configuration

[Anonymous No.14980234]

>>14980144
>has an extension that tells him if his jewish handlers allow him to see the thread or not

[bodhi No.14980247]

>>14980144
this is the most jewish web plug in I have ever seen. you are the goyslop king of /sci/ my man

[Anonymous No.14980538]

>>14980158
It really says something about your low level of sentience and extreme level of butthurt that you would attempt such a desperate lie. I didn't just insult you. I also told you concretely why your incoherent drivel is wrong.

[Anonymous No.14980830]

>>14980538
You didn't say anything concrete. Here, see how it feels: Your argument is a derivative of a delusion. BOOM. ROASTED.

Why do you have so much trouble articulating your thoughts?

[Anonymous No.14980851]

>>14980830
>You didn't say anything concrete
I did: your kvetching against "assumptions" about "immaterial" things existing make no sense. Your retarded "material" vs. "immaterial" dichotomy doesn't even apply unless one subscribes to the metaphysical fantasy that there exists anything more fundamental than the direct experience of isness.

[Anonymous No.14980855]

>>14980851
>your kvetching against "assumptions" about "immaterial" things existing make no sense.
It makes plenty of sense. Several people understood it.

Material and immaterial describe different models of reality. Only material models have been able to make successful predictions so far, which is how we understand what's real.

[Anonymous No.14980858]

>>14980855
>Material and immaterial describe different models of reality.
What does your "material" vs. "immaterial" metaphysical fairytale dichotomy have to do with anything I said? I'm just pointing out to you that everything you will ever experience is mental, and its nature is mental. You can come up with all kinds of metaphysical fantasies about some inaccessible fundamental reality that exists beyond that, but it is by definition metaphysical dogma.

[Anonymous No.14980882]

>>14980858
>What does your "material" vs. "immaterial" metaphysical fairytale dichotomy have to do with anything I said?
It has to do with what I said, which you responded to with vague insults and then agreed with because you're illiterate and don't even understand what you're whining about.
>>14978744

[Anonymous No.14980885]

>>14980882
Do you concede that all you can ever experience is mental in nature?

[Anonymous No.14980905]

>>14980885
No, I can't concede something I never denied in the first place. Read my post again and show me where I said anything to the contrary.

[Anonymous No.14980910]

>>14980905
>No
Give me an example of something anyone has ever experienced, that wasn't mental. I'm not even arguing with you at this point. I'm just trying to understand the nature of your mental diesease...

[Anonymous No.14980913]

>>14980910
LOL, you're truly illiterate. Read my post again. Why would I give you an example of something I never claimed in the first place???

[bodhi No.14980919]

>>14980855
>how we understand what's real
but you don't know that it is real. You could be a schizo in a padded cell right somewhere and have imagined it all. You can't prove any of it was real or ever happened outside of your mnd

[Anonymous No.14980923]

>>14980913
So is everything you can ever experience is mental, but you're gaining knowledge about something that isn't mental by observing patterns within the mental? Are you mentally ill or do you have some alternative definition of "knowledge" that doesn't involve what you know being indisputably true?

[Anonymous No.14980924]

>>14980919
>but you don't know that it is real
Certain knowledge is impossible. Scientific knowledge is the best we can do. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.14980925]

>ummm sweaty, I can't prove that what I """know""" is true and everything would look exactly the same if it was false, but it's still """knowledge""", okay???

[Anonymous No.14980927]

>>14980923
>So is everything you can ever experience is mental, but you're gaining knowledge about something that isn't mental by observing patterns within the mental?
Yes.

>Are you mentally ill or do you have some alternative definition of "knowledge" that doesn't involve what you know being indisputably true?
You're saying scientific facts aren't knowledge? You're the one using an alternative definition.

[Anonymous No.14980936]

>>14980927
>You're saying scientific facts aren't knowledge?
They're knowledge about patterns and possible structures within mental occurrences. Your assumption this knowledge is actually about something beyond the mental, is simply metaphysical dogma.

[Anonymous No.14980946]

>>14980925
If it was false, how would it make predictions that keep coming true? Massive coincidence? The alternative makes no predictions at all.

[Anonymous No.14980951]

>>14980946
>how would it make predictions that keep coming true?
Whether the nature of reality is mental or """material""" makes no difference to scientific predictions. Science predicts future mental occurrences based on past mental occurrences through the employment of mental constructs.

[Anonymous No.14980953]

>>14980936
>They're knowledge about patterns and possible structures within mental occurrences.
No, where in physics do you see any reference to mental occurrences? The model describes matter and energy as fundamental, and that model is successful. What model has mental occurrences as fundamental and what successful predictions does it make?

[Anonymous No.14980956]

>>14980951
>Whether the nature of reality is mental or """material""" makes no difference to scientific predictions.
It makes a huge difference. The former makes no scientific predictions at all while the latter does.

[Anonymous No.14980961]

>>14980953
>>14980956
Alright, demonstration is over. Thanks for showing exactly why it's irrational to engage with your likes. The only correct course of action when dealing with mentally ill cultists like you is frustration and verbal abuse.

[Anonymous No.14980966]

>>14980961
Thanks for connecting defeat.

[Anonymous No.14980969]

>>14980966
Your repetitive, mentally ill chanting doesn't dispute my points in any way.

[bodhi No.14980978]

>>14980924
>get over it
This is how yr brand of science responds when asked to prove whatever nonsense you are trying to push on retards? You cant prove it, therefore it is not science, it is faith, you get over it hack

[bodhi No.14980982]

>>14980946
the predictions only came true in your mind, how low is your iq that you cant seem to grasp this simple fact?

[Anonymous No.14981007]

>>14980982
You and this """materialist""" retard are two sides of the same coin. Soulless golems.

[bodhi No.14981015]

>>14981007
you are a stone cold retard my guy, dont ever address me as an equal

[Anonymous No.14981027]

>>14981015
With the possible exception of some newfags, everyone here knows that you're a middle-aged pederast and that your wife divorced you after catching you trying to diddle your 6 years old son. It's kinda creepy how the mods let you prey on underage minors here.

[bodhi No.14981055]

>>14981027
>I-I-I'm not a spastic weirdo freak
>I-I'm perfectly normal!
you have issues and need treatment you spastic little freak half wit

[Anonymous No.14981091]

>>14981055
Stop molesting children.

[Anonymous No.14981177]

>>14980969
You didn't make any points. You have no argument. Thanks for conceding.

[Anonymous No.14981181]

>>14980978
Prove what? Science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. All evidence supports materialism.

[Anonymous No.14981184]

>>14980982
>the predictions only came true in your mind
What evidence do you have to make that claim? Do you even have a model that can be tested?