/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15125906]

Is the mind/consciousness/feelings just entirely physical? Will we ever know?

[Anonymous No.15125913]

>>15125906
It's "physical" by default. I don't know why retards of all clades attach so much emotional baggage and reductionist nihilism to the word "physical". We should really just replace it with the word "natural" and be done with this.

[Anonymous No.15125970]

It's an illusion generated by the brain. There is no "hard problem", no dualist or idealist fantasy

[Anonymous No.15125971]

>>15125970
You will never be human.

[Anonymous No.15125974]

>>15125906
cool image, what does it actually mean?

[Anonymous No.15125975]

>>15125906
No. There is way too many philosophical unanswered problems with physical consciousness. Even the problem of universals in materialism has been around for 2000 years and hasnt moved at all.

If I had to guess transcendental idealism is probably the closest to truth and has the least problems rationally.

[Anonymous No.15125976]

>>15125975
>There is way too many philosophical unanswered problems with physical consciousness
Like?

[Anonymous No.15125982]

>>15125974
>M1 causes M2 (these are mental events) and P1 causes P2 (these are physical events). M1 has P1 as its supervenience base, and M2 has P2 as its supervenience base. The only way for M1 to cause M2, is by causing its supervenience base P2 (a case of mental-to-physical causation). If P1 causes P2, and M1 causes P2, then we have a case of causal overdetermination. Applying the principle of causal-exclusion, either P1 or M1 must be eliminated as a cause of P2. Given the principle of the causal closure of the physical domain, M1 is excluded.

[Anonymous No.15125990]

>>15125976
I literally just gave you one. And there are much more. Like the problems of physical consciousness even branch out into other sciences like disproven locality. Transcendental idealism is compatible with so much science, physicalism has so many rules that breaks other science models and really only had the saving grace of Newtonian physics which are outdated

[Anonymous No.15125993]

>>15125990
So nothing but schizobabble? I thought you could give me a concrete example.

[Anonymous No.15125995]

>>15125993
not the best word you could have used, but i still agree that transcendental consciousness is kind of dumb and even the philosophy it's based on is stupidly comparative.

[Anonymous No.15125996]

>>15125995
Fuck off, redditor. I wasn't talking to you.

[Anonymous No.15125997]

>>15125993
Schizobabble yet I have given you arguments for science compatible consciousness and you are just whining like an idiot that you got an answer you dont like, transcendental idealism is scary or something.

[Anonymous No.15125998]

>>15125997
Give me a concrete example of a "philosophical unanswered problems with physical consciousness" that isn't just a buzzword reference.

[Anonymous No.15126000]

>>15125995
Humans and animals literally glow heat in real vision and only by the grace of infrared vision can a small portion of reality be sensed. There is a mass amount of things that we will never sense because it has no evolutionary purpose for survival. Naive realism is an unscientific joke.

[Anonymous No.15126001]

>>15125906
pretty sure your image is the most general way you could 'figure' to say you believe what you're asking about and trick people into thinking you're asking something else in an attempt to use their responses to back up your own philosophy by assuming they assuming the same assumption you were assuming they assuming.

[Anonymous No.15126006]

Got me thinking, if consciousness is purely physical then it should be possible to make a fully conscious AI using purely physical construct. Until that is actually done, however, we can still say that physicalism hasn't been proven.

[Anonymous No.15126009]

>>15126006
>shitty GPT bot slapping rhetoric together based on vague statistical relatedness

[Anonymous No.15126014]

The fact we can discuss phenomenal states means it is physical because it is physically interacting with the world to be able to discuss them. /thread/

[Anonymous No.15126015]

>>15126014
What does "physical" mean?

[Anonymous No.15126016]

>>15126006
purely physical meaning all the same basic chemical compound to you?

[Anonymous No.15126021]

>>15126014
Just because something can interact with the physical world doesn't mean it is physical. If God is real, he can influence the physical world however he want and he still wouldn't be physical.

[Anonymous No.15126030]

>>15126016
You know, all the same particles, fields, energy. Although I guess I am not entirely sure what is considered not physical. If like fucking magic or spirits, the supernatural world, existed, but they still followed some sort of consistent laws and we could figure those laws out scientifically, then would that still be the same as "physical"? If "non-physical" means not following any rules or logics or just simply beyond comprehension then I guess that's also an entire different complicated thing to think about.

[Anonymous No.15126052]

>>15126000
Fuck off Donald Hoffman, go hang out with Deepak Chopra

[Anonymous No.15126414]

https://metakastrup.org/ desu we should go here and laugh at all the shitty arguments and schizo idealist ramblings before their warranty expires and they keep throwing out buzzwords like 'reddit' and 'mental illness' again

[Anonymous No.15126423]

>>15126414
I can see why someone would throw out buzzwords like reddit and mental illness when dealing with your irrational behavior.

[Anonymous No.15126479]

>>15126423
cope

[Anonymous No.15126697]

>>15125906
Its not physical, its modeling of the world.

You ask yourself are the pictures/movies/your waifu on your computer screen real? Or are they just atomic structures?

[Anonymous No.15126756]

>>15126014
Finally someone who gets it. This is really the be all end all argument for physicalism yet people just gloss over it because they just feel special somehow.
>>15126021
>If God is real, he can influence the physical world however he want and he still wouldn't be physical.
This would manifest in the violation of the causal closure of the physical world. Same with consciousness. If so it could be measured and we'll find out.

[Anonymous No.15126763]

>>15126756
Excruciatingly low-IQ post.

[Anonymous No.15126791]

>>15126763
404 argument not found

[Anonymous No.15126796]

>>15126791
>muh supernatural entities are heckin' physical because they violate the causal closure of my schizobabble
Pointing out your profound mental retardation requires no argument.

[Anonymous No.15126797]

>>15125970
What is the illusion? Is it physical?

So the brain generates something physical to fool the physical brain?

[Anonymous No.15126804]

>>15126796
Even "causal closure of the physical world" is schizobabble now? Desperate.

[Anonymous No.15126812]

>>15126804
Metaphysics is schizobabble.

[Anonymous No.15127044]

>>15126756
>causal closure
there's no proof that causal closure is valid

[Anonymous No.15127461]

>>15125970
What is the illusion made of out?

[Anonymous No.15127561]

If we can prove magic or esp to be true then that would imply two things
>Our perception of events and their self gauged likelihood alters the probability distribution of the future states of a system
>Information can be transmitted from and to the mind via an immaterial medium
These conditions suggest that if our consciousness can be thought of as a particular array of information it can be projected outside of the body in some manner, which makes a case for the existence of a soul and life after death.

[Anonymous No.15127595]

>>15126006
>he thinks consciousness is computable

[Anonymous No.15127627]

it's physical, in the higher dimensions, the consciousness field
memories are probably stored in the past and retrieved by remote viewing
consciousness dominates matter

[Anonymous No.15127643]

>>15125906
>Is the mind/consciousness/feelings just entirely physical?
yup

Will we ever know?
we do

[Anonymous No.15127834]

>>15127643
It is easy enough for neuroscientists to be able to accurately map how outside stimuli is interpreted by the brain, but there has yet to be proof that there is a way to recover perceptions and events created by a person's mind on their own.

What you have there is only a map of areas which are actively engaged when stimuli is provided, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the stimuli is physical. If I imagine I'm falling through glass and can accurately replicate the sensation as if I were in a dream then you can argue that the electrical impulses which create the situation are entirely physical and you'd be right, but it doesn't answer the question of what mechanism is the one that guided the electrical impulses in such coherent fashion. Surely the brain tissue contracts and expands to coordinate the electric pulses, but what mechanism is behind the selection process out of the list of endless contraction patterns? Sure, it may depend on the information stored in the brain, but then comes the penrose non computability of consciousness, there is no physical process which can account for the moving parts in the brain coming up with the answers to non computable questions like the tiling problem.
Consciousness is not physical.

[Anonymous No.15127842]

>>15125906
nothing is entirely physical, matter is a result of sound

[Anonymous No.15128447]

>>15126756
desu I don't know if I agree with causal closure section. That's a separate empirical claim. Just that being able to talk about consciousness means something is physically interacting.

[Anonymous No.15128453]

>>15128447
>desu I don't know if I agree with causal closure section. That's a separate empirical claim.
>That's a separate empirical claim.
The more I come to this board, the more I realize "intellectualism" should be heavily discouraged and punished severely when indulged in by the masses.

[Anonymous No.15128604]

What if nothing is physical and everything is just in our heads?

[Anonymous No.15128608]

>>15128604
Everything is physical and also just in our heads.

[Anonymous No.15128625]

>>15127834
>Consciousness is not physical.
Yes it is

[Anonymous No.15129444]

>>15125906
Physicalists have never been able to answer Benj Hellie's vertiginous question. The fact that I exist as this human instead of as someone else seems to imply that some sort of soul exists.

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

[Anonymous No.15130536]

>>15129444
>the fact that I exist
How is that a fact?
>as this human
Like the human body? Or are you claiming some other fact?
>seems to imply that some sort of soul exists

Read Buddhism. Like literally, they've been dunking on nonsense like yours for 2500 years.

[Anonymous No.15130784]

>>15130536
Buddhism only questions eternal unchanging souls though. To my knowledge, they don't "debunk" anything relating to why I am only conscious of typing this post and I am not you typing the post I am now replying to.

[Anonymous No.15130813]

>>15130784
They wrote the primer on consciousness 2500 years ago that current people/philosophers talk about, discuss, are trying to understand.

Like the notion of a thought, a feeling, a mental object representation, object recognition, a mental threatre (conscious field), etc etc.

This is all Abhidhamma (One of the three categories of Buddhism, other two being rules for monks rules and Buddha's direct sayings) that has not changed much for 2500 years.

The eternal unchanging souls is just the surface level of surface level Buddhism. The debates between Hindus/Buddhists throughout the thousand years have played out in India. The current western notion of consciousness/qualia/hard consciousness pushers are just repeating the Hindu line of argument for which the Buddhists had dealt with for thousand years. Thats why its important to understand the flaws of this line of argument. Its already been debunked for thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.15130817]

>>15130813
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/#3

Also read up some short summaries here.

[Anonymous No.15130826]

>>15130817
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abhidharma/#EpiPerTheConPro