The Hard Problem of Conscious

[Anonymous No.15139540]

Picrel is how I see it. You can't connect the two. You fucked up logically by choosing a metaphysics that has nothing to do with consciousness. Now, you are on one side of an infinite abyss, and call it a problem to be solved.

In reality, the only problem there is : to rectify this pretty obvious logical error. You can't explain one thing in terms of another when the two things are just incommensurable categories.

[Anonymous No.15139701]

Materialists have never been able to give a satisfactory answer to Benj Hellie's vertiginous question.

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

[Anonymous No.15139704]

http://individual.utoronto.ca/benj/ae.pdf

[Anonymous No.15139712]

>>15139540
The world and any understanding of it would be no different if consciousness didn't exist. Thus since world + (evidence of consciousness) = world, (evidence of consciousness) = 0

If consciousness were immaterial, then the world must be a hallucination

[Anonymous No.15139737]

>>15139540
>You fucked up logically by choosing a metaphysics that has nothing to do with consciousness
Correct. That would be a fuck up. It's not that there isn't ANY connection though. There is interface between what gets called matter and consciousness and there are correlations with regard to brains and mind, and brain can represent a constraint on the CONTENT of mind as an icon at times, such as during brain damage, ect. The matter objects are ALSO mental objects though as well any ways. They only ever assume spacetime observable quantities such as position and momentum within the medium of mind/s. So spacetime is an emergent thing and that which it emerges 'in' is mind.

[Anonymous No.15139741]

>>15139712
Do people really believe stuff like this?

[Anonymous No.15139839]

>>15139712
>If consciousness were immaterial, then the world must be a hallucination
Consciousness interacts with the material != consciousness is material

[Anonymous No.15139985]

>>15139701
Isn't this in a sense just asking "why does strucutre exits?"

Why does that atom over there exist in this exact point in space? Idk why not lol
If existence is the default, something can not not exist until it is told to not exist. The things that can not exist can not be observed. You can not be two people at the same time, hence you are only one person. After all, why would locality be limited to the physical realm? It's a prerequisite for structure to exist.

[Anonymous No.15140065]

>>15139701
>>15139540
>vertiginous question
>hard problem
Who chose these names and who were they trying to convince ?
>oh look at me I'm a philosopher and my word is sooo hard : see, it's even in the name ! I deserve respect !

[Anonymous No.15140069]

>>15140065
should they have called it the dumb question instead?
>oooh look at me i'm a philosopher i'm so humble, I admit there are questions out there that I don't know the answer to

[Anonymous No.15140091]

is there an existing hypothesis on consciousness that argues that consciousness is merely an emergent property of human biology? one that also argues that what people probably *mean* when they talk about consciousness, like the *essence* of that “feeling-of-being-conscious”, is something that all matter in the universe has? humans experience it in a way that’s unique due to human biology, but the “it” is something everything experiences because all matter is a blackbody that eventually goes cold forever. maybe the “it” is just the feeling of being a source of radiation

[Anonymous No.15140092]

>>15139540
Please keep your nonsense in the /cg/ containment thread.

[Anonymous No.15140100]

>>15140091
Virtualism and Panpsychism?

[Anonymous No.15140442]

>>15139540
You just jump through sheer force of will, you lazy fuck.

[Anonymous No.15140564]

Yet consciousness and the material world interact. There is a bridge connecting both sides of your abyss. The bridge is called quantum physics.

[Anonymous No.15140589]

Step 1) Do you believe there’s anything outside of yourself?

If Yes - Things exist outside of you, including things that would like to eat you
Therefore - Your ancestors survived because they developed a sensory apparatus that worked well enough to avoid things that wanted to eat them and track things they wanted to eat
Therefore - Your sensory apparatus is close enough to reality to believe in or at least a close approximation to it

If No - You’re a brain in a jar and nothing is real

Up to you what you want to decide.

[Anonymous No.15140595]

>>15140589
>Your ancestors survived because they developed a sensory apparatus that worked well enough
>Your sensory apparatus is close enough to reality
None of this implies consciousness. You can be an automaton with no qualia and still react appropriately to inputs from your "sensors".

[Anonymous No.15140605]

>>15140091
The problem there would be that there are times we can be rendered inert with no conscious experience. Makes you wonder, if there's something inherent to the matter itself you would expect something diminished or augmented. Instead you get complete and total lack of meaningful conscious experience. Sure sounds like the process.

[Anonymous No.15140617]

>>15140595
What makes you believe this? I think what we call “existing” is nothing more than the state of a computer sensing its own environment.

[Anonymous No.15140620]

>>15140595
The computing is the key part. Translating the senses into something else.

[Anonymous No.15140626]

Here’s a simple test: if life, if everything were an illusion, then you should be able to just start floating by will alone. Like in a lucid dream. But you can’t. Therefore, you’re bound by something. The outside world.

[Anonymous No.15140685]

>>15139540
>Picrel is how I see it. You can't connect the two

Well, you can go the behaviorist route. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. This is unfulfilling to the philosophers out there who don't like simple direct answers.

If you're not some egomaniac sophist and can agree that other people are conscious, then you can look at all the things that cause them to no longer be conscious. Like sleep, bricks to the head, and death. If you don't think that has any connection, then you're willfully ignorant.

If you're gunning for any sort of mind-body duality, then you'll have to provide even the barest scrap of evidence to that effect. As opposed to literally all of our understanding of neuroscience and strokes.

> You fucked up logically by choosing a metaphysics that has nothing to do with consciousness

Materialism kinda rejects the whole metaphysics idea. There's nothing beyond physics. There's just physics in the material world.

Consciousness is just active sensors, memory, and an intelligence that can make choices on it. That might not make you super special. But you're not. There is no such thing as a soul in any way other than a metaphor for some psychological crap.

[Anonymous No.15140698]

>>15140595
Nature doesn't know how to build an automaton. We're evolved worms.

[Anonymous No.15140699]

>>15139701
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question
>of all the subjects of experience out there, why is this one - the one corresponding to the human being referred to as (you) - the one whose experiences are live?
Because those experiences out there are being recorded by the senses and being sent into the brain, which is where the "subjective experience" gets... experienced.

But of course this isn't going to be satisfactory to you because nothing will. You have decided you believe in a christian soul or whatever nonsense and you're hunting for proof rather than being open-minded and accepting the simple and direct answer.

>>15140065
Benj Hellie, apparently.

>>15140091
>is there an existing hypothesis on consciousness that argues that consciousness is merely an emergent property of human biology?
If there is, it's a dumb one. Why wouldn't a dog be conscious? What's special about humans? They're just another animal.

> one that also argues that [it] is something that all matter in the universe has?
Check out Spinoza. But where you started that paragraph and where you ended it are different places.

>humans experience it in a way that’s unique due to human biology,
Well sure. Dogs can't see color. But dogs' experience it in a way that's unique due to dog biology. Namely their keen sense of smell which humans just don't have.

[Anonymous No.15140703]

>>15140589
That's a nice angle. Quick and to the point.

>>15140595
> You can be an automaton with no qualia
That's mentioned riiiiight
> they developed a sensory apparatus that worked well enough
there.

[Anonymous No.15140792]

>>15140617
>What makes you believe this?
It's a simple observation that your reasoning is a nonsequitur.

> I think what we call “existing” is nothing more than the state of a computer sensing its own environment.
I think "people" who have this opinion need to be shot for expressing it, but that's besides the point. Your reasoning is a nonsequitur.

[Anonymous No.15140794]

>>15140703
Sorry about your profound schizophrenia. Your roomba is not conscious.

[Anonymous No.15140797]

>everything we experience hints at consciousness
>everything we measure hints at no consciousness
so, what will you choose?
will you choose your own personal experience and deduce the rest of the universe works the same,
or will you choose your measurements and deduce you work the same as the rest of the universe?

[Anonymous No.15140800]

>>15140797
Threadly reminder that "everything you measure" is just a part of your experience.

[Anonymous No.15140804]

>>15140800
threadly reminder that measurements are the only thing we can share with others, but if you believe others are a figment of your imagination then go right ahead

[Anonymous No.15140806]

>>15140804
>measurements are the only thing we can share with others
Suppose this is true. So what?

[Anonymous No.15140811]

>>15140806
if other humans are real and outside of your perception, and they agree with the measurements, then the measurements are outside of your perception.
if you're a solipsist then there is no discussion to be had

[Anonymous No.15140817]

>>15140811
>real and outside of your perception,
What does this mean?

[Anonymous No.15140820]

>>15140817
sorry, I don't talk to solipsists

[Anonymous No.15140825]

>>15140820
I'm not a solipsist. You're just foaming at the mouth because you can't substantiate any of your vapid babble.

[Anonymous No.15140830]

>>15140817
It means you need some external instrument like a microscope or infrared sensor to perceive it.

[Anonymous No.15140832]

>>15140830
>you need some external instrument like a microscope or infrared sensor to perceive it.
You need to perceive having measured it to perceive having measured it? That's nice. It doesn't answer my question, though.

[Anonymous No.15140833]

>>15140825
sorry pal, but when I go to sleep the world still goes on without me

[Anonymous No.15140835]

>>15140833
>the world still goes on without me
What does this mean?

[Anonymous No.15140840]

>>15140832
No, you need to perceive the results of some external measurement device to understand how the underlying phenomenon interacts with the same reality you inhabit since you can't perceive the underlying phenomenon directly.

[Anonymous No.15140843]

>>15140840
>the underlying phenomenon
How do you know there's some "underlying phenomenon" independent from anything that can be perceived?

[Anonymous No.15140854]

>>15140835
What does meaning mean?

[Anonymous No.15140859]

>>15140854
Notice how you and your buddies immediately devolve into chimpouts and kindergarten quips as soon as your belief system is questioned?

[Anonymous No.15140861]

>>15140843
Its not independent, it can be perceived, just not by your natural senses, you need an external device to measure some phenomenon and you know you are measuring something when many people get consistent results that have predictive power for future measurements.

[Anonymous No.15140866]

>>15140859
>wants to play the "what do you mean by X" infinite regression game
>gets suspiciously angry when he's served the same question
maybe don't ask questions that you wouldn't want to be redirected at you?
lol, enjoy being a pseud

[Anonymous No.15140871]

>>15140843
>How do you know there's some "underlying phenomenon" independent from anything that can be perceived?
Explain how a radio transmitter and receiver work under your model of reality. Is it all a big dream?

[Anonymous No.15140884]

>>15140861
>Its not independent
Then what's your point?

[Anonymous No.15140887]

>>15140866
>maybe don't ask questions that you wouldn't want to be redirected at you?
Why not? The fact that you shut down as soon someone asks you to explain your vacuous babble already discredits you and makes it easier for me. Thanks for removing yourself from the discussion.

[Anonymous No.15140891]

>>15140871
>Explain how a radio transmitter and receiver work
They work normally. I'm still waiting for you to explain how you know there's some magical unknowable, unseeable essence that's always there despite having no perceivable consequences on reality.

[Anonymous No.15140895]

>>15140891
>They work normally.
>I'm still waiting for you to explain how you know there's some magical unknowable, unseeable essence that's always there despite having no perceivable consequences on reality
How do you reconcile these two statements, given the medium by which radio waves are transmitted and received isn't perceptible?

[Anonymous No.15140897]

>>15140895
>the medium by which radio waves are transmitted and received isn't perceptible
"The medium" is a fantasy in your head that has no bearing on the way things work.

[Anonymous No.15140899]

>>15140897
When you wrote radio transmitters and receivers work "normally" then, what did you mean?

[Anonymous No.15140900]

>>15140884
Someone asked >>15140817 what it means for something to be real and outside of a person's perception and that just means they have to use sensors that are not their own natural sense given that perception is defined as direct sensation, indirect perception is that which measures real things outside of your perception.

[Anonymous No.15140905]

>>15140899
>When you wrote radio transmitters and receivers work "normally" then, what did you mean?
That all the relationships that underly the patterns in observations related to radio transssion hold regardless of what fantasy entities your mental model uses to illustrate those relationships.

[Anonymous No.15140908]

>>15140887
>ask a mathematician what a set, the basic building block of formal maths, is
>he tells me it's an intuitive notion that cannot be formally explained or proven
>I smugly tell him that he shut down the conversation and that his entire field of study is a vacuous farce
Sorry pal, the concept of the universe continuing to exist when you go to sleep is a basic, fundamental and intuitive concept.
If you reject it then there is no room for discussion as we have different axioms by which we interpret our existence.

Have fun being a clueless pseud, maybe one day you'll realize how retarded you are

[Anonymous No.15140911]

>>15140900
>they have to use sensors that are not their own natural sense
If that's actually what it means, then it has no bearing on anything and doesn't contradict anything I said. But obviously it's just another piss-weak motte and bailey tactic.

[Anonymous No.15140915]

>>15140908
>the universe continuing to exist when you go to sleep
So? Show me where I said or implied otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15140916]

>>15140905
>That all the relationships that underly the patterns in observations related to radio transssion hold regardless of what fantasy entities your mental model uses to illustrate those relationships.
Why do you believe this is the "normal" explanation understood by science?

[Anonymous No.15140918]

>>15140916
Because you will not be able to show me any incompatibility between the two in your next post.

[Anonymous No.15140920]

>>15140918
Between the two what? What two models of reality are we comparing between?

[Anonymous No.15140921]

>>15140915
I don't care if you implied otherwise or not, the simple fact that you asked that retarded infinite regression question tells me you're not equipped to have a serious discussion.

Yes buddy, everyone knows that if you ask "why?" or "what do you mean?" ad infinitum eventually you reach an unexplainable dead end, you're not special for doing it

[Anonymous No.15140922]

>>15140920
Between what I said and any practical science.

[Anonymous No.15140925]

>>15140921
>I don't care if you implied otherwise or not
Then what are you lashing out against, retard? What is it about having your religion questioned that makes you lose your mind and chimp out, lashing out randomly in all directions?

[Anonymous No.15140926]

>>15140922
If there's no difference between your model and any practical science, then what's the issue?

[Anonymous No.15140929]

>>15140926
There is no issue. You thought radios were somekinda gotcha that don't fit in with anything except your religion, you got told and now you're desperately trying to save face.

[Anonymous No.15140933]

>>15140925
my statement is universal, I couldn't care less about your opinon.
sorry, unlike you I don't taylor my arguments to a single nobody on the internet.

[Anonymous No.15140934]

>>15140911
>then it has no bearing on anything
Wrong, it means that there are many noumenon outside of your direct perception that you may be able to sense in part or whole with the properly calibrated external instrumentation.

[Anonymous No.15140935]

>>15140929
This is a non-sequitur. If there's no difference between your model of reality and today's scientific model, then what are you arguing in favor of?

[Anonymous No.15140937]

>>15140933
>my statement is universal
Okay, what does your "universal statement" have to do with anything? I never implied the universe ceases to exist when you go to sleep. Why are you chimping out so violently?

[Anonymous No.15140939]

>>15140934
> it means that there are many noumenon outside of your direct perception
>"""your"""
>"""direct perception"""
So? How does it contradict anything I said?

[Anonymous No.15140944]

>>15140937
>I never implied the universe ceases to exist when you go to sleep
that does not matter, how many times do I have to repeat it? I couldn't care less about your opinions, if you start asking infinite regression questions I'm not continuing the "argument"

[Anonymous No.15140947]

>>15140944
>that does not matter
Then why did you decide to form your irrational, mentally ill chimpout around it, ape? Wipe the foam off the corners of your mouth and take your xanax. :^)

[Anonymous No.15140950]

>>15140939
I quoted the thing you said that contradicts what happens if you can make sensors to detect things you can not.
>then it has no bearing on anything
It has bearing on your ability to expand your reach of perception through indirect sensation rather than having to experience everything directly yourself and opens the door to make adapters and converters that will let you experience it directly such those goggles that are specially made to allow people to see things that are in the IR spectrum.

[Anonymous No.15140961]

>>15140950
You haven't shown that there are some unperceivable things that have any substance beyond that which consciousness can perceive.

[Anonymous No.15140967]

>>15140961
How would you explain how radio transmitters and receivers work, if what's imperceptible has no substance?

[Anonymous No.15140973]

>>15140961
I didn't intend to, I was explaining how something that people can't directly perceive can be proven to be real as was originally asked.

[Anonymous No.15140980]

>>15140967
>How would you explain how radio transmitters and receivers work
The same way we already do it: develop a model of the patterns found in perception.

>>15140973
> I was explaining how something that people can't directly perceive can be proven to be real
You have done no such thing. You have not shown that there is any reality or substance to your imaginary entities beyond patterns in perception.

[Anonymous No.15140983]

>>15140980
>The same way we already do it: develop a model of the patterns found in perception.
In what way does this differ from the scientific method?

[Anonymous No.15140985]

>>15140983
>In what way does this differ from the scientific method?
It doesn't differ from the scientific method. It just differs from your materialboo metaphysics in that it doesn't make unprovable assumptions and then religiously adhere to them against all odds.

[Anonymous No.15140990]

>>15140980
>imaginary entities
How are EM waves outside of the visible spectrum imaginary? You are literally utilizing them to shitpost your nonsense, how do you think your information is traveling around the world without the aid of EM waves outside of visibility?

[Anonymous No.15140991]

>>15140985
If it doesn't differ from the scientific method, then you accept the understood model for the transmission and reception of radio waves?

[Anonymous No.15140993]

>>15140990
>You are literally utilizing them
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.15141002]

>>15140991
>you accept the understood model
I accept that the patterns in perception are what they are. The imaginary entities in this model are irrelevant except in so far as they help model the patterns.

[Anonymous No.15141005]

>>15140993
If you aren't utilizing the internet to send these messages, what are you doing?

[Anonymous No.15141007]

>>15141002
In what way does that differ from the scientific explanation?

[Anonymous No.15141013]

>>15141007
The "scientific explanation" being what? That there are magical, unknowable entities that exist as anything more than concepts in our modeling of perceptions?

[Anonymous No.15141017]

The hard problem of consciousness arises because of our retarded paradigm. It does not show up at all if you start explaining the world from the position of analytic idealism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-rXm7Uk9Ys

[Anonymous No.15141020]

>>15141013
The standard model has changed over the last several decades, and will likely change further. It doesn't claim there are magical entities, as far as I'm aware. Is anything you've said contradictory to that model?

[Anonymous No.15141021]

>>15141020
I don't believe that your abstractions are real because you have nor and cannot prove that they're real. Case closed. It's boring to watch you concede over and over.

[Anonymous No.15141028]

>>15141021
>you have nor and cannot prove that they're real.
This is likely the source of your confusion. It would be foolish to say the atomic or quantum models are real, as they have changed over time, those models can only be experimentally verified. Nothing you've written contradicts that process.

[Anonymous No.15141035]

>>15141028
Like I said, it's boring to watch you concede over and over again that you can't prove any of the abstract entities the models posit are "real".

[Anonymous No.15141046]

>>15141035
As you've readily accepted that then there's no issue with perception or consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15141048]

>>15141046
I don't know what "issue with perception of consciousness" you're referring to in your full-blown psychotic episode, but okay. Glad we agree that imaginary abstractions in your head are not known to be real.

[Anonymous No.15141053]

>>15141048
Did you misquote? That's the topic of the thread, and we've reached the conclusion that there's no difference between the current scientific model and your model.

[Anonymous No.15141055]

>>15141053
>That's the topic of the thread
You should sort your psychiatric issues out with a professional. Not everyone in this thread is OP. I never argued anything about any "issues with consciousness or perception".

>there's no difference between the current scientific model and your model
That's right. Science proper doesn't actually care about your metaphysics and is perfectly happy with the premise that your imaginary entities don't exist.

[Anonymous No.15141057]

>>15139701
You're a liar. It's a trivial question. Your experiences are only live for you.

[Anonymous No.15141066]

>>15141055
You obviously have me confused with someone else. Redirect your insults to them.

[Anonymous No.15141067]

>>15141055
Not him, but your desperation and projection is palpable. You're very angry that no one takes your ideas seriously and that current scientific knowledge disagrees.

[Anonymous No.15141069]

>>15141067
>You're very angry
Is that why you felt an irresistible urge to reply to me with vacuous niggerlike seethe? :^)

[Anonymous No.15141071]

>>15141066
You obviously have some serious psychiatric issues because you're the one who decided to chime in with some preprogrammed and irrelevant talking points. I didn't enter a discussion you were having with someone else. You need forced medication ASAP.

[Anonymous No.15141072]

>>15141069
I didn't feel any such urge, it's simply amusing to me how embarrassing your behavior is.

[Anonymous No.15141073]

>>15141069
It's good to have your trolling punctuated with posts like these, you can't keep your act up for long.

[Anonymous No.15141077]

>>15141072
>I didn't feel any such urge
Then why did you reply? Was I talking to you, chimp?

[Anonymous No.15141079]

>>15141077
>Then why did you reply?
See >>15141072

LOL

[Anonymous No.15141084]

>>15141079
Contain yourself next time, nigger ape.

[Anonymous No.15141093]

>>15141077
>>15141084
Why take the name of your ancestors in vain, homosape?

[Anonymous No.15141099]

>>15141093
Notice how you continually respond with zero-intellectual-content nigger seethe. I am auto-hiding any further posts from you, but your low impulse control will force you to address me again. lol

[Anonymous No.15141100]

>>15141099
>zero-intellectual-content nigger seethe.
I like it, that's a good summary of your position.

[Anonymous No.15141160]

>>15139540
you can connect the two, you gotta throw a rope or something. Instead of material and consciousness it should say 3D earth on the left and 5D earth on the right