Materialists are /x/ tier shizos

[Anonymous No.15161429]

Somehow someway, you think you will get subjective experience suddenly appearing out of non-conscious matter? That is magical thinking. That is /x/ tier.

There is no way to deduce subjective experience from something that is fundamentally not experiential.

It's not just a hard problem. This is an impossible problem with magical thinking to mask how stupid it sounds.

[Anonymous No.15161574]

>>15161429
So what’s the alternative? Do you have a better explanation?

[Anonymous No.15161593]

>>15161574
It's a reductio ad-absurdum, a non-constructive proof of a true metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.15161612]

>pseudo-science
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.15161614]

>>15161429
Says who? If consciousness has a cause, why can it not be a certain arrangement of matter?
Also you say /x/ tier, but last I checked /x/ was pretty firmly anti-materialist.

[Anonymous No.15161622]

>>15161593
In this case, no real contradiction has been found so you must rely on the absurdity portion of the method. Something being claimed to be absurd according to a particular subjective line of reasoning doesn't mean its false.

[Anonymous No.15161637]

>>15161614
>why can it not be a certain arrangement of matter?
An arrangement of matter cannot produce something that isn't a property of matter

[Anonymous No.15161662]

>>15161574

Yes. Idealism - the notion that consciousness is fundamental.

Consciousness does not emerge because it is everything that is. There is no hard problem in this view anymore.

Your body and brain? The mental icon representing your consciousness from another conscious perspective.

The universe around you? A mental icon representing the universal consciousness that you are embedded in and have come from.

We are conscious structures that have become isolated within a larger consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15161692]

>>15161662
So animism was right all along?

[Anonymous No.15161723]

>>15161574
The alternative is the Buddhist model .

Consciousness is not special. Its not magical. Its not even a thing as the real schizos would claim it is. There is no hard problem. There's no qualia. All there is the continual process of "modeling" of the world. There's no big mystery. There's no big consciousness outside the brain or little consciousness inside the brain.There's no homunculi anywhere in the brain, or outside of it.

The notion of "feeling" a multitude of sensory information feeding into the brain. The brain then processeses it along with internal memory and the calculating part of the brain. Then the model is presented. The model depends on the type of sensory information that gets fed. If the pain sensory input is visual, you see a visual model in the head. If the main sensory input is non visual, like a cold touch on the skin, the response of the body is processed in the memory that can be accessed later on as internal "feeling of being touched by the one you love" or some other fantasy you evoke. You can also recall visual memories and model them in your head as well.

The so called "the observer watches me masturbate" is also a faulty notion. Regardless of masturbatory wishes, there's no observer in the back of your mind. You only think there is. With the thought you could say you model what you think is the "self" without realizing its a model, a projection. Try to analyze what happens when you're conscious of something. In the moment of consciousness al there is is the object of attention. Whether that is your screen in front, the action thats being done on the keyboard, internal monologue verbal modeling, etc. Whatever the current conscious activity is, its all about whats on the focus, never "the back end."
So ignore the retards claiming some supernatural things exists in the brain or outside of brain.

[Anonymous No.15161741]

>>15161723
you're denying your own existence though. you're either an NPC or disingenuous.

if you were in a simulation, you'd be saying you're only and exclusively the conceiveable elements of the simulation. in fact, that is what you're doing. you're coping for how frightening it is that our senses only zero in on a small part of reality.

every materialist is an emotional breakdown away from becoming schizo, no offense. they're almost always a bit too defensive about their certainty. they KNOW there's no afterlife. they won't LET there be.

[Anonymous No.15161748]

>>15161662
Why is it that people go to the most schizophrenic lengths to avoid talking about God in their equation for the universe?

[Anonymous No.15161770]

>>15161748
God cannot rescue you from the Hard Problem.

[Anonymous No.15161774]

>>15161770
God created man in His own image. This includes the ability to experience things as a conscious mind endowed with free will. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[Anonymous No.15161780]

>>15161741
>you're denying your own existence though
I did no such thing. The body, the mind and the consciousness are still working just fine.

I'm just not a schizo and thus don't believe there's a little green man living inside my head behind the curtain of every waking conscious moment.

[Anonymous No.15161789]

>>15161780
you put feeling in quotes. all you're doing is describing scientific processes as we understand them. that doesn't remove the entire conscious world you inhabit

>I'm just not a schizo and thus don't believe there's a little green man living inside my head behind the curtain of every waking conscious moment.
you're worse, you're saying "all I am is what I infer from my senses", and then denying the only reality you know definitively, the experience itself. It's a cope because you're frightened and want to escape the God-sized abyss you can't confront. repent!

[Anonymous No.15161798]

>>15161774
Thus the hard problem of why God exists...

[Anonymous No.15161805]

>>15161637
>hydrogen isn't wet
>oxygen isn't wet
>so water can't be wet
hurrrr durrrr

[Anonymous No.15161827]

>>15161429
>Somehow someway, you think you will get subjective experience suddenly appearing out of non-conscious matter?
Explain the difference between "conscious matter" and "non-conscious matter. What makes one more animated...capable of thinking as opposed to a mere "biomass" of the same weight/consistence/quantity of the conscious one?

>>15161723
>The alternative is the Buddhist model .
That's the more materialist model that denies the soul completely though.

>There's no qualia
It's the only thing differentiating those two examples above

>>15161780
>I'm just not a schizo and thus don't believe there's a little green man living inside my head behind the curtain of every waking conscious moment.
This explains nothing.

>>15161780
>The body, the mind and the consciousness are still working just fine.
And you never actually explained "how they do that". In fact...why do you differentiate them?

>>15161748
Talking about God is of no use. What? You know the guy so well?

>>15161774
>This includes the ability to experience things as a conscious mind endowed with free will.
Ah yes, this omnipotence sure likes be contradictory to itself being omnipotent

[Anonymous No.15161867]

>>15161622
>In this case, no real contradiction has been found
Not true. See pic
>section. There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information.
The subjective experience is thus INCONSISTANT with the neural circuitry.

[Anonymous No.15161875]

Whoever said that matter was non-conscious? Certainly not Christof Koch, the pre-eminent neuroscientist in the world.

[Anonymous No.15161878]

>>15161723

[Anonymous No.15161879]

>>15161723
>Consciousness is not special
Yes, it is. It's first person and subjective, unlike physical objects such as the brain. That is a hard problem for you. Your point of view is inconsistent with reality, see picrel here
>>15161867
Notice it doesn't say that the circuitry hasn't been found YET. The whole thing has been mapped and NO SUCH CIRCUITRY exists. So no 'physicalism of the gaps' claim is possible. Read a cognitive science textbook sometime instead of forming your argument based on daniel dennett youtube vids. The whole book will be dedicated to trying to EXPLAIN consciousness, not explain it away like you are trying to.

[Anonymous No.15161880]

>>15161774
God doesn't explain anything. The Hard Problem remains:
>what IS consciousness?

[Anonymous No.15161885]

>>15161880
I have come to accept that there are some things we will simply never know.

[Anonymous No.15161896]

>>15161805
>
'wet' is a descriptor of consciousness assigned to a referent via interface with a REPRESENTATIONAL, sensual data stream. This is literally chapter one of a cognitive science textbook. So is 'hot' 'cold' etc. These things are QUALITIES (qualia) assigned by consciousnesses interfacing with a data stream called the physical would. The physical world is QUANTITATIVE (position, momentum, mass, spin, etc), not qualitative. Interface with the physical world by a consciousness through interface with a REPRESENTATION of the 'external' world produces QUALITATIVE experience such as 'wet'. There is no 'wetness' in the physical world absent consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15161901]

>>15161429
To this day, not a single materialist has been able to provide a coherent answer to Benj Hellie's vertiginous question.

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

[Anonymous No.15161904]

>>15161574

[Anonymous No.15161907]

>>15161723
>The alternative is the Buddhist model .
>Consciousness is not special. Its not magical. Its not even a thing as the real schizos would claim it is. There is no hard problem. There's no qualia.
Does this mean that Buddhists are NPCs?

[Anonymous No.15161908]

>>15161723
>There is no hard problem
Yes there is. Explain how and why a certain configuration of meat matter should FEEL a certain way. Explain how that mental quality of consciousness is produced by meat and how the feeling is presented to an experiencer to be experienced. Quantify a particular objectively verifiable brain state that can be shown to produce a particular subjective qualia or thought in a repeatably demonstrable way, or else you are just begging the question. This is not science. You can't by the way, hence

[Anonymous No.15161914]

>>15161723
>The notion of "feeling" a multitude of sensory information feeding into the brain
This is just begging the question. The very matter at hand is the relationship between the brain and consciousness and so just restating your premise of consciousness being just 'the brain doing this or that' is just trying to restate you premise as an argument. This is called begging the question and it is not a valid explanation. Explain HOW the brain creates a feeling and presents this feeling to an experiencer to be experienced. Explain also how the experiencer arises in the first place. Give a particular objectively verifiable and quantifiable brain state which can repeatably be demonstrated to produce a particular subjective experience or thought. Otherwise you are just spouting your own unsupported BELIEFS and presuppositions.

[Anonymous No.15161918]

[Anonymous No.15161920]

>>15161723
>Then the model is presented
Go on. How is the model presented? Where in the brain is the model presented? See picrel here
>>15161867
Specifically here
>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information.
The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry.
What you want to say is in the brain has been falsified. It doesn't exist. You have no clue what you are talking about and this is why you think there is no hard problem. In a way you are right. Not for the reson you think though. There is no hard problem because the problem isn't just hard, it's impossible. The brain can never account for consciousness.It's the other way around. Brains, like all matter, are only ever observed as mental objects in minds.

[Anonymous No.15161924]

>>15161918
this is what OP actually believes. I always ignore these threads because its so blatantly obvious how retarded you must be to not put you own mind into perspective with the universe. The number of atomic or quantum interactions you would need to recreate a brain are nothing compared to the atoms in the universe. We are a little bit of mold on the planet surface. While its healthy to have a spiritual mind, it does not change the fact when taking a step back to think about it. These threads are just the ultimate cope and belong on a puberty philosophy board and not on sci.

[Anonymous No.15161928]

>>15161904
> different stuff
the amount of cope

[Anonymous No.15161939]

>>15161918
Everything is conscious. Even the stone. Even a proton. Not leptons though, fuck them.

[Anonymous No.15161984]

>>15161939
if everything were conscious, there would be no need for the word to exist. i heard this notion before but even the computer simulating a brain is conscious in that logic. but thats exactly what these threads usually can't cope with.

[Anonymous No.15161986]

>>15161984
>if everything were conscious, there would be no need for the word to exist
Low IQ take.

[Anonymous No.15161988]

>>15161918
>the non materialist argument
And that's how you immediately know whoever made this picture has profound mental illness. Imagine classifying everyone who doesn't share your one specific metaphysical dogma as being in the same category that has one single canonical argument that your childish quip refutes.

[Anonymous No.15162003]

>>15161986
*in the way it is used today. also not the main argument here, so fuck your strawman.

[Anonymous No.15162005]

>>15162003
Are your main arguments as low-IQ as your side-dish arguments?

[Anonymous No.15162028]

>>15161984
>there would be no need for the word to exist.
We only use it because we don't know how to talk to rocks and therefore assume they cannot feel.

[Anonymous No.15162031]

>>15161429
Materialists are just too dumb to accept there's knowledge outside of the reach of the human brain. Our entire world model is based on the cause and effect relationship, yet our universe either:
A: Started from nothing (?) which is an effect without cause
B: Is cyclic which goes against our time understanding
>Muh maths PhD I can understand infinite as a concept!!!
We deal with infinites by proxy, but your brain can not understand it the same way it can not understand any more than 3 dimensions.
That setting aside the whole everything is perception thing.
Supernatural can be true.
God can be true.
Everything can be true.
Just accept some knowledge is beyond scientific reach and understanding.

[bodhi No.15162083]

>>15161918
this is actually the materialist argument you monumentally retarded midwit. Panphysits are asking you where does the consciousness magically appear in that line of succession you stupid fucking cunt?

[bodhi No.15162090]

>>15162083
sorry the idiots call it an "emergent phenomenon" so where does the consciousness magically "emerge" from "dead matter" you retarded twat

[Anonymous No.15162152]

>>15161918
Your pic makes no argument for materialism. What it is is an appeal to ridicule, which is a logical fallacy, and it is an attempt at cheap would be rhetorical points in lieu of having an actual materialist account for consciousness. Materialism is a substance monistic METAPHYSICAL position which has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution can fit just as well within an idealistic framework. All physical experience ever experienced by humans, including observations, inferences, about evolution ect, are made by minds and with mind as medium in which material objects are rendered. At no time in the process of the postulation of evolution or observation of data used to make inferences about evolution does a substance called observer independent matter with values in spacetime with fully defined observables prior to measurement/observation such as position and momentum come into play. Material objects and the physical would in general are only ever observed as mental objects in minds. There is a reason that you are attempting to push this off as an argument. The reason is because nobody can give a materialist account for consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15162153]

>>15162152
>a logical fallacy,
Stopped reading. Back to preddit.

[Anonymous No.15162160]

>>15162153
>stopped reading
This is not an argument. You can't make one. No materialist can and that is why it is called the hard problem. This is what it is called in cognitive science text books too because they are at least smart enough to realize that the brain can't account for consciousness. The generally still appeal to the fact that someday it will be figured out, but at least they are honest. And your point of view of materialism is the standard issue plebbit/sam harris opinion.

[Anonymous No.15162162]

>>15162160
I'm not a materialist and I'm not arguing with you. Back to preddit, where invoking imaginary fallacies is encouraged and counts as a refutation.

[Anonymous No.15162177]

>>15162162
>I'm not a materialist and I'm not arguing with you. Back to preddit, where invoking imaginary fallacies is encouraged and counts as a refutation.
There is still no argument there. The reason is that you have none. You shouldn't enter into debate if you don't have the goods to make arguments. And see pic related from a standard issue cognitive science textbook which explains why you will never have a materialist account for consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15162180]

>>15162177
I'm just giving you a friendly recommendation of a website where people care about imaginary fallacies, "arguments" and jewish deboot culture.

>see pic related from a standard issue cognitive science textbook
Uh oh, is that an appeal to authority fallacy I'm seeing there? :^)

[Anonymous No.15162187]

>>15162180
>I'm just giving you a friendly recommendation of a website where people care about imaginary fallacies, "arguments" and jewish deboot culture.
Not interested in your take about what others care about goofball. Argue the argument if you have the goods. You don't and you won't.
>Uh oh, is that an appeal to authority fallacy I'm seeing there? :^)
No, it's not. I am not saying that my argument against materialism is right because of that. I am saying that a materialist account can never be right because it relize on the idea of an objectively observable brain to account for first person experience which is only ever SUBJECTIVE, as all experience of the material world is. Nice try though. At least you are making an attempt at an argument, you are just a failure at it.

[Anonymous No.15162190]

>>15162187
>No, it's not
Yes, it is. As far as your meme """fallacies""" are a thing at all, you are clearly making one. A textbook repeating "your" cliche doesn't make it any more valid.

[Anonymous No.15162203]

>>15162190
>Yes, it is. As far as your meme """fallacies""" are a thing at all, you are clearly making one. A textbook repeating "your" cliche doesn't make it any more valid.
No, I am not. Construct an argument against something I have said dummy. These are my posts
>>15161867
>>15161879
>>15161896
>>15161908
>>15161914
>>15161920
>>15162152
>>15162160
>>15162177
>>15162187
You can't. Nobody can. Appeals to ridicule are not arguments. And your low iq appeals to fallacies which you mis-interpret are not arguments either. And appeals to you being the arbiter of what can be presented as arguments on this board are not arguments either. Construct an actual argument dumbski. You can't, you won't. If you refuse to acknowledge this one
>>15162177
then start of the others I indicated

[Anonymous No.15162205]

>>15162203
>Construct an argument against something I have said
Why? I don't need to.

[Anonymous No.15162213]

>>15162205
>Why? I don't need to.
So what's even your point? I don't give a shit about your subjective opinions about plebbit and how shit should be argued here retard. You aren't some kind of authority here goofy.

[Anonymous No.15162221]

>>15162213
>So what's even your point?
That you need to go back. No one owes you any "arguments" and nobody cares about your reddit debate culture.

[Anonymous No.15162226]

>>15161429
>Somehow someway, you think you will get subjective experience suddenly appearing out of non-conscious matter?
We already have it. It's called the brain. We'll you don't have it, but everyone else does.

>There is no way to deduce subjective experience from something that is fundamentally not experiential.
Because...?

[Anonymous No.15162229]

>>15162226
>Because...?
Because you have no way to detect consciousness externally.

[Anonymous No.15162233]

>>15161637
>An arrangement of matter cannot produce something that isn't a property of matter
Wrong.

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

[Anonymous No.15162235]

>>15162233
Mental illness.

[Anonymous No.15162236]

Threadly reminder to add "emerge" to your filters.

[Anonymous No.15162238]

>>15161662
>Idealism - the notion that consciousness is fundamental.
What predictions has this theory made that have been proven true after the fact? If Idealism is a superior alternative, why are there no successful idealist scientific theories?

[Anonymous No.15162241]

>>15161741
>you're denying your own existence though. you're either an NPC or disingenuous.
Emotional appeal to insults. You lost.

[Anonymous No.15162242]

>>15162221
>That you need to go back. No one owes you any "arguments" and nobody cares about your reddit debate culture.
I don't give a shit about your opinions goofball. I don't give a shit about your attempted moderation of the board. You have no authority. Eat shit.

[Anonymous No.15162244]

>>15162238
>What predictions has this theory made
Exactly the same number of predictions your metaphysical dogma has made. Auto-hiding all replies from you. Use the word "concession" in your next post to confirm your nonsentience.

[Anonymous No.15162247]

>>15162242
See >>15162221 and then reflect on the power I have over you as you keep replying over and over to tell me how you don't care while trying to contain your impotent rage. :^)

[Anonymous No.15162253]

>>15161429
You guys are really falling for this bait or just that bored?

[Anonymous No.15162255]

>>15162247
>See >>15162221 and then reflect on the power I have over you as you keep replying over and over to tell me how you don't care while trying to contain your impotent rage. :^)
You are replying to me too dummy. You have still can't produce an argument against anything I said btw, nobody can because I am right. I don't care about your appeals to what argument tactics are allowed.

[Anonymous No.15162258]

>>15162255
Note how you care and keep replying. I am auto-hiding all further posts from you but you will desperately beg me to argue against your bot drivel again.

[Anonymous No.15162260]

>>15162247
>See >>15162221 and then reflect on the power
Also, this is a cringy thing to say. Thinking you have 'power' over somebody because you get a response to a post. You are a goofball.

[Anonymous No.15162261]

>>15162258
>Note how you care and keep replying. I am auto-hiding all further posts from you but you will desperately beg me to argue against your bot drivel again.
Cry moar faggot

[Anonymous No.15162263]

>>15162258
>>15162260
Fuck you. Fuck you fuck you fuck you.

[Anonymous No.15162267]

>>15161867
>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience
Yes, no one claims that there is a little projector in your brain showing what you visually experience. Your visual field is integrated from parts all over the brain and only has the illusion of being a movie. You're massively misinterpreting scientific papers. Stop.

>The subjective experience is thus INCONSISTANT with the neural circuitry.
This is a misleading statement. What the paper says, and what is uncontroversial, is that we are not conscious of how the brain actually integrates infornation to create our subjective experience. That's the "inconsistency," not an inconsistency with the brain creating the experience.

[Anonymous No.15162268]

>>15162258
>>15162247
And by the way, I know you're still reading and seething that I won this argument. Fuck you. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. Cry harder.

[Anonymous No.15162270]

>>15162258
>>15162247
not that anon but he clearly won the argument and you're just seething and coping

[Anonymous No.15162274]

>>15162247
Not that anon but I just wanted to say you're a loser and you lost the argument.

[Anonymous No.15162282]

>>15161879
>It's first person and subjective, unlike physical objects such as the brain. That is a hard problem for you.
It's first person and subjective because you have your brain and not someone else's. How is this a problem?

[Anonymous No.15162291]

>>15161901
>To this day, not a single materialist has been able to provide a coherent answer to Benj Hellie's vertiginous question.
You're a liar. It's a trivial question. Your experiences are only live for you.

[Anonymous No.15162292]

>>15162267
>Yes, no one claims that there is a little projector in your brain showing what you visually experience
There exists not the circuity to even produce such a thing, that's the point. And even besides that, you have to account for HOW and WHY that it is that this is the exact way that it is presented to the observer. And that is just the VISUAL binding problem. There are more. And that just addresses the production and transmission to the observer of some of the CONTENT or experience of the observer's/experiencer's EXPERIENCE. This says nothing of how the brain creates an EXPERIENCER in the first place.
> Your visual field is integrated from parts all over the brain and only has the illusion of being a movie.
What does that even mean? What does the 'illusion of being a movie' mean. There is no illusion. That is exactly what I see. I see a stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene. For your next post, just cut right to the chase an explain in detail what you mean by an 'illusion' of these things. You nor daniel dennett have ever explained what that means. See pic. chalmers pointed this out.

[Anonymous No.15162294]

>>15162267
forgot pic here
>>15162292
see pic related

[Anonymous No.15162295]

>>15161908
>Explain how
The brain.

>and why
Nonsensical question that assumes there is some intelligent design behind evolution.

[Anonymous No.15162297]

>>15161914
>This is just begging the question
Funny, so is the hard problem.

[Anonymous No.15162302]

>retards still argue about the Hard Question instead of simply using it as a filter to dismiss sworn nonsentients
Why do they do this? It's by definition impossible to have a productive dicussion with someone who doesn't understand the Hard Question.

[Anonymous No.15162309]

>>15162031
>Materialists are just too dumb to accept there's knowledge outside of the reach of the human brain.
Who claims this? What about materialism suggests that a non- human brain doesn't have knowledge?

>Our entire world model is based on the cause and effect relationship, yet our universe either
This is a categorical error. You're applying rules for things in the universe to the universe itself with no basis.

>Everything can be true.
Then "can be true" is a useless description.

>Just accept some knowledge is beyond scientific reach and understanding.
Again, who claims otherwise? If it's beyond scientific reach then you certainly will never know it, no matter how much you want to believe it.

[Anonymous No.15162311]

>>15162309
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.15162312]

>>15162152
>What it is is an appeal to ridicule
Says the guy calling people NPCs.

[Anonymous No.15162314]

>>15162312
Your NPChood is just an objective observation.

[Anonymous No.15162315]

>>15162295
>The brain.
This is not an explanation. You are just begging the question, ie you are just repeating your premise that the brain causes consciousness as if that is the argument. It's not an argument.
>Nonsensical question that assumes there is some intelligent design behind evolution
Again, this is just question begging. The very question at hand is how the brain created consciousness and the content of consciousness and why a certain brainstate should produce a certain qualia and not another. Just restating the premise that 'evolution of the brain did' is begging the question and it's also circular, ie 'the brain does it because the brain does it'. That's not an explanation dummy.

[Anonymous No.15162318]

>>15162312
I haven't called anybody an NPC in this thread. There are likely more than one anons replying to you.
here are my posts
>>15162203
plus a couple of more after that, none of which called anyone an NPC. But I will add, that just calling someone a name is not an appeal to ridicule if an actual argument is presented along WITH the ridicule. An appeal to ridicule is the attempt to use ridicule IN LIEU of having an argument. It's an attempt to gain points rhetorically from ridicule as a trick to disguise that the perpetrators has nothing substantive to offer as an argument.

[Anonymous No.15162320]

>>15162229
What does detection have to do with deduction? You're not making any sense. In order to detect consciousness objectively we would first have to understand consciousness objectively, i.e. how the brain creates it. Your logic is backwards.

[Anonymous No.15162322]

>>15162235
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding that arrangements of matter frequently have properties that the constituents do not.

[Anonymous No.15162324]

>>15162244
>Exactly the same number of predictions your metaphysical dogma has made
What metaphysical dogma?

[Anonymous No.15162326]

>>15162320
>What does detection have to do with deduction?
Think about it and come back when you figure it out.

[Anonymous No.15162342]

>>15162322
Thanks for conceding that you are mentally ill and nonsentient. Magic isn't real. Real life doesn't have a Minecraft build system where combining a bunch of things spawns a new thing.

[Anonymous No.15162349]

>>15161662
>There is no hard problem in this view anymore.
There still is a hard problem even in your solipsistic worldview. You just deluded yourself into feeling smart but your answer raises just as many questions as materialism does.

[Anonymous No.15162351]

>>15162349
Very low IQ take.

[Anonymous No.15162358]

>>15162351
Indeed. The position I'm criticizing is very low IQ.

[Anonymous No.15162359]

>>15162358
The Hard Problem doesn't apply under his metaphysics. You are legitimately 80-85 IQ.

[Anonymous No.15162365]

>>15162292
>There exists not the circuity to even produce such a thing
Again, no one claims such a thing exists in the first place. Why are you continuing to argue against a straw man when it was already pointed out to be a straw man?

>And even besides that, you have to account for HOW and WHY that it is that this is the exact way that it is presented to the observer.
The how is a matter of neuroscience. Why is a nonsensical question. Why do you think there is an intelligence behind evolution?

>What does that even mean?
It means there is no specific section of the brain that encodes your visual field like a picture on a computer.

>What does the 'illusion of being a movie' mean.
It means that you believe what you're seeing is just like what a camera captures.

>There is no illusion. That is exactly what I see. I see a stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene.
Yes, that's the illusion.

[Anonymous No.15162367]

>>15162311
Not an argument. You lose.

[Anonymous No.15162375]

>>15162359
>The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why and how humans have qualia or phenomenal experiences.
Your answer is literally "They just do, okay?" Fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.15162376]

>>15162375
That's not the Hard Problem. 80 IQ confirmed.

[Anonymous No.15162377]

>>15162031
>Just accept some knowledge is beyond scientific reach and understanding.
That would mean giving up though. Defeat isn't an option. The science will continue until humanity is destroyed or the universe dies.

[Anonymous No.15162381]

>>15162376
I quoted Wikipedia. Either you go with that officially accepted definition or you continue to make up autistic private ad hoc redefinitions. But then we'll continue to treat you like the deficient cretin you obviously want to be.

[Anonymous No.15162382]

>>15162381
>I quoted Wikipedia.
That explains why your take is so profoundly retarded. That's not the Hard Problem.

[Anonymous No.15162388]

>>15162382
Your NPCish denial of the hard problem rivals the retardation of a Daniel Dennett. Yes, that's an insult.

[Anonymous No.15162389]

>>15162315
>This is not an explanation.
It is. Ask a more specific question if you don't like it.

>You are just begging the question
Your asked for an explanation. How is an explain begging the question when that's what you asked for?

>Again, this is just question begging.
How? Asking why is question begging since it assumes there is an intelligent reason.

>The very question at hand is how the brain created consciousness
No, that is the easy problem. The hard problem is premised on two assumptions: that there is an intelligent reason behind consciousness and that explaining the physical mechanism of the brain will not explain consciousness. It's question begging.

[Anonymous No.15162392]

>>15162388
You are mentally ill. If you want to understand what the Hard Problem is about, go read a primary source instead of the first sentence on of wikishills article.

[Anonymous No.15162394]

>>15162326
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding.

[Anonymous No.15162395]

>>15162382
Mind Death. Cognitive dissonance. Ego undead. Hopeless. No longer human.

[Anonymous No.15162397]

>>15162342
See >>15162322

>Real life doesn't have a Minecraft build system where combining a bunch of things spawns a new thing.
But it does. See >>15162233

Why do you immediately break down into a tantrum when your claims are challenged?

[Anonymous No.15162398]

>>15161429
More or less true. Physicalists are nauve as fuck. They should all try a heroic dose of shrooms

[Anonymous No.15162400]

>>15162392
I don't need to read. I already solved the hard problem. Now I can sit back and ridicule low IQ NPCs like you.

[Anonymous No.15162401]

>>15162395
Killing you and all of your likes is morally acceptable because you admit to having no sentience.

[Anonymous No.15162403]

Nice subhuman containment thread.

[Anonymous No.15162406]

>>15162401
When did you die? You can't think.

[Anonymous No.15162407]

>>15162397
Why do you immediately break down into a tantrum when your claims are challenged?

[Anonymous No.15162413]

>>15162407
Where do you see a tantrum? I'm simply presenting challenges to your claims without emotional outbursts or cope. We're not the same.

[Anonymous No.15162414]

>>15162413
Not an argument. Why did you lie?

[Anonymous No.15162417]

>>15162414
My argument is in the posts prior, which you never responded to. You provided no argument to respond to.

>Why did you lie?
Where do you think I lied?

[Anonymous No.15162418]

>>15162392
No need to be upset. You posted something stupid. I pointed out your error. Please be a mentally mature adult and learn your lesson.

[Anonymous No.15162426]

>>15162389
>It is. Ask a more specific question if you don't like it.
No it isn't. Just saying 'the brain does it because the brain does it' is just circular and invalid reasoning.
>Your asked for an explanation. How is an explain begging the question when that's what you asked for?
You didn't answer it. You just restated your premise/presupposition as an attempted argument.
>The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question. Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle.
The very question at hand is the relationship between mind and brain, so just restating the premise that the brain does it with out exactly HOW this occurs is just circular.
>No, that is the easy problem
Go on. How does the material processes in the brain create an observer to experience the physical data stream called the material world as well as the none physical world related content of the brain. Be specific.

[Anonymous No.15162431]

>>15161748
There is no reason to believe consciousness was created by a supernatural being. If the universe didn't support consciousness and somehow consciousness arose from it then yeah that could be the work of some supernatural deity. But that's not the case. Our brains are made from common elements and therefore the universe supports consciousness. Some might think the simple answer is that God created consciousness because consciousness is complex, but it's not simple at all, you need to define one or more deities and give them back stories and abilities and motivations and everything else that goes along with that. Consciousness arising from basic matter is the simplest solution

[Anonymous No.15162432]

>>15162389
>The hard problem is premised on two assumptions: that there is an intelligent reason behind consciousness and that explaining the physical mechanism of the brain will not explain consciousness. It's question begging.
No, that is not the hard problem of consciousness. Even if it was, you can't explain the physical mechanism for reasons such as stated here in pic rel
>>15161867
ie
There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information.
The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry. So not only can physicalism NOT account for consciousness yet, physicalism is INCONSISTENT with subjective experience, ie physicalism has been FALSIFIED as a theory of mind

[Anonymous No.15162436]

>>15161774
There's a lot more information required for that to make sense. If you said that to someone who had never heard of God then you'd have to explain a lot of other things, and you wouldn't be able to show them tangible evidence of anything. Whereas if you said consciousness is created from the elements you can see around you then at least its based in reality

[Anonymous No.15162437]

>>15161429
>I don't think there is a way to explain x, therefore god
Nah, you're just retarded.

[Anonymous No.15162438]

>>15162418
You are mentally ill and seething. If you want to understand something, maybe try something better than reading the first sentence of a wikishills article and getting immediately stomped.

[Anonymous No.15162441]

>>15162389
A good start by the way would just give even a single objectively verifiable particular brain state that can be shown to repeatably create a particular subjective thought or experience.

[Anonymous No.15162442]

>The Mind Exists as a Field Connected to the Brain
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/a-new-theory-of-consciousness-the-mind-exists-as-a-field-connected-to-the-brain
>consciousness resides in a field surrounding the brain
>has certain similarities with a black hole
>a holographic structured field
>in another dimension
>could take the shape of a torus
>quantum wave resonance

>Gateway Process
https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/cia/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5.pdf
>holographic torus universe
>holographic hyperdimensional infinite consciousness
>possible encounters with intelligent, non-corporal energy forms when time-space boundaries are exceeded

>Tesla Electromagnetics
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA127574.pdf
>relativity is only a statement about FIRST ORDER reality -- the reality that emerges from the vector interaction of electromagnetic energy with matter
>when we break down the vectors into scalars (shadow vectors or hypervectors), we immediately enter a vastly different, far more fundamental reality
>in this reality superluminal velocity, multiple universes, travel back and forth in time, higher dimensions, variation of all "fundamental constants" of nature, materialization and dematerialization, and violation of the "conservation of energy" are all involved
>using scalar waves and scalar interactions as much subtler, far less limited observation/detection mechanisms, we must have a new "superrelativity" to describe the expanded electromagnetic reality uncovered by Nikola Tesla

>Consciousness-Assisted Technology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C51vGNJxXYI
>hyperdimensional mind over matter consciousness field
>allows levitation, astral projection, teleportation, multiple timelines, remote timeline viewing, telepathy, telekinesis, zero-point energy, and manifestation
>can be mechanized with ufos, antennas, and ai
>populated by brains, black projects, extraterrestrials, and non-corporal interdimensional astral entities

[Anonymous No.15162446]

>>15162426
>No it isn't.
It is.

>Just saying 'the brain does it because the brain does it' is just circular and invalid reasoning.
That's not what I said though.

>You didn't answer it.
I did.

>>The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion
You asked for an explanation, not an argument. You're confused.

>How does the material processes in the brain create an observer to experience the physical data stream called the material world as well as the none physical world related content of the brain.
There is no non-physical world. That's just an abstraction. It's just the brain, which is competent physical. That's like saying a song exists outside of the medium it's on. And again, you're talking about the easy problem, the physical mechanism, which is not what this thread is about. We're talking about the hard problem, which is not an actual problem, just question begging.

[Anonymous No.15162447]

>>15162446
Not an argument. Why did you lie?

[Anonymous No.15162450]

>>15162432
>No, that is not the hard problem of consciousness.
Right, they are the underlying assumptions of the hard problem, not the problem itself. Good job.

>Even if it was, you can't explain the physical mechanism for reasons such as stated here in pic rel
>>15161867 #
That's just a misinterpretation of the paper. See >>15162267

[Anonymous No.15162452]

>>15162450
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.15162454]

>>15162441
>A good start by the way would just give even a single objectively verifiable particular brain state that can be shown to repeatably create a particular subjective thought or experience.
OK.

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

[Anonymous No.15162458]

>>15162447
It is an argument.

>Why did you lie?
Where do you think I lied?

[Anonymous No.15162459]

>>15162458
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.15162460]

>>15162452
>>15162459
Not an argument. You lose.

[Anonymous No.15162461]

>>15162460
Why did you lie? I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.15162462]

>>15162438
You were talking about the hard problem while obviously not knowing what it is. Now I told you. Now you have no excuse anymore to be stupid and uneducated.

[Anonymous No.15162466]

>>15162462
The Hard Problem concerns trying to explain how and why physical brain states give rise to subjective experiences. The idealist position is that they don't, so the problem doesn't apply. Case closed. You are mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.15162477]

>>15162466
>The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why and how humans have qualia or phenomenal experiences.
This question remains unanswered by your assertion. No amount of seething, coping and dilating will change this fact.

[Anonymous No.15162480]

>>15162477
>This question remains unanswered by your assertion
Ok, but that question is not the Hard Problem. The Hard Problem concerns trying to explain how and why physical brain states give rise to subjective experiences. The idealist position is that they don't, so the problem doesn't apply. Case closed. You are mentally ill. Auto-hiding all further posts from you. You will demonstrate your nonsentience by replying again. You will demonstrate that your life has no moral value by using the word "concession" in your reply.

[Anonymous No.15162496]

>>15162454
You forgot to read your own link goober, see pic. And also, there is a reason they are called neural CORRELATES of consciousness and neural CAUSATORS of consciousness. The argument is not whether or not, under some circumstances, there are CORRELATIONS between mind and brain, of course there are. Correlation doesn't equal causation by the way and these correlations can include decisions by mind effecting morphometrically and other types of metrically effecting the brain as well, ie neuroplasticity.

[Anonymous No.15162498]

>>15162480
>The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why and how humans have qualia or phenomenal experiences.
This is the hard problem and you fail to address it.

[Anonymous No.15162500]

>>15162450
No, it isn't The guy who wrote the paper explains it here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZewNjP410g

[Anonymous No.15162509]

>>15162267
>This is a misleading statement. What the paper says, and what is uncontroversial, is that we are not conscious of how the brain actually integrates infornation to create our subjective experience. That's the "inconsistency," not an inconsistency with the brain creating the experience.
Bullshit idiot. It's directly from the paper while what you are saying is directly out of your ass. The inconsistency is between what we actually experience and what is actually in the brain. It's well known that neural correlates of consciousness can't explain mind. It says it in the very entry FOR NCCs. See screen shot here
>>15162496
An anon tried to assert NCCs as an explanation here
>>15162454
And I corrected him and pointed out that the very link he posted contradicted his claim. The problem is is that you idiots have never even researched the topic yet you think you have the answers. Retards.

[Anonymous No.15162513]

Where my analytic idealism chads at?

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

[Anonymous No.15162526]

>>15161574
never heard of dualism huh?

[Anonymous No.15162535]

>>15162496
>You forgot to read your own link goober, see pic.
LOL, you ask for something and then complain when given what you asked for because it's not something else. You aren't arguing honestly.

[Anonymous No.15162539]

>>15162500
>No, it isn't
Yes it is.

>The guy who wrote the paper explains it here.
Give me the time stamp where he says the brain can't produce consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15162544]

>>15162535
>LOL, you ask for something and then complain when given what you asked for because it's not something else
Yeah, I asked for a single objectively verifiable particular brain state that can be shown to repeatably create a particular subjective thought or experience. You gave me a wikipedia article that not only DOESN'T give an example for such a thing, it states that NCCs explicitly DON'T provide such a thing. NCCs ASSERT certain CORRELATES to subjective consciousness. They do NOT give even a single objectively verifiable particular brain state that can be shown to repeatably CREATE a particular subjective thought or experience. So YOU are either to mentally deficient to even understand the issue, or YOU are not arguing in good faith. I would guess the former.

[Anonymous No.15162546]

>>15162509
>It's directly from the paper
No, your misinterpretation of what your quoted is not from the paper.

>The inconsistency is between what we actually experience and what is actually in the brain.
That's what I just said.

>It's well known that neural correlates of consciousness can't explain mind.
No one claimed they do. If you can't even grasp what you're arguing against, how are you going to make a logical argument?

>An anon tried to assert NCCs as an explanation here
That's not an explanation, it's an answer to a request for NCCs. Nice reading comprehension.

>And I corrected him and pointed out that the very link he posted contradicted his claim.
What claim?

[Anonymous No.15162551]

>>15162544
>Yeah, I asked for a single objectively verifiable particular brain state that can be shown to repeatably create a particular subjective thought or experience.
And several were given.

>it states that NCCs explicitly DON'T provide such a thing.
Where?

[Anonymous No.15162558]

>>15162539
>Yes it is.
No, you are too stupid to even understand the issue.
>Give me the time stamp where he says the brain can't produce consciousness.
I am not watching the whole thing right now. The statement is here in the paper anyways dumb fuck
>>15161867
The especially relevant part is here in pic rel
>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information.
The NCCs that you want to assert cause consciousness DON'T exist. And even if they did, NCCs do not solve the hard problem of consciousness as even admitted in the article as stated in picrel here
>>15162496
>Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness that can explain how particular systems experience anything at all, or how and why they are associated with consciousness, the so-called hard problem of consciousness,16] but understanding the NCC may be a step toward such a theory.

Hence why they are called neural CORRELATES of consciousness, not neural CAUSATORS of consciousness

[Anonymous No.15162562]

>>15162551
>And several were given.
Give even one. Don't just give me a link to some article. Green text the statement in the article that demonstrates this.

[Anonymous No.15162577]

>>15162551
You gave me an article about asserted CORRELATES to consciousness retard. The fact that they don't CAUSE consciousness is right in the name. It's in the article that this doesn't solve the hard problem as shown here in this post
>>15162496
>Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does NOT offer a theory of consciousness that can explain how particular systems experience anything at all, or how and why they are associated with consciousness, the so-called hard problem of consciousness,
There is nothing in that article that gives evidence of even ONE objectively verifiable particular brain state that can be shown to repeatably create a particular subjective thought or experience.

[Anonymous No.15162583]

>>15162558
>No
Yes.

>I am not watching the whole thing right now.
You posted it without even knowing what's in it.

>The statement is here in the paper anyways
That's not what that quote says. See >>15162267

>The NCCs that you want to assert cause consciousness DON'T exist.
They do. See >>15162454

>And even if they did, NCCs do not solve the hard problem of consciousness
No one claimed they do. See >>15162546 The hard problem is just question begging.

[Anonymous No.15162586]

>>15162562
>Give even one.
See >>15162454

>Don't just give me a link to some article.
Too bad.

[Anonymous No.15162592]

>>15162577
>The fact that they don't CAUSE consciousness is right in the name.
LOL, correlates are perfectly capable of causing what they are correlated with. This is not a "fact."

>It's in the article that this doesn't solve the hard problem
No one claimed it did. Why do you continuously try to move the goalposts when you already got caught?

[Anonymous No.15162599]

>>15162586
So you have nothing and are too low IQ to even understand the question. Giving a link to a wikipedia article is not an argument retard. That's not an explanation, especially when the wiki article explicitly states the opposite thing that you want to assert. Screen shot the part of the article you think gives evidence of even ONE objectively verifiable particular brain state that can be shown to repeatably create a particular subjective thought or experience. It's real easy. I did it here
>>15162496

[Anonymous No.15162607]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmieNQH7Q4w

[Anonymous No.15162616]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0YID6XV-PQ

[Anonymous No.15162618]

>>15162616
https://qri.org/blog/digital-sentience

[Anonymous No.15162624]

>>15162599
>So you have nothing
Wrong. See >>15162454

>Giving a link to a wikipedia article is not an argument retard.
Argument for what? It's an answer to a request. You don't even know what an argument is. LOL

>That's not an explanation
Explanation of what?

>especially when the wiki article explicitly states the opposite thing that you want to assert.
Where?

>Screen shot the part of the article
Read the history section, there are several examples there.

>It's real easy. I did it here
>>15162496 #
Wrong. See >>15162535

[Anonymous No.15162632]

>>15162583
>You posted it without even knowing what's in it.
No, I didn't. It's an over view of the paper retard. What I did was post it without a time stamp to the specific part. This is all irrelevant because the actual screen shot from the relevent part is right here in picrel
>>15161867
Specifically here
>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information.
The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry.
Here is the actual paper
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538094/

I don't even have to appeal to the vid so you thinking that you are going to solve binding problem by me not having a time stamp is just another instance of you demonstration your mental defectiveness.
>That's not what that quote says. See >>15162267
I did see there. You are an idiot who can't even read a screen shot. He said what he said. You just pulled a made up interpretation out of your ass.
>No one claimed they do. See >>15162546 The hard problem is just question begging.

Then give an account of how the brain causes felt qualia for started. Just saying the brain causes consciousness because the brain causes consciousness is circular. You have nothing.

[Anonymous No.15162640]

>>15162624
see here
>>15162496
>Argument for what?
see here
>>15162599
>Where?
here
>>15162496
>Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness that can explain how particular systems experience anything at all, or how and why they are associated with consciousness, the so-called hard problem of consciousness
The issue is about the hard problem of consciousness. You attempted to use an article that explicitly states that NCCs DON"T solve the problem and the article ALSO doesn't give even a single objectively verifiable particular brain state that can be shown to repeatably CREATE a particular subjective thought or experience

Just screen cap the part of the wiki article you think gives the even a single objectively verifiable particular brain state that can be shown to repeatably CREATE a particular subjective thought or experience

[Anonymous No.15162648]

>>15162607
Yeah, he is one of the few if not only cognitive scientists who understand the issue and the reason is because he correctly understands the bell's theorem connection with regard causation being non-local to spacetime and spacetime not being fundamental, which implies that since brains are in spacetime, then they can't be the cause of ANYTHING, including consciousness. They are virtual icons which at time correlate to consciousness and correlate to constraints on consciousness such as injury.

[Anonymous No.15162653]

>>15162648
I feel like I've waken into another reality where this stuff is finally understood and taken seriously by some people and not just immediately ridiculed because of the apriori assumption that somehow matter is all there is.

[Anonymous No.15162727]

>>15161429
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

[Anonymous No.15162729]

>>15162727
>>15161429
Are all things reducible to a singular concept?

[Anonymous No.15162747]

>>15162592
>LOL, correlates are perfectly capable of causing what they are correlated with
Prove it dumb fuck. I don't care about your conjecture. Or give evidence or a mechanism about how correlates which don't even exist as stated here
>>15161867
cause consciousness. Explain how this can be experimentally shown to be the case of give me a study which has conducted experiment which demonstrate this. AND explain why yhe article itself that you posted states the opposite, right in picrel here
>>15162496
Durrrr

[Anonymous No.15162753]

>>15162583
>You posted it without even knowing what's in it.
Here you go dumb fuck
time stamped for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZewNjP410g&t=2890s

48:01
and the point is you know you talk about consciousness who all knows what that is okay so you say we don't have an
48:07
explanation of consciousness we don't even know what consciousness is but what i'm going to suggest is that the illusion of a stable visual
48:15
world is something that we all experience every time we open our eyes and we now
48:21
know enough to know that there is no normally plausible implementation of it

[Anonymous No.15162756]

>>15162583
the rest is at
49:09
know enough about the visual system to know there isn't any place that could hold
49:15
a full high resolution image of everything you think you see
49:21
so this from my point of view is a crucial leverage point on the mind brain problem

[Anonymous No.15162783]

>>15162632
>It's an over view of the paper retard.
The paper that doesn't say what you think it says.

>I don't even have to appeal to the vid
Then why did you post it?

>I don't even have to appeal to the vid so you thinking that you are going to solve binding problem by me not having a time stamp
Where did I say that? Stop making shit up.

>Then give an account of how the brain causes felt qualia for started
That's the easy problem. This thread is about the hard problem, which is just question begging.

>Just saying the brain causes consciousness because the brain causes consciousness is circular.
No one said that. Stop making shit up.

[Anonymous No.15162788]

>>15162640
See >>15162535

>see here
>>15162599 #
That doesn't answer my question. Argument for what?

>here
>>15162496 #
Nothing in that screenshot is the opposite of what I want to assert. Try again.

>You attempted to use an article that explicitly states that NCCs DON"T solve the problem
I never claimed they do, so my use is perfectly valid. LOL

>the article ALSO doesn't give even a single objectively verifiable particular brain state that can be shown to repeatably CREATE a particular subjective thought or experience
It gives several. Read the history section.

[Anonymous No.15162792]

>>15162783
>The paper that doesn't say what you think it says.
Yes it does idiot. And the vid backs it up here
>>15162753
>>15162756
This is what the paper says and I quote
>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information.
The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry.
as shown in picrel here
>>15161867
And the guy who wrote the paper reaffirms it in this vid here
>>15162753
>>15162756


>Then why did you post it?
Because you asked for it stupid fuck. Right here
>>15162539
You said
>Give me the time stamp where he says the brain can't produce consciousness.
At first I didn't fell like it but then I just put it on 2xs speed and skipped ahead
>That's the easy problem
Good, then it should be easy to elaborate stupid fuck. You haven't explained shit in this entire thread.
>This thread is about the hard problem, which is just question begging
Elaborate. Explain, how brain mechanisms cause felt experience.
>No one said that. Stop making shit up.
Then explain how the brain causes felt experiences. You can't. You are an idiot who hasn't even researched the subject and you don't even know the lexicon surrounding the subject.

[Anonymous No.15162797]

>>15162788
You gave a link to an article which stated specifically the NCCs DO NOT SOLVE THE HARD PROBLEM, see here in screen shot
>>15162496
And nowhere in that article is there any evidence of even ONE objectively verifiable particular brain state that can be shown to repeatably create a particular subjective thought or experience. No such evidence exists.

[Anonymous No.15162806]

>>15162648
LOL he's a quack.

[Anonymous No.15162822]

>>15162747
>Prove it dumb fuck
It's trivial. Whenever I hit a billiard ball with my pool cue it moves. There is a correlation between being hit and moving. And being hit causes the movement.

>Or give evidence or a mechanism about how correlates which don't even exist as stated here
See >>15162267

>why yhe article itself that you posted states the opposite, right in picrel here
>>15162496 #
That doesn't state the opposite of anything i said. You really need to learn how to read.

[Anonymous No.15162826]

>>15162753
Where does he say the brain can't produce consciousness though? This is just repeating the same thing you misinterpreted before. LMAO

[Anonymous No.15162833]

>>15161429
Even if you abandon materialism this does nothing resolve the problem of consciousness. Lets take the soul for example, the soul does not solve consciousness, it just moves the problem somewhere else. Since whilst the soul is not made of physical matter, it is still an object of some sort that creates consciousness.

[bodhi No.15162843]

>>15162233
if this were true it would be easy to replicate in a lab. You know all the chemicals that are in the brain. Why hasnt anyone put them in a beaker and created a conscious entity? Until you can reproduce it dont ever post this retarded nonsense again imbecile.

>>15162236
based

[Anonymous No.15162848]

>>15162233
The behaviors of matter are matter.

[Anonymous No.15162849]

>>15162797
NTA, but an EKG and relatively simple software can tell which of a series of objects you are thinking of, and whether or not you've been in a particular room before.

Never mind the obvious and severe predictable alterations in consciousness you can make by altering the brain.

[Anonymous No.15162852]

>>15162792
>And the vid backs it up here
It backs up what you already quoted, not your misinterpretation of the quote. LOL

>Because you asked for it stupid fuck. Right here
LOL, so the reason why you posted the video is because of a post I made after you already posted it? You're delusional.

>Good, then it should be easy to elaborate stupid fuck
No, it's just supposed to be easier than the hard problem. The easy problem has not been solved. It's no wonder you're so confused when you have such a superficial understanding of this topic.

>Elaborate
I already did. See >>15162389

>Then explain how the brain causes felt experiences.
See >>15162783

[Anonymous No.15162854]

>>15161723
>In the moment of consciousness al there is is the object of attention
This is quite true. Most don't normally realize this but there is a thing call "zoning" in any event. Where the subjectivity is completely lost and all there is is the object of attention or the event unfolding. That is the true function/state of consciousness.

The consciousness is a function in the brain. Its a function that tries to organize the information it receives and models the surrounding environment and reality for the body to navigate and survive. The thing that irks others is the "feeling" of something or some "consciousness" watching the show.
Anyone who even examines this will understand its likely a false perception generated by the body in relation to the events thats being modeled/structured.

[Anonymous No.15162860]

>>15162822
>Lets take the soul for example, the soul does not solve consciousness, it just moves the problem somewhere else.
The soul is no where specific and that is how it "works". It's the absence matter chases. The falling is what you call matter being "animated", but that is just another word for "oscilallates until energy is gone". An illusion of the mass being animated when in reality it is being negated.

You are never going to point to a place where "soul" is. Buddhists over time misinterpreted their doctrine as a denial of the soul when it simply states that it just couldn't be found anywhere specific. That's not a denial.

>>15162826
>Where does he say the brain can't produce consciousness though?
Your future tombstone.

>>15162848
>What something does is something
>Verbs are Nouns now

Just flip your entire understanding off everything else upside down while your at it. Yes the radio IS the signal it tunes to, right? And when you break it the signal goes with it!

>>15162843
>if this were true it would be easy to replicate in a lab
>What is a magnet

>>15162233
Ah, but an "arrangement" is not matter itself

[Anonymous No.15162868]

>>15161924
>The number of atomic or quantum interactions you would need to recreate a brain are nothing compared to the atoms in the universe
wrong. Look up Boltzmann brains

[bodhi No.15162870]

>>15162860
>what is a magnet
this makes zero sense, this is like saying you are creating energy, you aren't, you are only harnessing and/or transforming it

[Anonymous No.15162871]

>>15161939
>Everything is conscious. Even the stone.
do you think the consciousness in my brain and the consciousness in my spine ever interact?

[Anonymous No.15162880]

>>15161723
>Then the model is presented
Presented
...to what?
You humongous baka.
You tried too hard to sound smart and btfo your own argument. Should have left it as "that process of processing sensory data is consciousness". The modeling of the self-referential internal state is sensory data also btw.

[Anonymous No.15162885]

>>15162870
>this makes zero sense, this is like saying you are creating energy, you aren't, you are only harnessing and/or transforming it
As in:

>Unmagntized chuck of iron colbalt sitting there being a torpid mass
VS
>Magnetized chunk with the same quantity of material, now "magnetic" (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean now)
One has different qualities doesn't it? And yet the material is the same. By the way this is the same material that you are using to "create energy" (manifest it from ??? using a copper archform around spinning magnets).

I know I know, there's a turbine and burning shit and boiling water all that...which has nothing to do with those magnets wirelessly inducing your archaic hertzian waveforms to manifest in a solid copper line.

[bodhi No.15162889]

>>15162871
Do you walk?

[Anonymous No.15162892]

brainlet here, is anyone in this thread even disputing that the hard problem of consciousness even exists?

[bodhi No.15162900]

>>15162892
most of the people on this board are stone cold morons. Imagine the stupidest thing someone can say on a subject and you will see it, in every thread

[Anonymous No.15162923]

>>15162291
>Your experiences are only live for you.
But why are the experiences that are live for me THESE experiences in particular?

[Anonymous No.15162932]

>>15162923
>THESE experiences in particular?
because if it wasn't those experience the product would be an entirely different person

[Anonymous No.15162937]

it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception.

[Anonymous No.15162960]

>>15162932
>because if it wasn't those experience the product would be an entirely different person
Why?

[Anonymous No.15162963]

>>15162960
Explain how two people with an entirely different set of experiences of physical bodies can be the same person

[Anonymous No.15162964]

>>15162963
The self is contained in the soul.

[Anonymous No.15162968]

>>15162964
If you believe in souls then why did you ask the question to begin with?

[Anonymous No.15162978]

>>15162892
It is only a problem to mainly 2 types of people:
1. Materialists who believe that only physical things control the universe, thus directing them to the belief that there either is no consciousness or that it is somehow "physical". This gives rise to a host of misunderstandings and introduces more and more theories (like dualism etc).

2. Spiritualists who believe consciousness is a gift/some sort of first sin/natural order from a higher caliber/god/source/ what have you with the lack of a true explanation. The explanation as to the lack of explanation is usually some unmoved mover "God did it", you cannot know etc.). This gives rise to more or less the SAME theory, only with different fancy descriptions accommodating each one.

The reductionist/monist negates both of these. Both the materialist and spiritualist usually don't consider that "absence" satisfies an unmoved mover. The materialist is looking for material, something to count, locate, "have". The spiritualist does the same only with ideas/idealisms/ as they look for liberation from the material world.

The soul is nowhere specific, therefore it cannot be material or quantified (for there is no "quantity to count") or "caused" (how do you cause "not specific")?. It's not spiritual either because "no where specific" isn't omnipotence, it's not a source. It's "undefined". Not an object for you to negate. No "god"/source"/common measure or place you can ask to liberate you. You're going to be liberated no matter what you believe in by the nature of how you aren't that 'uncaused cause".

You get "half and half". Temporal "objectiveness" to then be negated by everything else "objective" chasing the same subjective absence. Nature abhors a vacuum, which means it has to constantly fill it.

>But "nothing"/absence" isn't scientific! How do we solve this problem when we have nothing to go on?
It's not an object for you to negate, but you can always treat it like a subject to synthesize.

[Anonymous No.15162995]

>>15162226

>There is no way to deduce subjective experience from something that is fundamentally not experiential.

Matter is defined to be that which is exhaustively described by quantities. Quantitative things have no way to relate to the experiential world of consciousness - which is why we've had no progress on this for over 100 years.

[Anonymous No.15162996]

>>15162978
>souls exist because...they just do ok?
>and no any explanation that doesn't involve souls is flawed because they can't explain the existence of soul ( muh qualia muthafucka )

[Anonymous No.15162999]

>>15162226
>We already have it. It's called the brain. We'll you don't have it, but everyone else does.

You're begging the question. How exactly does the material brain produce consciousness? This is the essence of the hard problem.

Neurons fire in some way .... POOF ... consciousness.

That's the best you can give me.

[Anonymous No.15163024]

>>15162996
>souls exist because...
Necessity. Torpid matter isn't gonna move itself now is it? It is? How? It needs both the space to move and a cause to do it.
>and no any explanation that doesn't involve souls
What else would it involve? Another word for describing an "animated mass"? What the fuck do you think "soul" actually means in this context? Some misconstrued religious dogma?

>they can't explain the existence of soul
The lack of the explanation is part of the explanation it itself. "It" is nowhere specific and you're never going to point to it. Again, this is why the brain dead materialist cannot accept this explanation. Everything MUST be countable, MUST be quantified to them because quantity is your god. Would you too count and measure shadows and call them real?

>>15162999
>How exactly does the material brain produce consciousness?
The radio is not the signal. It tunes to the signal.

[Anonymous No.15163026]

>>15162999
>Neurons fire in some way .... POOF ... consciousness.
Yes for the same reason you can't get behind the rise that anything in the universe has the properties it does. Past a point you have to accept it is what it is.

[Anonymous No.15163030]

>>15161429
>Materialists are /x/ tier shizos
So are evolutionists.

They claim all life transforms all the time (just wait 2 more weeks and it'll happen), and all transformed from a common ancestor, yet this is disproven every single day with every single act of procreation.

[Anonymous No.15163060]

>>15162963
Let me ask you this. Are you the same person that you were a few seconds ago? If so, this implies that your experiences can change while having the same "self".

[Anonymous No.15163082]

>>15162880
Its not presented to "what" or "who" its just how we describe things. The to "who" or to "what" is your own misunderstanding of what the modeling is. When I look at screen, the model of the screen is created in the mind. It doesn't matter what the model looks like its a model. Same way when you imagine something in the mind, the modeling works in recreating the images in the head. Its not an actual theatre, because the notion of a play in a theatre is another model we conjure up to explain how it is, when there's no empty room, no boundaries, no foundations, no structures to the conscious mind modeling the world. The image of a TV in the conscious mind is merely a recalling of the a memories that the visual cortex imprinted in the brain. The feeling of an "image" a "thing" is whats recorded at the moment. Thats whats at play. There's no the viewer behind the show or actors or directors or anything.

[Anonymous No.15163087]

>>15161429
Technically speaking we are nothing as individuals. There's no more philosophy than that. From there, we can understand materialism as our most socially productive interpretation of reality. Reality being what we know through our senses.

[Anonymous No.15163130]

>>15162995
>which is why we've had no progress on this for over 100 years.
is it theoretically possible to make progress on this?

[Anonymous No.15163270]

>>15163130

No because Materialists made the problem unsolvable. You can't relate quantitative things to non-quantitative experiential things like consciousness. There is no connection, and so no chain of deduction can be made.

[Anonymous No.15163304]

>>15163270
This is false. You can relate consciousness to a quantitative perception of a person's behaviour. Hence why we can say someone is unconscious or of impaired consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15164201]

>>15163304

We are talking about the non-existence of a material mechansim that gives rise to consciousness.

How does being able to accurately guess if someone can or can not report their awareness show that the existence of a material mechansim for consciousness?

[Anonymous No.15164207]

Materialist : we wuz EmErGiNG and sheit

[Anonymous No.15164231]

>>15164201
Think of sleep. I could recognize that you are in this state. I could even give you drugs to induce this state. You would be person in my perception, and your consciousness as you know it would relate to the state of your body as I know it. In order to understand this, you have to believe that I exist, which might be hard for the average 4chan user. Obviously we struggle to quantify our own consciousness because it is the limiting factor in our understanding.

[Anonymous No.15164318]

>>15161904
>tfw parmenidean monist
You are like a little baby to me.

[Anonymous No.15164366]

>>15162513
>chads
>insane schizo that looks like he's shat his pants in every pic

[Anonymous No.15164417]

>>15161429
Consciousness is the prima materia (Elemental Elementalism 1.1.).