/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15240140]

This rock is conscious.

You can't prove me wrong since there exists no agreed upon definition of consciousness nor a way of testing for it.

[Anonymous No.15240146]

>>15240140
Based

[Anonymous No.15240373]

>>15240140
kek. panpsychists really believe this

[Anonymous No.15240376]

>>15240140
>This rock is conscious.
>You can't prove me wrong
Is it conscious like me or is it "conscious" in the sense of your meaningless and undefined brainfart?

[Anonymous No.15240381]

>>15240140
>You can't prove me wrong
Not /sci/, claims must be falsifiable. Also null hypothesis.
>>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.15240387]

>>15240140
Oh yes, god, I FUCKING LOVE CONSCIOUSNESS

[Cult of Passion No.15240390]

>>15240373
>panpsychists
I proved thats real, but youre no scientist...youe no physicst...youre no mathematician...youre no geneticist...

In fact, what the fuck are you?

Thinking consciousness is found in people but not matter is like calling a hair cell not human. If it isnt then remove it...and the iron in your blood, the carbon, the calcium, h2o etc etc.
>Whats left?

Your weak hypothosis, thats what. Use logic, my son.

[Anonymous No.15240395]

>>15240373
So do most materialists since they largely embrace computational views of neuroscience and claim that mind emerges from matter during computations.

But what is a computer? It turns out it is very easy to instantiate any finite computation in any substrate. Rocks are computers.

A brain can be modeled exactly by making every neuron out of large mechanical structures. Every axon would just be a pipe that fills with water. At a certain pressure, the flood gates open and the neuron fires. This pressure change triggers the release of a bunch of balloons off of the axon that can model neurotransmitters.

Most materialists agree that such a mind, if it perfectly simulated a brain, would be conscious. You could make a brain largely from human shit and toilet paper with a good enough artificer.

The problem for these guys is that go stop ALL things from being minds they need to come up with semantic, mind -based definitions of computers that presuppose mind. If you try fully mathematical versions of computation that don't include semantics and "meaning," .e.g., Shannon, Kolmogorov, etc. then a rock IS a computer.

Or they cope by saying only sufficiently complex computers are conscious, as if piling enough logical entailments up somehow creates awareness.

[Anonymous No.15240398]

>>15240376
>Is it conscious like me or is it "conscious" in the sense of your meaningless and undefined brainfart?
I wouldn't know. Are you even conscious?

[Anonymous No.15240400]

>>15240390
>I proved thats real
no you haven't.
>Thinking consciousness is found in people but not matter is like calling a hair cell not human
no, it's nothing like that, actually.

[Anonymous No.15240402]

>>15240398
>I wouldn't know
Then why did you make the claim?

[Anonymous No.15240403]

>>15240395
>So do most materialists
nope.

[Anonymous No.15240407]

>>15240402
Because I know that the rock is conscious, but I don't know if you're conscious.

[Cult of Passion No.15240408]

>>15240400
>no you haven't
Why would the Pentagon ask you to consult for them? Oh, wait....thats me.

YOU WILL NEVER BE A SCIENTIST.

[Anonymous No.15240410]

>>15240407
>I know that the rock is conscious, but I don't know if you're conscious.
Why? Am I made of some special stuff that is impenetrable to you?

[Anonymous No.15240411]

>>15240390
Today on /sci/: Anon does not understand emergent properties.
>Thinking consciousness is found in people but not matter is like thinking a single transistor is not Turing complete

[Anonymous No.15240415]

>>15240411
Emergent properties are imaginary.

[Anonymous No.15240419]

>>15240410
You're just not as convincing as the rock. Sorry, buddy.

[Cult of Passion No.15240421]

>>15240411
>emergent properties.
LMFAO
Go flex your newly learned vocabulary on /lit/ cause youre just saying words you think will trip me up. No...

I educate teachers, teachers educate you...youre not qualified for my class, boy, get the prerequisists first.

[Anonymous No.15240422]

>>15240415
>an assemblage of bricks does not make a wall

[Anonymous No.15240424]

>>15240422
The "wall" is in your head and so are the "bricks".

[Anonymous No.15240426]

>>15240390
Imagine thinking rocks are conscious.

>>15240395
Imagine thinking computation = consciousness. Try to explain how computation isn't just communications under information theory. Then explain how computation differs in any way from causation. Computation is how logical entailment works, it's just that for millennia we thought that all the reasoning steps were artifacts of us being finite, slow reasoners (thanks Plato) and all equivalences exist as such, sans computation. They don't. Anyhow, go read 20 papers on physical computation and explain how it ends up not just being what most people mean by causation or at least "evidence of causation."

These are both ridiculous. This leaves Idealism or Absolute Idealism.

Idealism needs to explain how other minds interact, why the world is understandable, and why reason/science work at predicting mind. Sure, simulation theory works, but simulation theory doesn't explain why the world is intelligible. Our alien masters don't need to make the world act based on reason.

Berkeley's idealism is air tight versus any empirical attack, and "God did it," is parsimonious, but "whose God?" becomes the obvious next question.

The universe existing my logical necessity, and the universe is logic (the reason why computation and information seem identical to being itself many physicists). In this case, the universe unfolds to resolve contradiction. If mind is essential to this, it's because subject is essential to logic in some way.

You can posit some sort of blind teleology like Nagle too, but DESU that just seemed like Hegel's Absolute in disguise and Hegel does it better.

[Anonymous No.15240427]

>>15240424
>bricks, walls aren't real
KEK

[Anonymous No.15240432]

>>15240427
As far as physics is concerned, it's just a bunch of particles doing particle things. Nature doesn't know or care about "bricks", "walls" or other upright monkey abstractions.

[Anonymous No.15240433]

>>15240424
I'd love to see you try stopping kinetic energy penetrator ammunition with one brick.

[Anonymous No.15240434]

>>15240432
false.

[Anonymous No.15240435]

>>15240432
>Guys, the entire field of chemistry is useless, just use particle physics for total synthesis

[Anonymous No.15240437]

>>15240422
>If you know the position, charge, velocity, etc. of every particle making up the brick, brain, planet etc. you have all the information to perfectly predict what they will do or retrodict what they have done in the past.
>But somehow they make something different that can't be explained by their parts.
Real emergence doesn't exist. No "emergent" item has ever exhibited properties not dictated in whole by what makes them up

[Anonymous No.15240439]

All elementary particles are conscious, human sentience is formed of particles working in unision.

[Anonymous No.15240440]

>>15240433
>>15240434
>>15240435
>mentally ill drones seethe
Still waiting for any kind of refutation. It won't come.

[Anonymous No.15240441]

>>15240437
>they make something different that can't be explained by their parts.
false. i never made that claim.

[Anonymous No.15240443]

>>15240419
Notice how you're losing your mind with rage as soon as someone asks you to substantiate your babble.

[Anonymous No.15240446]

>>15240439
>All elementary particles are conscious
there is no evidence supporting this assertion.

[Anonymous No.15240447]

>>15240437
It obviously can be explained by their parts, no one denied that. You can explain the behaviour of any logic gate by looking how the transistors are connected, seeing how transistors work and how electrons flow etc. But no rational mind will deny that a simple half adder exhibits properties that its parts do not.

[Anonymous No.15240448]

>>15240140
I'd like an uhh a big mac meny with uhh with uhh fries and uhh with coke zero

[Anonymous No.15240449]

>>15240446
Why should there be evidence?

[Anonymous No.15240450]

>>15240447
>a simple half adder exhibits properties that its parts do not.
It doesn't objectively exhibit any properties because it doesn't objectively exist.

[Anonymous No.15240453]

>>15240449
in order to justify belief in it.

[Anonymous No.15240454]

>>15240450
Do atoms exist then? If your whole point is that any categorization is useless because it "doesn't objectively exist" then you're just being disingenuous. Please get a single transistor and try posting that same message again with just this one transistor.

[Anonymous No.15240457]

>>15240454
>If your whole point is that any categorization is useless because it "doesn't objectively exist" then you're just being disingenuous
Notice how your only resort at this point is blatant lying. Imaginary abstractions may be useful for the minds of upright apes to grasp some aspects of reality, but that doesn't make them into real things.

[Cult of Passion No.15240458]

>>15240426
>Imagine thinking
I dont have to...Im talking to one.

[Anonymous No.15240460]

>>15240443
It's fine. Even if the whole world were to turn against me, I'd still have the rock as my friend.

[Anonymous No.15240481]

>>15240457
Didn't answer my questions. Obviously the only things that "ACSHUALLY" exist (that we know of) are elementary particles. Once again, no one denies that. It's still intellectually dishonest to claim that multiple elementary particles are unable to do something that a single one cannot. You discredit every field of study that is not elementary particle physics just because you don't like the idea of calling emergent behaviour a new property. Let me ask you just this one question: Suppose all currently known elementary particles are composed of even smaller ones with different attributes, then did they ever really exist? What about electric charge or spin (which in this hypothetical context have been attributed to interactions between these subelementary particles)? Were you just wrong to assume these were "real" properties? Or could it just be that properties themselves are just our ape-brain's way of explaining states and changes thereof?

[Anonymous No.15240484]

>>15240481
>the only things that "ACSHUALLY" exist (that we know of) are elementary particles
>It's still intellectually dishonest to claim that multiple elementary particles are unable to do something that a single one cannot
Each particle only does whatever it does, which is to obey the laws of physics. "Multiple particles" doing things "together" is an abstraction in your head, not an objective reality.

[Cult of Passion No.15240486]

>>15240426
>Imagine thinking computation = consciousness
YOU WILL NEVER BE A BIOLOGIST.
>Consciousness is...
GO TO BED, BOY.

https://youtu.be/41b254BcMJM

Write a few papers on it before talking about it. You've NEVER read a book on that wasnt based on Philosophy.

THIS IS SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS, GUT GUD FAGHOT.

[Anonymous No.15240489]

>>15240458
>>15240421
>>15240408
>>15240390
Least insane idealist

[Anonymous No.15240496]

>>15240484
Yet again, you completely ignore my entire argument because you're too uncomfortable to diverge your thinking from your beliefs. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, which apparently we build for no reason whatsoever, since it doesn't exist and would do nothing for us.

[Anonymous No.15240501]

>>15240496
You don't have any argument. You just can't seem to wrap your head around the simple fact that the notion of particles doing things together that a single particle can't do alone is entirely in your head.

[Cult of Passion No.15240502]

>>15240489
I AM NOT HUMAN. MY WORKS ARE VERIFIED. Git gud, whatever the fuck "idealism" means, I wouldnt know...I research science and sheeeeit, not dick riding some punks wet dream.

t.Geneticist, not a Bio-Chemist devoid of Life

[Anonymous No.15240503]

Rocks are made of consciousness

[Cult of Passion No.15240509]

>>15240503
>Luke 19:40
“I tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”

[Anonymous No.15240511]

>>15240501
What is a property then? Do you even know what we are talking about? Please enlighten me.

[Anonymous No.15240512]

>>15240503
kekerino

[Anonymous No.15240515]

>>15240511
>What is a property then?
An abstraction in your head.

[Anonymous No.15240523]

>>15240515
So are words and numbers. Have you ever read a physics textbook? How do you know about particles then? You're the type of person to derail an algebra lecture because "lmao numbers are just in your head. 2+2=5 because muh definitions, can't prove me wrong lol". Also your "definition" of a property applies to literally almost anything, so good job on that.

[Cult of Passion No.15240525]

*cough*

[Anonymous No.15240526]

>>15240523
>So are words and numbers.
Yes, imbecile. So are words and numbers. What's your point?

>How do you know about particles then?
What's the connection? You sound like you're about to have a psychotic episode.

[Anonymous No.15240527]

all non-materialists are basically religious lunatics.

[Anonymous No.15240528]

>>15240526
>The man who talks with electrons all day tells me I sound psychotic
Sure, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15240533]

>>15240140
R8kvtn

[Anonymous No.15240536]

Materialism (physicalism): conscious experience is fundamentally a physical phenomenon, ultimately based
in physical processes occurring in the brain. To explain conscious experience, we do not need to posit
any fundamentally non-physical properties, processes, forces, entities, substances or laws.

[Anonymous No.15240537]

>>15240528
Why are you losing your mind instead of making a rational point. Words and numbers are abstractions, yes. Therefore what?

[Anonymous No.15240538]

>>15240376
The latter.
What is ”conscious like you”?
Is a rock conscious like you?

[Anonymous No.15240539]

>>15240527
What material is the number 7 made out of?

[Cult of Passion No.15240541]

DO NOT ENGAGE; DANGER >>15240536
>we do not need to posit
>any fundamentally non-physical properties, processes, forces, entities, substances or laws.
Like electromagnetics? Like how birds can migrate thousands of miles to their nesting grounds? How a monach butterfly knows to fly north in the spring? Like the turtles swimming back to their home beach?

NO. WE NEED NOT POSIT. WE SHAN'T.

[Anonymous No.15240544]

>>15240538
>The latter.
Then no one cares. Call me back when you can show that a rock is conscious like me.

[Cult of Passion No.15240547]

>>15240541
Heh...meant to hit enter...the warning was for me, not whoever that person is....

sigh...I hate mistakes so much...
;_;

[Anonymous No.15240548]

>>15240140
>You can't prove me wrong
I can sage your shit thread.

[Cult of Passion No.15240549]

>>15240544
>Call me back when you can show that a rock is conscious like me.
>like me

No, you prove YOU are conscious first. Reaction to stimuli doesnt count, electricity, chemicals and metals can do that.

[Anonymous No.15240550]

Not a single original thought in this thread. Y'all no better than ChatGPT, but your grammar is definitely worse.

[Anonymous No.15240552]

>>15240549
>you prove YOU are conscious first
I don't need to prove anything. I'm not the one making profoundly mentally ill claims and losing his mind in public.

[Cult of Passion No.15240559]

>>15240552
>I don't need to prove anything
Neither does the rock...but I dont mind. Im a quiet cummer too.

B^|

[Anonymous No.15240566]

>it's another tranny consciousness bait thread
Back to >>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.15240568]

>>15240537
What I'm trying to tell you is that we are currently engaging in a conversation (concept in our heads), using the english language (concept in our heads) using grammatical properties (concepts in our heads) to exchange information about physical properties (apparently also concepts in our heads) and your argument is that all of that does not exist. So you are using emergent properties (letters with no context do not mean anything) to - according to you - talk about literally nothing. In fact, we are not even talking, since that is also just a concept in our heads.

Yes, for fucks sake, we are just a bunch of elementary particles. No, I am not suggesting there is a separate plane of existence where this all is happening. All I am saying, is that if "we" were just singular particles strewn about in the cosmos, we would not be able to have this conversation, whether it's just in our heads or not is inconsequential. Thought constructs still exist, even if they are just a (real material) constellation of interacting particles to an outside observer. If you disagree with that you should just stop sustaining your life and let entropy take over, since there is no such thing as a living organism or higher cognitive function.

[Anonymous No.15240569]

>>15240559
>Neither does the rock
Yep, you are quite clearly having a psychotic episode.

[Anonymous No.15240571]

>>15240566
We trannies support materialism. Only poltards post consciousness threads

[Anonymous No.15240574]

>>15240568
>your argument is that all of that does not exist.
Which you've already conceded here:

>[things] are just a bunch of elementary particles

>All I am saying, is that if "we" were just singular particles strewn about in the cosmos, we would not be able to have this conversation
Singular particles strewn about the cosmos is all that exists, in your own words.

[Cult of Passion No.15240576]

>>15240569
>psychotic
>t.Non-Psychologist
...and its reaally obvious.

t.Developmental Psychologist

[Cult of Passion No.15240578]

>>15240569
Oh...and this is an ongoing problem...I need help...

[Anonymous No.15240580]

>>15240544
>you can show that a rock is conscious like me.
Sure. What experiment do you want me to perform? I already got a rock

[Anonymous No.15240581]

>>15240574
I think you just have a limited definition of "existence". You have never read a book, books aren't real. You have never eaten food, food is not real. It's all just particles. WHY DO YOU ENGAGE IN CONVERSATION WHEN INFORMATION DOES NOT EXIST? You are a walking contradiction. Stop eating and die, otherwise you are intellectually dishonest.

[Anonymous No.15240585]

>>15240581
>I think you just have a limited definition of "existence".
I'm using your own notion of existence:
>[things] are just a bunch of elementary particles
>the only things that "ACSHUALLY" exist (that we know of) are elementary particles
The cognitive dissonance of a materialist drone is endlessly funny. Keep trying to reify abstractions while simultaneously insisting that only particles are real.

[Anonymous No.15240586]

>>15240574
Are you actually saying that you don't believe in particles being close to each other? You don't believe in attraction or repulsion?

[Cult of Passion No.15240593]

OH GOD, SHE KNEW WHAT SHE WAS DOING, I SWEAR!

[Anonymous No.15240596]

>>15240586
>b-b-but they're close to each other
That doesn't mean they magically spawn new entities into existence. They still just individually do what individual particles do and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.15240600]

>>15240585
The "ACSHUALLY" was a nod to your stubbornness you uncommunicative sperg. Do you realize how hard you are projecting your mental gymnastics onto me? You assert that particles are unable to exhibit ANY behaviour, yet you waste your time arguing with people on a mongolian basket weaving forum. You cannot even explain why you are typing this mental diarrhea of yours, let alone why you, a heap of particles with no relation to each other (chemical bonds do not exist after all) are even able to type.

[Anonymous No.15240602]

>>15240596
Are you that retarded? Can you explain a single machine to me? Maybe a lightbulb? It's not magic, brainlet. If you understand the parts and how they interact, you also understand the whole.

[Cult of Passion No.15240605]

>>15240596
>That doesn't mean they magically spawn new entities into existence.
Based and Spontaneous-Creationist-Pilled.

Amen, brother. 7th day and all.

[Anonymous No.15240606]

>>15240600
>the only things that "ACSHUALLY" exist (that we know of) are elementary particles
These are your own words. Are you taking them back?

>You assert that particles are unable to exhibit ANY behaviour
Notice how your only recourse is to lie repeatedly?

[Anonymous No.15240607]

>>15240585
Also why do you feel the need to insult someone as a drone, when the drone itself is defined by its role in a larger system? I think you already realize how dumb it is to speak of cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous No.15240608]

>>15240602
>If you understand the parts and how they interact, you also understand the whole.
That's equivalent to the statement that only the parts objectively exist.

[Anonymous No.15240609]

>>15240607
>Also why do you feel the need to insult someone as a drone
It's not an insult. It's an obejctive description of "people" who subscribe to materialist metaphysics and then suffer from hilarious cognitive dissonance when they get called out on their reification fallacies and superstitious belief that the universe has Minecraft build system.

[Anonymous No.15240615]

>>15240609
Why are you constantly butthurt?

[Anonymous No.15240617]

>>15240615
If I'm the one who's butthurt, how come you're the one who keeps shitting out posts that don't pertain to the actual subject?

[Anonymous No.15240619]

>>15240617
This was my first post ITT.

[Anonymous No.15240620]

>>15240619
That only highlights your asshurt.

[Anonymous No.15240625]

>>15240608
>objectively exist.
As opposed to what, retard? Things either exist or they don't. There's no subjective existence

[Anonymous No.15240627]

>>15240608
And this is your problem, because according to you, there are no parts. Why do you even use the term "part" when it is not a meaningful distinction from just particles. A part of a whole can also consist of multiple parts. We agree on the fact that only particles exist (in the material sense). We also agree on the fact that particles exhibit certain behaviour based on other particles in their "vicinity" (natural laws). Our disagreement lies solely in our interpretation. I - and everyone else in this universe - categorize certain collections of particles that are meaningfully different from other collections of particles by their behaviour. Atoms exist to me, since atoms are functionally different from electrons, despite their outer shell being composed of them. Electrons in an atom can form different types of covalent bonds. If there were only one electron in the universe, the behaviour we call covalent bonds would not exist. It is not possible for a single particle to change their momentum without another force carrier. From your point of view, atoms or bonds do not exist. I assume this is because you see no meaningful difference between different states of particle systems. But then why is a system of particles even a meaningful concept? From your perspective it probably isn't. That is what I find so incredibly ridiculous. I have to assume you are talking about things you do not understand. No formal physics education institute would let you pass without understanding systems. Please tell me which parts of your view I misconstrued and I will rephrase my argument.

[Cult of Passion No.15240629]

>>15240625
>Things either exist or they don't.
Is your pain real or is it a chemical reaction?
>Its real ahhhh!!!
Yeah, see, thats the expected reaction, says so in my chrmistry book "Why people cry."

[Anonymous No.15240630]

>>15240627
>according to you, there are no parts
Notice how your only recourse is literally to just lie repeatedly. lol

[Anonymous No.15240631]

>>15240625
>There's no subjective existence
There is. In my subjective cognitive framework subjective existence subjectively exists.

[Anonymous No.15240632]

>>15240620
No literally that's not even me I just posted above

[Anonymous No.15240634]

>>15240632
It seriously looks like you're losing your mind with rage.

[Anonymous No.15240635]

>>15240630
Maybe read more than one sentence

[Anonymous No.15240636]

>>15240625
>As opposed to what
As opposed to you perceiving abstract entities in your head, that exist only in your head.

[Anonymous No.15240639]

>>15240635
You started off with a lie so I stopped reading. Try rewriting your post in a way that doesn't rely on blatant lying and then call me back.

[Anonymous No.15240640]

>>15240634
Projection, much?

[Anonymous No.15240642]

This rock is indeed more conscious than a lot of people in our society. If the rock had voting rights and those people didn't, then our world would be much better.

[Anonymous No.15240644]

>>15240636
>exist only in your head.
I didn't ask you where it exists. Try answering the question using your head this time

[Anonymous No.15240645]

>>15240644
Notice how you are losing your mind with rage.

[Anonymous No.15240646]

Alright, enough wasting my time with retarded schizos who have opinions about things they don't understand. Back to masturbation.

[Anonymous No.15240648]

>>15240645
Notice how you evade the question since you now realize how retarded your post was

[Anonymous No.15240653]

>>15240648
>you evade the question
Notice how your animalistic rage is forcing you to lie repeatedly. Objective existenece is opposed to perceived existence.

[Anonymous No.15240656]

>>15240653
That still isn't me, retard

[Anonymous No.15240660]

>>15240653
>perceived existence
I already told you that something either exists or it doesn't. Are you a dementia patient or something?

[Anonymous No.15240661]

>>15240656
Show me where I said it was "you". It makes no difference which one of you identical drones is replying. I am simply addressing the content of the post.

[Anonymous No.15240663]

>>15240660
You also told me that you are an inbred cretin who is unable to shit out a single congruent post.

[Anonymous No.15240664]

>>15240140
it has consciousness but in a negligible quantity. everything in this world is a part of "my" dream

[Cult of Passion No.15240665]

>>15240660
>I already told you that something either exists or it doesn't.
Are you singing or do you feel pain? Im autistic, I cant tell.

[Anonymous No.15240666]

>>15240661
Are you that petty?

[Anonymous No.15240668]

>>15240663
>congruent
You are literally losing your mind

[Anonymous No.15240669]

>>15240660
>>15240663
Lmao, your both braindead zoomers who can't construct an actual argument.

[Anonymous No.15240673]

>>15240669
>your
Ok retard

[Anonymous No.15240682]

>>15240668
>>15240666
>>15240669
I feed on your impotent animal rage. You will respond to me exactly as many times as I tell you to. Respond again.

[Anonymous No.15240685]

>>15240682
Are you telling me you still don't realize I'm just wasting your time?

[Anonymous No.15240687]

“Tell me one last thing,” said Harry. “Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?”

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”

Even this book for zoomers understands such simple things

[Anonymous No.15240689]

>>15240687
*book for millennials

[Anonymous No.15240691]

>>15240673
Like clockwork. I knew you'd say this. So predictable.

>>15240682
Your shitposting 24/7 on /sci/. It's as if your a bot but without purpose.

[Cult of Passion No.15240694]

ROCK LIVES MATTER, THIS THREAD HAS DERAILED.

[Anonymous No.15240696]

>>15240140
>this is what geology trannies actually believe

[Anonymous No.15240701]

>>15240685
>>15240691
I feed on your impotent animal rage. You will respond to me exactly as many times as I tell you to. Respond again.

[Anonymous No.15240702]

>>15240701
>if I use reverse psychology they will stop replying to me and stop BTFOing me

[Cult of Passion No.15240707]

>>15240696
>IFLS Astrophysicists; we made from stardust
>Genesis 2:7
Anon, its gotten so much more worse since you were last booted up...

[Anonymous No.15240712]

>>15240702
See >>15240701

[Anonymous No.15240715]

>>15240707
Why don't you get your mental illness treated? Honest question

[Anonymous No.15240727]

Reminder that Big Yud already disproved emergence
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futility-of-emergence

[Anonymous No.15240729]

>>15240712
You have been buckbroken so hard by scientific and logical arguments that you fell into an autistic loop.

[Cult of Passion No.15240731]

>>15240715
Because I am the most advanced Psychologist in the world and have dozens and dozens of groundbreaking papers on it.

When I meet Psychologists I educated them on their field, there is no "therapy" because theyre my students.

THATS WHY. WHO ARE YOU?

>Here...look at my vacation/work-travel photos and ask yourself if youre doing all you can to be the best version of (You).

[Anonymous No.15240732]

>>15240729
I feed on your impotent animal rage. You will respond to me exactly as many times as I tell you to. Respond again.

[Cult of Passion No.15240735]

HOW CAN AN ANT HELP A WHALE?

[Anonymous No.15240750]

>>15240735
why not?

they eat microscopic creatures anyway

[Anonymous No.15240762]

>>15240732
Oh no, you're wasting your own lifetime because of me. How will I ever recover from this?

[Anonymous No.15240770]

>>15240762
See >>15240732
The funniest part is that you will obey my command despite my hiding this thread now.

[Anonymous No.15240771]

>>15240770
You're letting me have the final word. I win.

[Anonymous No.15240773]

>>15240140
I believe you

[Cult of Passion No.15240780]

>>15240750
>why not?
Such sweet innocence...

[Anonymous No.15240783]

>>15240140
Oh cool, a geology thread!

[Anonymous No.15241385]

Friendly reminder that the hard problem of consciousness has been solved by two Israeli physicists. The key was special relativity.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.704270/full

[Anonymous No.15241386]

>>15240140
Then you cant state it is conscious either

[Anonymous No.15241390]

>>15241386
It passes the mirror test though. Put rock in front of a mirror. It behaves exactly as you would expect a conscious rock to behave.

[Anonymous No.15241401]

>>15240140
There's no brain
/thread

[Anonymous No.15241406]

None of us is actually conscious. We react based on a cause and effect system, same as everything else in the universe.

We can never die, because we were never alive in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15241411]

>>15241390
lmaoooo

[Anonymous No.15241417]

>>15240140
He's got nerves of steel

[Anonymous No.15242166]

>>15241385
>In the frame of reference of the cognitive system, it will be observable (first-person perspective) and in other frame of reference it will not (third-person perspective). These two cognitive frames of reference are both correct, just as in the case of an observer that claims to be at rest while another will claim that the observer has constant velocity.

I only read the abstract, but how does this really get around the hard problem? Isn't the frame of reference they're describing a phenomenal one by its nature?

[Anonymous No.15242208]

>>15242166
>Isn't the frame of reference they're describing a phenomenal one by its nature?
The paper argues that it's a configuration problem, and one conscious could experience what it's like to be another if the physical configuration of the brain was changed.

[Anonymous No.15242395]

Consciousness is the only thing that exists, and it's what I call "my consciousness." To clarify, nobody exists except me, and nothing exists except my sensation and perception and experience. There appear to be other beings that look like me and claim to be having the same experiences as me because the experiencing substance that exists is full of self-similar patterns. I know that noumena don't exist. Every time I cut open a purple cabbage, this knowledge is reinforced.

[Anonymous No.15242404]

>>15240140
Ah, the Pet Rock fad returns!

[Anonymous No.15242534]

>>15242395
Can you tell me where I left my keys?

[Anonymous No.15242574]

>>15242534
They're in your left coat pocket, and your coat is somewhere wrong like on the couch

[Anonymous No.15242580]

>>15242574
No, they were on the table. I thought you were supposed to know this stuff?

[Cult of Passion No.15242592]

>>15242574
>your coat is somewhere wrong like on the couch
On the bed...you know, the empty side with the other cloths...

[Anonymous No.15242604]

Saying X object has consciousness is the best immaterial schizo bait in the world. It triggers the hell out of all of them.
>i think this 4 digit calculator is conscious
>umm sweety? In order to be conscious you need to experience the world
>it experiences the world with buttons
>NOOO YOU CANT DO THAT ONLY HUMANS ARE CONCIOUS BE- IT JUST IS TRUE OKAY?
Immaterialist hate the rock. For it defeats their argument.

[Cult of Passion No.15242608]

>>15242604
>Deuteronomy 16:22
"...and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the LORD your God hates."

I defile stone because ITS MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.15242609]

>>15240140
>nor a way of testing for it
False. It might be possible to test for consciousness using phenomenal puzzles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gvwhQMKvro

[Anonymous No.15242623]

>>15240140
This shit is honestly why Steven universe is so scary

[Anonymous No.15242844]

>>15242166
They're just proposing yet another flavor of functionalism.

[bodhi No.15242866]

THE HILLS ARE ALIVE WITH THE SOUND OF MUSIC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvQ4t-Nk128

BLACK GORILLA RETARD NIGGERS