/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15541013]

Why does phenomenal consciousness exist when functional consciousness would be sufficient from an evolutionary point of view? Wouldn't it be more efficient if humans reacted like computers without actually "experiencing" anything?

[Anonymous No.15541017]

>>15541013
We already had this thread, reaction is experience, you are attempting to replace natural laws of reality with mystical phenomena

[Anonymous No.15541019]

>>15541017
>reaction is experience
How? A computer just computes output from input without experiencing. And there are computers more complex than a human brain. So what makes the human brain special that it experiences in addition to reacting?

[Anonymous No.15541057]

>>15541013
>tranny thread

[Anonymous No.15541062]

>>15541057
Literally the opposite of a tranny thread. Trannies are materialists and determinists who believe their true "gender" to be determined. They also believe in a computational universe where you just need to alter the right bits (cut off the dick) to achieve the desired outcome (become a woman).

[Anonymous No.15541097]

>>15541013
Because it does not.. phenomenal is functional..
You are spliting samw thing on two different things without any reasson to do so.

[Anonymous No.15541126]

>>15541097
How is phenomenal functional? The philosophical zombie thought experiment showed that phenomenal experience has no impact on behaviour and is hence decoupled from functional consciousness. It's impossible to distinguish between someone who has phenomenal experience and someone who doesn't.

[Anonymous No.15541131]

>>15541126
People who lack phenomenal experience are determined by their genes to complain loudly about people who do have it on boards like /sci/. It's a very bizarre phenomenon but I suppose that it's just a part of their programming from birth.

[Anonymous No.15541137]

>>15541126
In a sense as i said. There is no two dimensions of consciousness.

Honestly it did not. It only showed how absurd it is to think of phenomenal consciousness as detached from physical.
Sure it sounds correct when you Chalmers states it is possible for being to have psychological conaciousness without phenomenal. But turn picture around and you will se absurdity. Hr implys you can have phenomenal conaciousness without physical...
Iow. his experiment and dichtomy imply you can see color red without ever having eyes... i think that is enough to conclude it is bs.

[Anonymous No.15541144]

>>15541131
Lmao again, asserting statements without providing evidance.
You pro-phenomenalists are something else.

[Anonymous No.15541147]

>>15541013
Idealism is the key, OP. All these retards are too stupid to get it. Listen to Kastrup, he is 100% right about everything.

[Anonymous No.15541150]

>>15541147
Ohh no.. another
>Ill use: you cant know anythint but your consciousness card so i will give you 1000 paragraphs about 2nd reallity.

[Anonymous No.15541152]

>>15541150
You are too stupid to get it. Cling on to your paradigm, it matches your inteligence.

[Anonymous No.15541153]

>>15541152
>"YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO GET IT"

No wonder you are stuck in your pseudo-worldview lmao

[Anonymous No.15541156]

>>15541153
lmao, said the ignorant to the wise

[Anonymous No.15541158]

>>15541156
How do you know that?
I thought only thing you can know is your consciousness
hahahahahahaza

[Anonymous No.15541160]

>>15541158
Did that sound good in your head?

[Anonymous No.15541163]

>>15541137
Your implication is wrong. You didn't understand the thought experiment at all.

[Anonymous No.15541170]

>>15541013
— I have no idea OP

[Anonymous No.15541171]

>>15541160
Idk you tell me, you are the one that knows all and nothing in same time.

[Anonymous No.15541173]

>>15541163
Ita not.. it logicaly follows.
If you can have physical without phenomenal then you can have phenomenal without physical.

Where is the problem anon?

[Anonymous No.15541177]

>>15541097
>>15541137
There is absolutely two dimensions here.
OP's functional consciousness is what would be considered "intelligence".
Phenomenal consciouness would be what is considered true "awareness"/"consciousness" that you experience as a person and what is at the heart of the Hard Problem.
Whatever implication this might have is a different issue. But factually their seperation and existence is empircally self-evident.

[Anonymous No.15541180]

>>15541171
You don't understand Kastrup's argument at all. You literally see "idealism", reduce it to a one-sentence definition in your mind, and then proceed to belittle people who know a lot more about it than you do.

Here, listen to this:

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

And after you're done listening to it, disprove it, using actual arguments that make sense. Ideally, also listen to the other videos in this set, there's 10 or 15, I forgot. They all make perfect fucking sense, but you have to be able to switch paradigms, at least momentarily. Otherwise you're just arguing in bad faith or wasting time shitposting.

[Anonymous No.15541196]

>>15541177
Clearly it is not self-evident.
You are again doing dichtimy without providing reassons why it should exist.
It is not wrong to say phenomenal is this and physical is this, it is wrong to say that because this is this and this is that, that they are not the same thing: functioms of a brain..
You are infusing dualistic ontology into a concept, separating one from another just because you name classify very same thing in different classes.

>>15541180
Mhmm. I see it as it is.
Hypocritical...
In very begining of the video your guy again supposes dichtomy between mind and matter and procedess to bash materialism from this ontological view.
If you want to refute materialism, refute it inside its own ontology, not outside of it.

[Anonymous No.15541200]

>>15541019
>A computer just computes output from input without experiencing
Now go down to the atomic scale, the interactions between all those particles are experiences just like every interaction of every atom in your body
>And there are computers more complex than a human brain
lol, no, a computer is no more complicated than a battery, the biochenical reactions orchestrated in you are trillions of times more complex and uncomputable as a whole

[Anonymous No.15541201]

>>15541196
>disprove a paradigm on its own terms
Lol

I claim all humans are slugs. Disprove that humans are not slugs without stepping outside of the paradigm that all humans are slugs.

[Anonymous No.15541215]

>>15541173
>If you can lose your virginity without getting pregnant, you can also get pregnant without losing your virginity.
Your implication is wrong. Please improve your IQ.

[Anonymous No.15541216]

>>15541201
Well my good anon. Disproving paradigmas on theyr own terms is what science is:)
If you finde evidance that phenomenal trully is ontologicaly different then physical you can write paper about it and bring down paradigma of materialism.
Saying "i can concive" or "its intuitive" wont help you here.

>I claim all humans are slugs. Disprove that humans are not slugs without stepping outside of the paradigm that all humans are slugs.

Are you playing stupid or?

[Anonymous No.15541220]

>>15541215
Thank you for showing furthere how retarded Chalmerses argument is anon.

[Anonymous No.15541226]

>>15541220
Edit:
Or are you gona admit phenomenal necesserely supervines on physical;)
Which again you know.. kinda goes against your view

[Anonymous No.15541230]

>>15541196
>it is wrong to say that because this is this and this is that, that they are not the same thing
And what's your argument they ARE the same thing?
Functional consciouness, or intelligence, can be objectively verified through tests. If the subject output a certain range of behaviour given a certain range of inputs, they can be said to possess certain level of intelligence.
With phenomenal consciousness, the only way to verify it exist is through self introspection that one is consciously aware of experiences. There exist no imaginable way to objectively verify this in another subject other than oneself.
If you are going to even attempt to make an argument they are the same thing you would first need to define the empirical perimeters that would allow phenomenal consciousness to be objectively verified.
And there is none that exists.

[Anonymous No.15541233]

>>15541216
Pic related. Without elevating your thinking, you'll just go in circles forever. Science works by breaking paradigms, not by perpetually following them. That's how we broke the Newtonian paradigm and got to relativity.

[Anonymous No.15541243]

>>15541230
>what's your argument they ARE the same thing?
Were you conscious before you were born and your biological form started gathering enough information to formulate an image? No? Case closed.
>inb4 consciousness is le metaphysical
Prove it, provide me with consciousness without matter interactions, I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.15541244]

>>15541226
The trivial fact that phenomenal experience supervenes upon physical experience doesn't go against my view at all. It merely goes against your poorly constructed and illogical strawtransperson. We already established that you do not understand the semantics of an implication in propositional logic (estimated IQ requirement ~ 90).

[Anonymous No.15541250]

>>15541230
Why should i argue my position? I am stating what is. If i open your head ill only see brain and its functions.
I am not the on postulating something aditional to that. You are.

Again what you say is true. But you cannot draw from that ontological nature of phenomenal consciousness as something different.
Sure there are people that are in coma, but you cant state that they are in coma because they lack secound dimmension that is ontologicaly different from physical one...
I mean you can but prove it then.. show us the second dimmension.
Ill stay here and try to understand it trough something that actually is self evident.

[Anonymous No.15541251]

>>15541233
Einstein disproved old ways by applying them to tests. You only show furthere that you cannot argue in the way you argue anon

[Anonymous No.15541256]

>>15541244
>THE TRIVIAL FACT

MY MAN you are dtating thst it is possible for pzombies while accepting this. You are saying:
>there can be brain exactly same as ours but without p consciousness
>phenomenal necesseraly supervines on our brain
>there cant be phenomenal without physical

Shit up.. please shut up with your mental gymnastics.

Thr fact that you constantly spit out "MUH IQ MUH IQ" shows only IQ of you yourself.

[Anonymous No.15541261]

>>15541256
>necessarily
This seems to be another word you dont understand. If phenomenal experience happens then it corresponds to physical experience. But it does not necessarily happen. Physical experience can take place without implying phenomenal experience. See? It's really not that hard to understand. Let your mommy draw a diagram with crayons for you or something, my little tard boy.

[Anonymous No.15541276]

>>15541250
>Why should i argue my position?
Because you are the one postulating a hypothesis here?
I'm simply stating the fact that it is not possible to explain Observation A through Observation Bs
I'm not stating that because Materialism hypothesis to phenomenal consciousness cannot be done, therefore it must be certain /x/ hypothesis.
I'm simply stating that Materialism hypothesis cannot be done.
>>15541243
See above.

[Anonymous No.15541278]

>>15541243
>Were you conscious before you were born and your biological form started gathering enough information to formulate an image? No? Case closed.
You were, see NDEs and DMT trips.

>Prove it, provide me with consciousness without matter interactions, I'll wait.
You have it backwards. Any perception of matter has to include consciousness, because it is consciousness that is observing matter. You cannot even talk about matter without consciousness other than with conceptual models, and ironically even those conceptual models are constructed and processed by - consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15541304]

>>15541261
>If phenomenal experience happens then it corresponds to physical experience. But it does not necessarily happen. Physical experience can take place without implying phenomenal experience.

Yet the ones that do necessarily corespond hmm..
That surely means nothing...

My little tard boy..

[Anonymous No.15541315]

>>15541304
You're not even trying anymore to write an argument. You're merely drooling and blubbering.

[Anonymous No.15541316]

>>15541278
>NDEs and DMT trips
Those are hallucinations caused by chemicals in your brains, they are no different than dreams retarded faggot

[Anonymous No.15541319]

>>15541013
>why does X exist when Y would be sufficient
>wouldn't X be more efficient?
That's a question to ask le intelligent designer, not evolution.

[Anonymous No.15541326]

>>15541316
Your entire perception of reality is a hallucination caused by chemicals in your brain right now. You're much stupider than you assume you are, but don't let me convince you otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15541327]

>>15541126
>The philosophical zombie thought experiment showed that phenomenal experience has no impact on behaviour and is hence decoupled from functional consciousness. It's impossible to distinguish between someone who has phenomenal experience and someone who doesn't.
This is bait right?

>let's posit a hypothetical being who doesn't have phenomenal experiences but behaves exactly like one who does
>assuming this being exists (even though I just made it up), it shows phenomenal experience has no impact on behavior

Meanwhile I don't need a "thought experiment" to point out your idiocy: people can make false statements without consciously lying, that doesn't mean lying doesn't have functional purposes even though it might be impossible to identify a conscious liar.

[bodhi No.15541329]

>>15541057
found ya

[Anonymous No.15541330]

>>15541327
>I don't understand thought experiments
>abstract reasoning is 2hard4me
Okay, thanks for letting us know. You can close the thread now and leave the discussion to those who meet the IQ requirements.

[Anonymous No.15541332]

>>15541330
"Thought experiment" doesn't mean "I can imagine a world in which my experiment produces the result I want, therefore I'm right"

[Anonymous No.15541335]

>>15541326
Except that percetion is induces by matter interactions, hallucinations are mere imitations

[Anonymous No.15541345]

>>15541335
Please go on, you're so delightfully stupid.

[Anonymous No.15541355]

>>15541332
Good thing this thought experiment has nothing to do with your strawtranny fallacy.

[Anonymous No.15541357]

>>15541345
>says the one who thinks dreams are real experiences
You will never have sex lmao

[Anonymous No.15541363]

>>15541357
That might be the case, but I'm still philosophically more sophisticated than you. That's good enough for me.

[Anonymous No.15541364]

>>15541327
How is p-zombie a bait?
AI can theoritically become indistinguible from human in terms of distinguisble intelligence and behaviour. When that day comes are they actually conscious like me or are they still just bots?
In fact, how can I objectively tell YOU are conscious like me and not a literal meme NPC?

[Anonymous No.15541370]

>>15541363
>self-fellating
>sophisticated
Lmao, you will never produce a single intelligent thought

[Anonymous No.15541373]

>>15541364
Not unless you make them entirely based on chemical interactions not simple electric signals, in which case you've just constructed another biological being not a computer

[Anonymous No.15541378]

>>15541373
>Phenomenal consciousness must be tied to carbon based wetware
And you know this for a fact..how?

[Anonymous No.15541381]

>>15541378
It just is, okay?

[Anonymous No.15541385]

>>15541330
I just looked over a philosophical survey and it seems like only 1/4 of philosophers straight up affirm that p-zombies are possible.

[Anonymous No.15541386]

>>15541315
Yet i did present arguments. Its not my fault you are refeaiming anything that goes against your views.

[Anonymous No.15541390]

>>15541381
lol
stick to making a new iphones
when it comes to big boy questions materialists become as retarded as picrel

[Anonymous No.15541391]

>>15541330
>IQ requirements

This guy has some HC concerns about his IQ. Its like 4th time he is raising this

[Anonymous No.15541395]

>>15541364
First learn distinction between qualitative experiance, awareness and self awareness.

[Anonymous No.15541400]

>>15541385
>logic is now democratic and has to cater to the opinions of uneducated philosoplebs
Good to know. Should we make surveys about gravity or evolutions as well?

[Anonymous No.15541403]

>>15541395
I'm perfectly aware of these distinctions in me.
I just don't think you have any of these in you.
Care to prove it to me?

[Anonymous No.15541404]

>>15541400
Thought experiment based on conceivability... logic...
Yes..

[Anonymous No.15541409]

>>15541404
How about a survey on the Riemann hypothesis? Ask philosotards whether RH is true or false. This should settle it. Proofs? No, not needed. Your epistemology is clearly better than logical arguments. Just let them vote on topics they don't understand, lmao.

[Anonymous No.15541410]

>>15541403
Why? Because i hold we can explain existance of it with physical processes?
Because i dont see reasson for duality?

Care to prove to me that the things you claim to have cant be explained via physicalist framework without asserting non proved ontological facts?

[Anonymous No.15541413]

>>15541409
Tbh only constant in philosophy is that no one agrees on anything.
Everyone aproaches problems from certain ontological framework without ever proving in first place it is correct one.

[Anonymous No.15541415]

>>15541410
>shifting le burden of proof
You claim a physical explanation. Post it.

[Anonymous No.15541417]

>>15541413
That's why philosophy is bullshit and has been made obsolete by science and math.

[Anonymous No.15541420]

>>15541415
And i did.. physical processes in the brain. If you want to know more go read about it.

Now please provide me with your explanation (but without unproved ontological assertions).

[Anonymous No.15541421]

>>15541378
Because electrons switching positions do not produce the same reactio s as thousands of chemicals interacting in a well orchestrated symphony?
There is a very measurable difference of complexity and degree of interaction between the neural network of your brain and some fukin wires

[Anonymous No.15541426]

>>15541420
>no explanation
You failed. I'm not asking you again. You made a vague appeal to literature you yourself never read. Go away and let the experts talk.

[Anonymous No.15541429]

>>15541426
>Dosent want to admit defeat

Okay my guy i respect your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.15541433]

>>15541429
You failed to make an argument. Now you go into shitposting mode. We will exchange a few "no u" posts until one of us gets bored.

[Anonymous No.15541436]

>>15541364
>AI can theoritically become indistinguible from human in terms of distinguisble intelligence and behaviour.
I can ask or subtly prod ChatGPT to write a love poem to its non-existent girlfriend right now. It will compose one that's indistinguishable from a love poem produced by a human, or maybe it will be a parody using computer terms ("my processor is overheating for you" etc) despite not experiencing love or even having an entity it could designate as a paramour.
According to you tards there's no difference between this behavior and that of humans experiencing love and inventing romantic poetry.

[Anonymous No.15541443]

>>15541013
>evolution
top jej

[Anonymous No.15541450]

>>15541433
My guy im telling you, what else could it be apart from what is in the brain (which is physical it self). If i open up your head i wont see your localized experience (subjective experiance) but i will se structure that harbors it. By analyzing this structure (which we are doing for past decades) we gain insight in which processes stand behinde certain experiances. You cannot possibly tell me you can have visual experiance without having parts of the brain and organs that process the data (or?).
If that is so, why should i have a steady ground to claim there is more to it? Why should i accept there is more to brain function then it is evident?
Just because, it is possible for us to detach that which is product of it from the very thing that is producing it? And not only that, but to accept it only because i can imagine it to be so?
And even if i do accept this duality i am left with even more problems. How do i bridge these two things? If one is in nature distinct from other?

[Anonymous No.15541454]

>>15541450
>My guy im telling you, what else could it be apart from what is in the TV set (which is physical it self). If i open up your TV i wont see your localized experience (subjective experiance) but i will se structure that harbors it. By analyzing this structure (which we are doing for past decades) we gain insight in which processes stand behinde certain experiances. You cannot possibly tell me you can have visual experiance without having parts of the TV set and its internal wiring that process the data (or?).
>If that is so, why should i have a steady ground to claim there is more to it? Why should i accept there is more to the TV set then it is evident?
>Just because, it is possible for us to detach that which is product of it from the very thing that is producing it? And not only that, but to accept it only because i can imagine it to be so?
>And even if i do accept this duality i am left with even more problems. How do i bridge these two things? If one is in nature distinct from other?

[Anonymous No.15541455]

>>15541450
>stands in your way
Hard knocks brother.
Most of the brain is functionally used to project experiences into and from dna. All other functions can be ran on a mushy pancake.

[Anonymous No.15541458]

>>15541450
I'm sorry to say this, but you are lacking the required intelligence and education to participate in this discussion. Verbosely repeating your amateurish lowbrow views ad nauseam isn't gonna add anything. You will not solve the hard problem of consciousness by merely posting unsubstantiated dogmatic assertions, in particular not by failing to understand the problem in the first place. There is nothing you have to offer to me intellectually, and constantly correcting your ignorant drivel is too tiresome.

[Anonymous No.15541459]

>>15541013
>Why does phenomenal consciousness exist
It doesn't, hope that helps!

[Anonymous No.15541460]

>>15541459
Thanks, Dennett.

[Anonymous No.15541464]

>>15541436
Fundmentally? By materialist standard no there really isn't any difference. ChatGPT is not complex enough but when a physical system become complex enough in the correct way there is no distinguishable difference.
But that still doesn't solve the issue of whether or not such a system is actually conscious and aware.
>>15541421
And this measurable difference in complexity you are absolutely sure somehow contribute to a difference in phenomenal consciousness?
How did you measure that?
>>15541410
>Why? Because i hold we can explain existance of it with physical processes?
That's the point, you can't.
This fact doesn't elevate the schizio theories.
It just puts your materialist theory in the same shitter as theirs where consciouness is concerned.

[Anonymous No.15541469]

>>15541464
Anon is saying you haven't accounted for nearly enough complexity yet.

[Anonymous No.15541475]

>>15541469
The point is we don't know if there is any connection between physical complexity and phenomenal consciousness.
The only way to know is find some way to emperically measure phenomenal consciousness.
And that cannot be done.

[Anonymous No.15541476]

>>15541464
>And this measurable difference in complexity you are absolutely sure somehow contribute to a difference in phenomenal consciousness?
What did you experience when you were a bunch of subatomic matter scattered across the universe?
Case closed.

[Anonymous No.15541482]

>>15541476
>irrelevant offtopic remark
>case closed
You are too dimwitted to make a proper argument.

[Anonymous No.15541484]

>>15541475
As far as you know these categorizations are correct. Maybe, maybe not.

[Anonymous No.15541491]

>>15541482
>loses argument
>spergs out
Classic, like clockwork, why don't you go back to reading the quran and praying to Allah that you get your 72 virgins after you die (protip: you won't)

[Anonymous No.15541497]

What I don't get in the debate about consciousness is the thought that it is a function to the brain or to life and not the fact that there is a little camera inside my head seeing the universe. Not your head, not someone else's head, but MY head. I don't mean to say that other people are not experiencing the universe, but how come I wake up everyday looking at the world through my own self so consistently? We all behave and talk like we are experiencing the universe, but I only know it from my perspective. It's narcissistic and unrealistic to think I'm the universe's sole subject for its understanding, but how come I'm not everybody and everything at the same time? Will this "I" make a linear time jump when I die and move to something else? Do I already wake up as everybody each day and I just don't remember it, because it's a whole new brain, body, memory, history every time? What if I am indeed the only conscious person experiencing the universe and I live my little mundane life just to die and take all of the gazillions galaxies with me and that's all there is to it?

[Anonymous No.15541499]

>>15541491
>making fun of Islam on 4chan
I wonder who could be behind this post ...

[Anonymous No.15541500]

>>15541499
Hey, if we're discussing fairytales you can't not mention absurd religious beliefs

[Anonymous No.15541505]

>>15541500
The absurd belief that women should dress morally and that men shouldn't cut off their dicks to pretend they're women.

[Anonymous No.15541512]

>>15541505
Yes anon, that's precisely what I was talking about, maybe you should go back to shitposting and leave the smart discussions to the big boys, okay?

[Anonymous No.15541515]

>>15541464
>That's the point, you can't.
This fact doesn't elevate the schizio theories.
It just puts your materialist theory in the same shitter as theirs where consciouness is concerned.

Why? Care to elaborate?

[Anonymous No.15541516]

>>15541512
I exposed your factual ignorance on topic and now I'm exposing your lack of morality off topic. You failed twice in one thread. Are you trying to break a record?

[Anonymous No.15541519]

>>15541458
Solve it? I dont want to solve it. For it does not exist for me.

It only exists for you and your view.
Dont act all smart now, out of idk how many posts half of them are weak chilldlike ad hominem.

I am glad we concluded you have nothing smart to say.

[Anonymous No.15541522]

>>15541516
Only thing you exposed is how much of a sperg you are and how easily you buckle as soon as someone proves your retarded arguments wrong

[Anonymous No.15541523]

>>15541519
>if I deny it it doesn't exist and doesn't need to be solved
Based /pol/ methodology. Also worked on climate change and covid.

[Anonymous No.15541526]

>>15541522
>ad hominem
>projection
Where argument?

[Anonymous No.15541527]

>>15541523
You really lack information about a topic you claim you need high iQ to understand anon. Stop embarasing yourself.

[Anonymous No.15541534]

>>15541527
>it does not exist for me
Sorry hun, but that's not your personal decision. The question how phenomenal consciousness arises remains unanswered. The good thing about science is that it doesn't give a shit about your feeling or your ignorant world view.

[Anonymous No.15541539]

>>15541534
>The question how phenomenal consciousness arises remains unanswered

For you...

[Anonymous No.15541548]

>>15541526
>>ad hominem
>>projection
>Where argument?
>>15541482 what a retarded hypocrite lmao, I already destroyed your retarded fairytale argument with a single question but all you can do is project and throw ad hominems instead of thinking critically, I'm only giving you a taste of your own medicine since a fuckwit like you can't be talked with in any other way, go study for a couple years, then come back

[Anonymous No.15541660]

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

[Anonymous No.15541671]

>>15541464
>ChatGPT is not complex enough
Seems complex enough that it can write a love poem to its non-existent girlfriend at least
>Fundmentally? By materialist standard no there really isn't any difference.
Really? Forget ChatGPT, you say there isn't any difference between some lovestruck simp spontaneously writing a love poem and someone who has never known love writing a love poem to someone who doesn't even exist as a LARP or whatever? The concepts of love or the existence of a lover have no impact because you can't distinguish between the two outputs?

[Anonymous No.15541674]

>>15541548
Sorry kid, but "What if poopoo? Lmao, checkmate" is not an argument. Try again. Make a coherent and convincing argument or keep shitposting. Either way I'll have my fun.

[Anonymous No.15541678]

>>15541539
For you too. You just don't understand it yet. You think "it has something to do with brain" is a satisfying answer to the question for a precise mechanism. Just like you probably believe "food gets cold" is a satisfying answer to the question "by which thermodynamic laws does a fridge work". The illusion of explanatory depth.

[Anonymous No.15541699]

>>15541678
It really is simple.
If you do not assume dualistic ontology, there is no problem for there is nothing in need to bridge.

If you assume it, there is, for you need to bridge two dimmensions.

Why is this so hard to understand anon?

[Anonymous No.15541708]

>>15541013
It only needs to be possible at all for evolution to stumble on a path to intelligence that involves phenomenal experience, rather than being necessarily the most likely scenario. Even if on the vast majority of planets with intelligent life that intelligent life didn't have phenomenal experience, you would necessarily find yourself on the one where it does.

[Anonymous No.15541731]

>>15541126
>The philosophical zombie thought experiment showed that phenomenal experience has no impact on behaviour and is hence decoupled from functional consciousness.
No it doesn't. It only points out it's "possible" in the most generous sense of the word, in that there's no *logical contradiction*, for them to be decoupled. If you find a 1000 page novel in the English language, it's logically possible there was no intelligence behind it, biological or artificial, but that it was written by monkeys randomly smashing a keyboard and only by sheer chance the result ended up being a 1000 page novel in coherent English. This logically non-contradictory but ludicrously far-fetched possibility doesn't change the fact that most likely it exists due to a causal impact of some biological or artificial intelligence.

[Anonymous No.15541730]

>>15541699
The question "How does phenomenal experience arise?" does not contain any explicit reference to dualistic ontology. Dualistic ontology is the consequence, not the assumption.

[Anonymous No.15541753]

>>15541730
Very formulation of the problem is based on assumption that phenomenal (mental) and psychological (physical) are distinct ontologicaly.... thats why its the proble anon.
Where do you get your info from?

[Anonymous No.15541772]

>>15541013
Look I enjoyed the book too OP but the autistic vampire thing was a bit much

[Anonymous No.15541803]

>>15541772
I had the impression the OP was trying to rally some arguments against the Blindsight revelation. I think its spot-on given how an abundance of conscious reflection spells doom for gene propagation. It may have had a function, at least some proto version, in bygone times but if anything it is now a hindrance. What good is a natural system that convinces the organism to destroy its environment, build megaton weapons, and put a rope around its neck? You don't see squirrels doing such. We've more or less split into two camps, those that praise man's unique propensity for self-awareness thereby finding quasi-mystical excuses for its existence, and those that damn the thing and see it as a vestigial nuisance.

https://youtu.be/Yr4ZfEf-lF0

[Anonymous No.15541842]

>>15541013
Now that you mention it... how is evolutionary benefitial at all to have a representation of a thing you are in rather then direct contact with it.

[Anonymous No.15541845]

>>15541731
>I find it subjectively unlikely, therefore intelligent creator
Sounds like you're trying to make a case for intelligent design. And you still don't understand the point of thought experiments.

[Anonymous No.15541849]

>>15541753
>Where do you get your info from?
/sci/ and /pol/

[Anonymous No.15541850]

>>15541842
A: Its not. This is why those with less of it are outbreeding those with an abundance.

https://youtu.be/v4uwaw_5Q3I

[Anonymous No.15541852]

>>15541753
Again you are confusing assumptions and conclusions. Do you also deny gravity? Your argument goes like that: "There is no need to explain why things fall down. Saying that they fall down already assumes curvature of spacetime."

[Anonymous No.15541901]

>>15541852
Again you reframe the thing i am saying.
Look it up: HPC arises from assumption that brain can be separated into physical and phenomenal dimension (ontologicaly!). Ltrly that is one of criticism pointed towards Chalmers.. he formulates problem in such a way that it assumes duality from start. Thus it is not a problem for physicalism for they do not assume duality.. if thete is a "PROBLEM" then it is in finding the mechanism and not bridging distinct ontological phenomena (which is what Chalmers trys to sell under anti-physicalist view).

Im not telling you there is no need to explain something, i am telling you that very explanation can be given by neuroscientific exploration (the thing chalmers argues about trough dualistic formulation)

[Anonymous No.15541917]

>>15541845
No I am not making a case for intelligent design. And you think you're the one to lecture me on the point of thought experiments, when you conflated the logical possibility of zombies with the claim that phenomenal experience *must* have no impact on behavior?

[Anonymous No.15541938]

>>15541850
Very interesting lecture anon, thank you for this.

[Anonymous No.15541945]

>>15541901
I gave you the explicit question: How does phenomenal experience arise? No assumptions. Just a phenomenon that needs explanation. You fail to provide an explanation and therefore you cope by denying the problem.

[Anonymous No.15541949]

>>15541917
Design an experiment to demonstrate the impact of phenomenal experience on behaviour.

[Anonymous No.15542088]

>>15541013
Because it is the most efficient way to compress information content of the world and act on it. The "self" exists in a virtual reality because ultimate reality is ultimately unknowable. Computers are highly inefficient in terms of energy use and that is because computers do not actively model and act on reality. If it was more efficient to be a computer then nature would have already figured it out.

[Anonymous No.15542110]

>>15541515
What's there to elaborate.
Both sides are postulating hypothesis right now with no objective way to experimentally verify.
Schizo theories for the obvious reasons.
Materialist theories because like I said you have no way to emperically measure phenomenal consciousness.
>>15541476
Huh? The fact I have phenomenal consciousness to experience material interactions does not automatically mean material interactions somehow produced my phenomenal consciousness.
>>15541671
Look, you are talking about emotions here, not phenomenal consciousness.There are objective way to empherically measure emotions which means it is possible to artificially simulate them given enough technological advances.
Whether or not such system it is simulated in have the capacity to be consciously aware of emotions like you is a different story.

[Anonymous No.15542116]

>>15541945
Again its not denial.. its just that the problem is relative to ontological framework.

[Anonymous No.15542122]

>>15542116
Irregardless of ontological framework the question "How does phenomenal experience arise?" needs an answer.

[Anonymous No.15542125]

>>15542110
>15541671 #
Look, you are talking about emotions here, not phenomenal consciousness.There are objective way to empherically measure emotions which means it is possible to artificially simulate them given enough technological advances.
Whether or not such system it is simulated in have the capacity to be consciously aware of emotions like you is a different story

Emotions are phenomenal experience...

[Anonymous No.15542128]

>>15542122
Yes it needs. But its not problem since we can answer it trough empirical investigation.. i dont get it anon what you dont understand?

It would be problem for physicalism if it couldnt do so.. but since that is relative to ontological framework it is not a problem in that sense..

[Anonymous No.15542138]

>>15542125
>Emotions are phenomenal experience...
It is experienced as one if you have phenomenal consciousness anon.
It in itself is a chemical interaction.
If someone jacked you into the Matrix using Elon's perfected Neuralink, is it not reasonable to assume they can produce emotions in you by virtue of artifical simulation directly into the brain?

[Anonymous No.15542142]

>>15542128
Show me the empirical investigation of something that is purely private, cannot be observed and cannot be communicated.

[Anonymous No.15542145]

>>15541013
The "experience" is merely what the brain reconstructs the world as such. There is no such thing as "experience" or "experiencer"

[Anonymous No.15542156]

>>15542145
It's possible.
If you are a p-zombie.

[Anonymous No.15542231]

>>15541949
I don't need to design an experiment when the evidence is right in our faces: The fact that we are talking about phenomenal experience, hard problem of consciousness etc. in the first place. The idea that evolution would end up creating zombies with no inner experience yet ones that would talk about being perplexed how their inner experiences (that don't actually exist at all) could arise from unfeeling matter would be nothing short of conspiratorial. The argument that it's nonetheless conceivable in the sense there's no strict logical contradiction and can not be disproven in the way a math theorem could boils down to the old boring "you can't no nuffin" point of philosophy, how you could be in a dream right now and only your mind might exists blah blah blah - by the same standards basically all of the science goes out of the window cause there's some hypothetical scenario where it's all turns out to be bullshit.

Consciousness and how it could arise is pretty confusing topic, but one thing that is clear is that arguing for epiphenomenalism is a performative contradiction. According to epiphenomenalists, they would make the same arguments even if they had no inner experience at all. Even if epiphenomenalism were true, it would be true for reasons completely unrelated to why epiphenomenalists are making the arguments they are making - according to their own metaphysics! It couldn't be because epiphenomenalists had this direct private knowledge of a non-interacting non-physical aspect of reality via their inner subjective experience, because according to their own argument that has no impact on anyone's behavior.

[Anonymous No.15542237]

>>15541019
>what makes the human brain special that it experiences
does it very selectively. we're kinda slow, mechanically, so we need time for things. that means you need to prioritize, so it cuts out whatever deems unimportant for the time being, and feeds you whatever it thinks "you" should know for best outcome/preservation or other goals.

[Anonymous No.15542253]

>>15541949
>>15542231
Before someone brings chatbots talking about their consciousness - obviously the mere fact they are making such claims does not prove that they are conscious. But those are claims that originate either as being specifically hard-coded by humans to say that, or as imitation of humans as with LLMs (to be fair, I'm actually pretty agnostic about their possible consciousness, but it's important that we can't take their statements on this at face value). Their talk of consciousness, although it might be fake in the sense it doesn't come from their own consciousness, still ultimately originates from humans having these ideas about phenomenal experience which ultimately comes from people actually having phenomenal experience. If evolution had evolved all humans as zombies who would talk about phenomenal experience, they would be no such similar causal explanation for that.

[Anonymous No.15542414]

>>15541013
Show me one shred of evidence that humans experience anything.

[Anonymous No.15542441]

>>15541450
you'll get an even bigger problem if it's all logical interactions to you, because all interactions in the entire universe would contribute to some consciousness. Now we're talking mystical.

[Anonymous No.15542458]

>>15541062
No trannies are idealists who don't believe in the material reality of gender and sex but rather a spiritual ideal of their "true gender". They are as far from materialist as it gets.

[Anonymous No.15542693]

>>15541126
>The philosophical zombie thought experiment showed that phenomenal experience has no impact on behaviour
There is zero evidence for this either way.
There is no possible way to prove this for the same reason you can't ever access something else's phenomenal experience.

[Anonymous No.15542860]

>>15541013
There's no center of the brain dedicated to "experience" that's eating calories and thus would have an evolutionary advantage to being excised. The closest you have to that are a few organizing areas, such as the cerebral cortex and the hippocampus, that are absolutely critical for various memory and social functions, and individuals with diminished functioning of those centers would thus be selected against.

No one really knows where consciousness comes from. We can't narrow it down to any single area of the brain that could be removed while still retaining functionality, giving you some sort of living philosophical zombie. Thus it may simply be a side effect of complexity rather than something that can be selected against.

[Anonymous No.15542884]

>>15542860
It's simply complex biochemical interactions, the interactions themselves are manifested as experience, it is ontologically irrelevant as it is simply a law of the universe as much as "photon interacting with an electron pushes it to a higher energy state", why does it do that, why does it interact with it the way it does, we don't know and we will never know, it's simply how physical laws manifest, only schizos like OP spin some metaphysical narrative without evidence because they're blind to the wonder and complexity of reality and thus feel like their life is devoid of any meaning, so they try to fill that hole with meaningless fairytales to elevate themselves into some fantastical godlike position to make up for the lack of satisfaction their lives. You must only open your eyes to your surroundings and endless beauty will flow into your mind.

[Monadas No.15543955]

>>15541019
>A computer just computes output from input without experiencing.
That's where you're wrong, kiddo.