The two biggest scientific questions.

[Anonymous No.16057696]

What is consciousness? How did the universe/existence begin? This is why only Neuroscience and Physics are respectable scientific fields, and the rest are simply hobbies with no deeper philosophical or existential value.

[Anonymous No.16057702]

I shit therefore I am

[Anonymous No.16057745]

>>16057696
>What is consciousness?
this one is simple, emergent phenomenon of matter. the how is more complicated to answer.

[Anonymous No.16057794]

>>16057745
That isn't proven though, even if it seems the most likely explanation.

[Anonymous No.16057847]

>>16057745
>emergent phenomenon of matter
then why some matter appear conscious eg us, and some don't eg humans after death, rocks?

[Anonymous No.16057849]

>>16057794
you don't need to prove there isn't an aetheric soul in humans anon. that becomes obvious when you figure out the how.

[Anonymous No.16057852]

>>16057847
>then why some matter appear conscious eg us
kinda for the same reason why a car with no wheels gets you nowhere. it's pretty obvious but you're going to be obtuse about it isn't it? you're going to specifically miss the obvious point by somehow equating rocks with brains, for some fucking reason, just because they're matter, just like you can equate your wife with your mom, kinda the same thing fucking either of them innit?

[Anonymous No.16057864]

>>16057702
prove that you shit. i require a full mathematical proof.

[Anonymous No.16057869]

conciousness is the fundamental ontological substrate of all reality

[Anonymous No.16057879]

>>16057864
I coincidentally wiped with it

[Anonymous No.16057883]

>>16057869
based panpsychist

[Anonymous No.16057906]

>>16057869
Would be nice if there was some evidence for that

[Anonymous No.16057907]

>>16057696

[Anonymous No.16057913]

>>16057745
Now omit the buzzword "emergent". Does your sentence lose any content?

[Anonymous No.16057918]

>>16057852
>just like you can equate your wife with your mom
But my wife cooks for me and cleans the house for me. Pretty much like my mom did.

[Anonymous No.16057923]

>>16057745
that's just passing the question from your right hand to your left hand. It would be shorter to simply say "I don't know."

[Anonymous No.16057924]

>>16057794
What? The most likely explanation is exactly the opposite: that consciousness comes before matter. Think about it

[Anonymous No.16057927]

>>16057696
Neuroscience can't say shit about consciousness. The hard problem is explicitly outside the scope of neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.16057938]

>>16057923
nah it pretty much directly imply that you just need to arrange matter in a very particular way, it's not we don't know. arranging matter exactly like yours is will pop another (You). we know this, that's how we assemble cars and laptops and mobile phones. we arrange matter in very particular way and it always does the very same thing. why wouldn't it do it with us? and why would you suppose that isn't the case by default? this reality always seems to obey these rules, why wouldn't it follow them when we assemble the same thing? if you are expecting something else I think you'd need a paper proving it, seems pretty wild and no reason to believe it isn't possible.

[Anonymous No.16057946]

I'll throw out these questions for the sake of discussion, they might be ill-formed and I have no clue how to either philisophically or practically approach them:

Is it possible for an entity to have intelligent behavior without consciousness?

If a definition of consciousness includes the 'subjective experience' part, does that immediately write the question off as beyond the reach of a scientific approach?

Would I be 'conscious' If I experienced qualia without intellect and/or memory, and the converse?

[Anonymous No.16057951]

>>16057938
>arranging matter exactly like yours is will pop another (You)
That doesn't prove consciousness is an effect of matter though. Why are you able to even observe matter? To me, the theory that consciousness is an "emergent property" of matter isn't as obvious as you make it sound. You can't rely on the classic scientific method to solve the problem of consciousness. We technically have no experience of anything outside of consciousness

[Anonymous No.16057954]

>>16057946
>Is it possible for an entity to have intelligent behavior without consciousness?
Have you tried asking chatgpt?

[Anonymous No.16057958]

>>16057906
>Would be nice if there was some evidence for that
We do not need evidence for our own awareness because we are aware that we are aware. In fact, our own consciousness is the only thing we can be certain of.

Materialists on the other hand claim “matter” somehow gives rise to consciousness. Not only do they have no evidence for this, their reasoning is absurd. "Matter" is pure abstraction. The qualities of experience are irreducible to matter. So materialists postulate an entirely separate ontological category that allegedly exists beyond and outside of consciousness, and is inaccessible by consciousness. The idea that an abstraction of consciousness could somehow give rise to consciousness is obviously absurd.

[Anonymous No.16057960]

>>16057938
that all sounds pretty reasonable and I don't think most people would disagree. Neuroscience and theory of evolution and all that gives a pretty convincing picture for the rise of intelligent behavior, but say nothing about why or if I need to be here. Why can't my body just carry on with it's intelligent behaviour without my consciousness, why am I not am automaton.

[Anonymous No.16057962]

You go down just like holy Mary
Mary on a crosss!!!

[Anonymous No.16057963]

>>16057954
that nigga chagtp dumb as hell

[Anonymous No.16057970]

I will tickle you internallyyy

[bodhi No.16058007]

>>16057906
we do .... everywhere


all you have to do is open your eyes and look

[bodhi No.16058008]

>>16057906
you think we have all these assembly lines in nature and they just designed themselves? naw man, use your brain for a got second, it dont work like that

[Anonymous No.16058015]

>>16058008
Your post would be better without the screenshot collection of your own former cringe posts.

[bodhi No.16058016]

>>16058015
I dont like repeating myself to try and enlighten simple minded apes. Have some humility for once in your llfe and be thankful I took the time at all

[Anonymous No.16058027]

>>16057951
>You can't rely on the classic scientific method to solve the problem of consciousness
Yes you can, Whenever you run into something new are you defaulting to "must be God clearly, we can't ever know" or go all "let's analyze the shit out of this and figure out how it works"? For some weird reason whenever consciousness is the subject you suddenly forget everything and invoke supernatural powers, for some fucking reason, which is clearly not religious no?
Conveniently discarding the scientific method is a pretty shit move anon, we're here to talk about science not conveniently discard it. You must be lost.

>>16057960
>Why can't my body just carry on with it's intelligent behaviour without my consciousness, why am I not am automaton.
The why is more of a philosophical issue. The how is the scientific one.
What in the world made you even think you'd be separable from your particular matter arrangement? Really think about it, what exactly made you *instinctively* think that is even "allowed" in our reality? Got any proof of such a thing?

[Anonymous No.16058029]

>>16057696
Define consciousness.

[Anonymous No.16058048]

>>16058027
I don't know if you are stupid or trolling. Do you realize that we CAN'T experience ANYTHING outside of consciousness? Consciousness is the only thing we can be CERTAIN of. It's not that hard to understand. Materialistic reductionism has fried your brain anon. Maybe YOU are lost

[Anonymous No.16058050]

>>16058048
Not sure what the fuck you're babbling about. What part of what I said do you specifically have a problem with? Without vomiting random stuff?