[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 223 KB, 1024x768, Desert Landscape.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4343900 No.4343900 [Reply] [Original]

Alright, pseudo psychology for ya', /sci/. Are everyone's actions caused by the motive to satisfy oneself? That reduce every action to its "original motive", it would be only to satisfy you, and only you? Can altruism possibly exist?

>> No.4343905

>pseudo psychology
Why? This can be studied with a game theoretical approach.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519306004541

>> No.4343911

>>4343900
CROSS-COUNTAH

The brain is composed of multiple sections, each of which act in their own self-interest on different occasions. Not only is there not a "you", but "you" don't even satisfy "yourself" in the first place!

Eat it, OP.

>> No.4343917

>>4343911
The brain is a physical organ and not synonymous with consciousness.

>> No.4343934 [DELETED] 

>>4343917
So, free will is just an illusion?

>> No.4343936
File: 29 KB, 401x318, i'm so clever.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4343936

>>4343917
The consciousness is the product of the activities of the brain, and therefore any analysis of the "self" is inherently incomplete without understanding that which causes it. Furthermore, the sense of "self" is a stupid concept to begin with, as is "altruism".

The questions themselves display a lack of understanding in what they ask. A person asking "does god exist" shouldn't expect an answer if he's not even aware of what "god" is to begin with.

>> No.4343937

>>4343934
trololo

I like where this is going.

>> No.4343941

>>4343936
>The consciousness is the product of the activities of the brain

Proof? Citation?

I don't think so, Tim.

>> No.4343962

bump

>> No.4343972

>>4343936

"A person asking "does god exist" shouldn't expect an answer if he's not even aware of what "god" is to begin with."


>How could he? An omnimax God is defined as infinite and inherently ungraspable in any sense. This is a black hole, not an ontology or a regress-stopper.

>> No.4343981

>>4343941

MaximumTrolling.jpg

The facts of lobotomies, drug-induced consciousness alterations, and the effects of brain injury should clue one in that the brain is a major, if not the, major organ of consciousness creation and maintenence.

You have to be literally fucking retarded Christian of the heart to say "Oh no, it's totally a fucking soul".

>> No.4343982

>>4343941
>Calling me out on unjustified claims
So quick to accuse others of sins which you yourself commit.

Humor me. Provide an example of consciousness existing separate of a physical organ, and I'll recede my claim. Furthermore, I can provide you examples in which a brain is hurt or damaged, causing a person's behaviors to drastically change.

>> No.4343994

>>4343981
You might be really "edgy" and "cool" for posting such nonsense, but:
1. If anything then these phenomena listed in your post don't indicate the consciousness being "created" by the brain, but only the brain being important as interface between consciousness and body.
2. To take dualism serious one doesn't need to be christian, just open-minded.

>>4343982
You are the one making absolute statements. Thus you are the one having to provide proof.

>> No.4344026

>>4343994
>You are the one making absolute statements. Thus you are the one having to provide proof.
Lemme ask you a question.

Do you prefer taking it in the ass or taking it in the mouth?

>> No.4344033

To everyone on this thread, ignore this faggot:
>>4343917
>>4343941
>>4343994

>> No.4344041

>>4344026
>>4344033
You insult me for pointing out false assumptions in your posts?
That's really pathetic. You will never be good scientists.

>> No.4344042

>>4343994
>. If anything then these phenomena listed in your post don't indicate the consciousness being "created" by the brain, but only the brain being important as interface between consciousness and body.

You're assuming "interface" without being able to point out what force the body is interacting in any scientific terms. Of course all for the sake of your "open-mindedness" which is a term used by the most dishonest of jackals, dishonest even to their own thoughts!

>2. To take dualism serious one doesn't need to be christian, just open-minded.

To take dualism seriously, one either has to discover a mechanism where the consciousness is stored outside of the body.

Otherwise, one is ignoring the plain simple fact that the human creature can invent an INFINITE SET OF INFINITE PROPOSITIONS without being able to clearly prove or disprove them all. And that in order to live, the human creature has to do with a limited set of propositions.

Being "open-minded" in your infantile twattish sense means being an INVERSE CRIPPLE.

>> No.4344049
File: 420 KB, 605x639, 1263356892458.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4344049

Evidence thus far has led us to believe that the brain plays a significant role in our consciousness.

Whether it creates it or merely facilitates that which already exists has yet to be proven/understood.

<speculation> Getting back to OP's question, the argument could be made that people are "altruistic" because it makes them feel good. This would imply that at the very base of it all, people are naturally selfish and greedy. Until I meet an "altruistic" person who thoroughly hates the act of giving (which would be impossible to prove) yet continues to do so anyway, then I would reconsider my stance. </speculation>

>> No.4344051
File: 27 KB, 400x400, what the fuck am I reading.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4344051

>>4343994
>Alright, pseudo psychology for ya' /sci/. Are your actions caused by the motive to gobble cock? That reduce every action to its "original motive", it would be only to satisfy your urge for cock?
"I don't have an urge to gobble cock, though."
>Prove it.
"Wait, why do I need to prove it?"
>Because you're the one making absolute claims. I'm just asking questions.

It ain't our job to prove that consciousness exists, OP. Stop asking loaded questions.

>> No.4344053

>>4344041

And this faggot has the temerity to SANITIZE the scientific endeavours of apes, as if they weren't driven by assumptions that they hunch and infer are more fruitful than being "open-minded" about everything.

Fucking faggot idiot.

>> No.4344055

>>4344042
I was tempted to call you out for ad hominem, but there is no ad hominem in your posts. It's just plain insults.
Sorry, I prefer to talk to mature people.

>> No.4344071

>>4344055

"Oh no he dared used an insult! Over the internet! My ape psychology is so fragile that I can't handle insults OVER THE FUCKING INTERNET"

Guess what, maybe they have a stylistic point of degrading your arguments by associating them as the products of a retard.

"URG I WAS GOING TO CALL YOU OUT ON AD HOMINEM"

Is the most bitchtastic copout when my posts clearly stated what was wrong with your dumb concept of "open-mindedness".

>> No.4344082

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness

food for thought

>> No.4344088

>>4344053
Your post does not even make sense. It doesn't contain a coherent idea.

>>4344071
You cannot discuss? You have no arguments?
Then let it be.
You are not obliged to reply to my posts, especially when you have nothing to contribute.

>> No.4344089

>>4344082
Post it in another thread.

OP's too busy making an ass of himself and asking loaded questions.

>> No.4344098

>>4344089
>implying I'm OP

I only entered the thread to correct blatant ignorance.

>> No.4344105

>>4344088
>Your post does not even make sense. It doesn't contain a coherent idea.

That what you derided as "false assumptions" is the result of hundreds of years of scientific investigation into the origins of consciousness and that saying that the brain is an interface without being able to explain "WITH FUCKING WHAT?" means that it's FUCKING USELESS and that to seriously consider it is a form of dishonesty to an infinite set of other unverifiable propositions of equal validity in light of lack of evidence.

>> No.4344116

>>4344105
Science cannnot investigate consciousness. If you had only the slightest grasp of science, you'd know that.
Even the worst religious fanatic is more tolerant and open-minded than you. In blind faith you aggressively force your shitty beliefs in this thread.

>> No.4344124

>>4344116
>Science cannnot investigate consciousness.

Yet.

>> No.4344130

>>4344116
>Science cannnot investigate consciousness

If you believe that why are you here?
Go there: >>>/x/

>> No.4344131

>Are everyone's actions caused by the motive to satisfy oneself.
It depends how much you want to read into things.
Also, there's always the id, whose every acting IS just satisfying itself.

>> No.4344136

>>4344116

Yes, because that "open-mindedness" has surely increased your reading comprehension where I've clearly stated how retarded and mendacious such an association is.

>> No.4344142

>>4344130
Becaue here is the place to discuss science and math. This discussion does not belong here and I wouldn't correct your nonsense if you hadn't posted it.
If you seriously believe that science can explain EVERYTHING, then you are mentally deficient.

>>4344136
>hurr retarded
>hurr dumb
>hurr stupid
Your language resembles that of a young child. I'd suggest you come back in some years when you are (hopefully) adult.