[ 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: 702 KB, 3032x1986, url.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5214533 No.5214533[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Are feelings and emotions worthless? Do they even tangibly exist? Are they just a waste of energy?

>> No.5214546

No. Yes. No.

>> No.5214550
File: 824 KB, 1920x1080, 1349666445698.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5214550

Learn to metaphysics.

>> No.5214549

Yes. Yes. Yes.

>> No.5214606

Yes. No. Yes.

>> No.5214615

>>5214550
>metaphysics
>Qualia

gtfo

>> No.5214637

The human brain (or any other mammalian brain for that matter) is much more adapted for processing emotions than for logical thinking. Why? Because instincts are more important for your survival.

>> No.5214655

>>5214615
>qualia
>not supervening upon nature
GTFO?

>> No.5214657

No. Yes. No.

They bind humans together, are caused by chemical and electrical reactions in the brain and provide motivation.

>> No.5214665

le edgy teenager thread

>> No.5214667

>being a robot
Human master race here. Stay jelly.

>> No.5214668

Emotions are necessary for humans to function properly. People who get brain damage in the regions associated with emotion generally have trouble living their lives, it complicates their ability to make simple decisions. I believe there's a documentary of some sort you can find, if you search for it.

>> No.5214686

>>5214655

Yes, gtfo.

Qualia are human experiences of the mind (brain) and therefore are nothing more than a chemical reaction. All metaphysics is based on the existence of qualia, and since the word qualia is simply a misnomer for a physical phenomenon, metaphysics is just a misnomer for physics.

>> No.5214698
File: 56 KB, 550x545, 103493837482.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5214698

>>5214686
>the mind
>nothing more than a chemical reaction

>> No.5214703

>>5214686
Show me evidence for these "qualia". You can't? Then fuck off to >>>/x/

>> No.5214701
File: 11 KB, 414x354, ass1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5214701

>>5214698

>> No.5214708

>>5214668
There is also your mothers porn on internet if you search for it. Without citing your claims you may as well stop posting.
Emotions go opposite directions with logic, yet they are the push that drives us. Our goals are always based on an emotional reason, without emotions everyone might just suicide.

>> No.5214712

>>5214711
Even worse.

>> No.5214711

>>5214701
Metaphysical naturalism ≠ dualism

>> No.5214714

>>5214711
They are the same, i.e. believing in untestable magic with no evidence.

>> No.5214717

>>5214698
Got any proof of brain being more than a box of chemical reactions?

>> No.5214723

>>5214717
He wasn't even talking about the brain. He was talking about an untestable metaphysical entity. Of course non-existing nonsense is not a chemical reaction, obviously.

>> No.5214732

How is it that chemical reactions are able to feel? I'm not arguing for the metaphysical, we're quite clearly made of neurons. I just wonder how they are able to feel. Why is it so difficult to quantify human experience in a physical way?

>> No.5214736

>>5214732
Your first sentence doesn't make any sense. Chemical reactions just happen.

>> No.5214739

If the mind and emotions (an extension of the mind) do not exist, what else possibly could?
The mind is the only thing one can be 100% sure exists.
You have to remember, logic is a feeling. It is an emotion. The logic of humans 70,000 years ago was different from the logic of today-- logic is not concrete.

>> No.5214738

>>5214736
What I meant is that somehow a certain structure of chemical reactions can form sentience.

>> No.5214744

>>5214717
>>5214723
And what proof would suffice? If the mind-- ie, the only thing we know-- is in your definition "a box of chemical reactions" then any proof divined would merely be a chemical reaction. Retard.

>> No.5214741

>>5214732
Because it's too sophisticated for you. I don't mean to insult, it's just a complex procedure that you only focus on the feeling side. You can ignore your feelings as well

>> No.5214746

>>5214738
There is no such thing as "sentience". Untestable and unobservable nonsense goes to >>>/x/. Please do not use pseudoscience vocabulary on /sci/.

>> No.5214745

>>5214732
Chemical reactions take place in the universe. It's something about the universe.

>> No.5214750

>>5214744
>the mind

Care to show me any evidence for your spiritualism nonsense? No? /x/ is that way --->

>> No.5214753

>>5214744
Thats why your proof is supposed to debunk that brain is just a box of chemicals, imbecile. That's how you disprove someone.

>> No.5214754
File: 61 KB, 400x222, 24393678.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5214754

>> No.5214767

>>5214746
I'm generally strongly against any claim that can't be quantified, but do you really deny that you feel experiences. Regardless of weather or not there is any way to prove it, what would you say you experience as a person?

>> No.5214763
File: 13 KB, 250x250, 0768146eb36994b9ce70d92d074d680f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5214763

>>5214750
... are you serious?

>> No.5214770

>>5214763
Of course I'm serious. This is a science board. Baseless claims without evidence belong on >>>/x/. Do you have evidence or are you just trolling?

>> No.5214775

>>5214767
You are the one making a claim, so it's up to you to provide evidence. I do not experience any spiritual magic. No.

>> No.5214776

I feel. That is fact. Do you claim that I do not feel?

>> No.5214782

>>5214776
Inb4 cite evidence

>> No.5214791

>>5214739
Logic is not an emotion. Humans may be primarily motivated by emotion, and we may even percieve logic from an an emotional point view. But that doesnt mean that logic IS emotion.

You see things because photons bounce off them into your eyes and your mind creates a corresponding image, but that doesn't mean that those things are made of photons. Logic, similarly, is not made of emotion.

>> No.5214788

>>5214782
I guess the fucker just can't relate. Or doesn't want to feel. Sounds like he's got some issues.

>> No.5214796

>>5214788
It's the /sci/ police, so yeah, issues.

>> No.5214795

>>5214775
There is no evidence, I only know that I feel. I simply assume that others feel in a way similar to me. You are correct that this is an unscientific assumption. I simply want to hear others' speculation about why what I experience as consciousness forms.

>> No.5214800

>>5214776
Do you have evidence or are you just making baseless assertions?

>> No.5214803

>>5214795
If you can't back up your nonsense with objectively verifiable evidence, you shouldn't post on a science board.

>> No.5214804
File: 173 KB, 550x550, 1351529603856.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5214804

>>5214800
>baseless

>> No.5214808

>>5214795
It's the chemical reactions in your brain you retarded abomination. Are you a fucking college dropout ?

>> No.5214813

>>5214803
My feelings are so much more interesting than science, though. What's the matter, autist? Don't know that feel?

>> No.5214816

>>5214808
I know it's chemical reactions, I'm just asking why.

>> No.5214818

>>5214816
Are you asking how chemistry works ?

>> No.5214817

>>5214739
>logic is a feeling
>math is a art

>> No.5214820

>>5214804
Definition of "baseless":
>Without foundation in fact.

>>5214808
What is the chemical reactions in his brain? There is only chemistry, nothing more.

>>5214813
If you want to talk about non-science contents, please go somewhere else.

>> No.5214823

>>5214813
> Report submitted. This window will close in 3 seconds.

>> No.5214825

>>5214818
No, he wants to know *why* chemistry works, which is of course a very meaningful and coherent science question.

>> No.5214827

>>5214818
I'm asking why feelings can emerge from complex systems of chemistry.

>> No.5214830

>>5214825
>he wants to know *why* chemistry works
So he wants to know quantum physics?

>> No.5214832

>>5214827
Please prove that they "emerge".

>> No.5214833

>>5214820
Define "fact"

>> No.5214835

>>5214833
Look it up in a dictionary.

>> No.5214842
File: 339 KB, 464x563, bane_feel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5214842

>tfw qualia disproves physicalism

>> No.5214849

>>5214832
I can't. I was hoping you would use your experiences to help come up with an answer instead. Any proof regarding the subject would only be relevant to the individual, so we just have to assume that you and I both have experiences.

>> No.5214860

>>5214849
Your assumption is wrong and that's not how science works. Please take your non-science to /b/, /r9k/, /x/.

>> No.5214868

>>5214860
Why do you think that you and I would experience the world in different ways? We both have brains made of the same mechanisms.

>> No.5214879

>>5214868
Physical brains receive physical input and produce physical output (behaviour) by means of physical and chemical interactions. There is no reason to assume that any metaphysical magic takes place and there's no evidence for such nonsense.

>> No.5214889

>>5214879
I've never argued for the metaphysical. I'm asking where consciousness exists within the physical world.

>> No.5214894
File: 65 KB, 360x270, ctitojvs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5214894

>>5214868

>> No.5214906

>>5214889
In science there is no such thing as a consciousness or soul. Untestable metaphysical nonsense belongs on /x/.

>> No.5214914

Bad feelings are bad
Good feelings are good

They're just manifestations of chemistry and different configurations of neurons firing, but everything is just chemistry really

>> No.5214917
File: 45 KB, 604x404, wat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5214917

>>5214868

>consciousness
>not subjective

>> No.5214911

>>5214889
>I'm asking where invisible non-interacting rape demons exist within the physical world.

1/10

>> No.5214921

In 2004, eight neuroscientists felt it was too soon for a definition. They wrote an apology in "Human Brain Function":

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."

>> No.5214939

>>5214935
Stop trolling and go back to /x/.

>> No.5214935

>>5214917
Pick two

>> No.5214942

>>5214921
That's the answer I was looking for. I suppose it must be right that at this point it is purely subjective, although I wouldn't call it magical pseudoscience like some of you have said. This does beg the question whether we will ever find an answer, or if it's even possible.

>> No.5214954

>>5214939
Give details on how it is trolling

>> No.5214961

>>5214954

By saying consciousness wasn't subjective.

>> No.5214964

>>5214954
You are intentionally posting something incorrect. This is trolling.

>> No.5214973

>>5214961
>>5214964
See
>>5214954
Follow the instructions this time. You claim conciousness is subjective, the burden of truth is on you

>> No.5214977

>>5214935

>>>/b/ is that way.

>> No.5214978

>>5214973
You claim this metaphysical entity to exist. It's you who has to post objectively verifiable evidence, troll.

>> No.5214985
File: 26 KB, 402x604, my_sides.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5214985

>>5214973

>you claim consciousness is subjective
>the burden of truth is on you

>> No.5214990

>>5214978
>Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.

You claim conciousness does not exist, the burden of proof is on you.
You claim conciousness is metaphysical, the burden of proof is on you

>> No.5214999

>>5214978

>self awareness does not exist

>> No.5215073

>>5214990
You claim it exists. Either you provide evidence or you fuck off. This is a science board.

>>5214999
Untestable nonsense with no evidence can be said to not exist.