[ 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: 214 KB, 400x399, frodo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5792487 No.5792487[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

If the world is purely material, how are we self-conscious?

>> No.5792495

>implying false dichotomy

sage because bad troll

>> No.5792497

>>5792495

Matter cannot be aware of itself.

You could program a computer that acted just like a human being but it wouldn't have consciousness.

>> No.5792501

>>5792497

>Matter cannot be aware of itself

But you're made of matter and you're aware of yourself.

>> No.5792502

>>5792497
>Matter cannot

And neither can humans because they are made of matter.

>> No.5792508

>>5792502

>he's not aware of himself

Wow sucks to be you. I'm fully self-aware. I don't know if I have free will but I'm sure as hell aware of my existence.

>> No.5792506

>>5792501

How? By what mechanism can matter be self-aware?

You're just begging the question.

>HURR WE R MATERIAL BECAUSE WE R MATERIAL

>> No.5792509

>>5792497
Please do not respoind to this shitty troll.

>> No.5792513

>>5792509

>this doesn't fit my world-view therefore it's a troll!

If it's such a "troll" it should be easy to deal with. Show me how self-consciousness can arise from material processes and I'll delete the thread.

Protip: you can't

>> No.5792520

>>5792508
Can you please prove that claim of yours? Provide any kind of observable evidence?

>> No.5792529

OP I think a better question is "why am I myself and not something else?"

But /sci/ is full of people who think Dawkins is a god-tier philosopher so don't expect people to understand what you're talking about.

>> No.5792532

>>5792520

It's self-apparent. I AM self-aware. I know that I exist. Do you?

That's like saying "hurrr prove that you're not santa claus YOU CAN'T lol!!"

>> No.5792540

>>5792520

If we weren't self-aware we wouldn't be having this conversation. Do you understand logic at all, or are you really that much of an aspie positivist?

>> No.5792537

>>5792532
You are making assertions which aren't self-evident. Without observational evidence I'll have to dismiss your claims. They are meaningless and I have no reason to believe your irrational ramblings.

>> No.5792542

>>5792537

Your epistemology is as shitty as your personality.

>> No.5792548

>>5792537

>no proof of consciousness

See:

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

Many experiments have established cognition and consciousness as real phenomena.

>> No.5792550

>>5792540
I understand logic better than you and that's why I see where you're wrong. Having a conversation is a purely physical act. Input is processed by the brain and results in output. No metaphysical magic is needed.

>>5792542
Go back to >>>/lit/, philosophy major.

>> No.5792553

>>5792529

Speak for yourself.

>> No.5792566

>>5792548
Please use scientific terminology. You are trolling by arbitrarily redefining spiritualist terms for the sole purpose of using spiritualist terms on a science boards. Stop being silly.

>> No.5792565

>>5792550

>being a behaviorist
>being so autistic that you literally refuse to believe in the reality of the subjective experiences you undergo constantly
>2013

ISHYGDDT

>> No.5792567

>>5792532
What are you even talking about? I am Santa Claus.

>> No.5792568

>>5792565

>reality of subjective experiences

They're subjective experiences, they're not real the way a tree is real.

>> No.5792573

>>5792568

>missing the point

He denies that they exist at all. He's denying that human beings have consciousness, even though this has been thoroughly disproven by the cognitivists.

>> No.5792577

>>5792565
There is no reason to believe in irrational claims without evidence. Please be scientific and apply Hitchens' razor.

>>5792573
>disproven
The only way to disprove skepticism is by providing evidence. So far you and your fellow spiritualists failed to do so. Your pseudoscience consists of nothing but baseless assertions.

>> No.5792592
File: 56 KB, 592x562, atheist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5792592

>>5792577

>Hitchens' razor

>he actually thinks Christopher Hitchens is a worthwhile philosopher

You're the one making the irrational claim. You're the one saying that the things you and I both experience are not, in fact, real. The burden of proof lies on you, buddy.

By your logic we should discount all of science because we have no way of knowing if the things that happened were actually real.

>> No.5792598

>>5792592
I do not experience any kind of magic and I have no reason to assume that you do. Burden of proof is on you. Science and Hitchens' razor suggest to believe in nothing but physical reality.

>> No.5792593

>>5792577

>spiritualist

You keep using this word to describe me. I don't think you know what it means.

>> No.5792597

Define conscious

>> No.5792602

>>5792520

You just went complete retard.

>> No.5792606

>>5792598

Who said anything about magic?

I'm referring to an introspective world. It's not fucking magic, it's reality. Explain how this arises.

I'm not saying "oh we have a subjective reality and it must be magic!"

I'm saying "explain how this subjective reality arises".

Since you CAN'T explain this, you just deny its existence.

>> No.5792615

>>5792602
>projecting

>>5792606
>Explain how this arises.
How WHAT arises? Show me its observable effects. Without observable effects there is no phenomenon that needs to be explained.

>> No.5792624

>>5792615

>how WHAT arises

You have the attention-span of a 13 year old boy on cocaine.

Thought. Self-awareness. Introspection.

Do you deny that thought exists? Do you deny that self-awareness exists? Do you deny that introspection exists?

If you do I really can't argue with you. Apparently we inhabit very different realities.

>> No.5792627

>>5792624
I do not know what these words mean. Please name the observable effects. You are saying stupid shit like "lol u can't explain how biaobihfbpibbf arises". It makes no sense. Without observable effects there is nothing to explaing. Please go troll somewhere else.

>> No.5792632

>>5792624
>If you do I really can't argue with you

This is a science board and science works with observable phenomena. There is nothing to "argue". Either your shit is testable and observable or it belongs on >>>/x/.

>> No.5792637

>>5792627

Please define observable effects.

Protip: the fact that you believe in something's being "observable" mean that you believe in "observation" which means you believe in "perception" which means you understand exactly what I'm talking about - the introspective world - and accept its existence implicitly, no matter what you might say.

Do you legitimately have high-functioning autism? I cannot understand how a normal human being could believe that he does not think.

>> No.5792643

>>5792637
Perception is a physical process of measurement. Now where are the observable effects of your spiritualism claims?

>> No.5792651

>>5792643

What is DOING the measuring you fucking mouth-breather?

And stop calling me a spiritualist. I haven't made any claims about "spirit" or anything like that. I haven't made any claims at all, actually, I merely asked how you can scientifically and materialistically explain the phenomenon of thought, which you have roundly failed to do.

>> No.5792647

>>5792577

>please use scientific terminology
>science science science Hitchens' razor am I smart yet guys?

Not the guy you've been arguing with, but this has been explained in logical terms many times over in this thread. Meanwhile, you have literally given no counterargument to these logical sequences other than a masked infinite regress fallback where you can say that nothing is fitting your ever changing and consistently incorrect definition of science. You're acting like a 13 year old Amazingatheist fan, in that you act like what you think is backed up by science and logic when in fact you have no grasp of either and are just trying to be argumentative.

>> No.5792649

>/sci/ telling the dualists how it is

keep it up bois

>> No.5792653

>>5792643
Everybody responding to this autistic troll that posts internet IQ tests as proof of its intelligence is really wasting its time. This debate has been had a million times.

She denies (yes, it claims its a she) having the aggregate skills of a normally functioning brain.

And she also cannot into basic logic and confuses modum ponens with the modum tolens.

She/it is a wikipedia-level retard trolling all of you.

>> No.5792660

>>5792647
Please stop abusing the word "logic". You clearly don't know what it means. If you think believing in ghosts is "logical", you are either trolling or disgustingly uneducated. In both cases please educated yourself and refrain from polluting this board.

>>5792651
Explain what phenomenon? Please show me the observable effects you're referring to when talking about that phenomenon. A phenomenon without observable effects does not exist.

>> No.5792661

>>5792653

>She denies (yes, it claims its a she) having the aggregate skills of a normally functioning brain.

I believe she's right about that.

>> No.5792666

>>5792653
By brain works better than that of a normal person. I am enlightened by my intelligence.

>> No.5792667

>>5792660

>If you think believing in ghosts is "logical",

Who said anything about ghosts? You're literally the only person in this thread who's talking about spirits and "spiritualism" (top lel)

>A phenomenon without observable effects does not exist.

You ask a human being to recognize a picture of himself. He does. This proves he is aware of his existence.

>> No.5792673

>>5792667

>You ask a human being to recognize a picture of himself. He does. This proves he is aware of his existence.


It just proves that the collection of adams you call a "human" responds to a certain stimulus in a certain way

>> No.5792675

>>5792673

>collection of adams

>> No.5792677
File: 132 KB, 300x300, at computer.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5792677

>>5792673
>collection of adams

>> No.5792678

we will soon uncover the misteries of awareness and all the interactions that take part in it, no reason to assume a separate reality yet

>> No.5792681

>>5792653
>posts internet IQ tests as proof of its intelligence
Are you jelly of my IQ?

>She denies (yes, it claims its a she) having the aggregate skills of a normally functioning brain.
[citation needed]

>And she also cannot into basic logic
I know more about logic than you.

>and confuses modum ponens with the modum tolens.
>modum
dat irony

>wikipedia-level
Are you projecting?

>> No.5792682

>>5792667
>This proves he is aware of his existence.
No, it doesn't. The conclusion is not justified.

>> No.5792685

>>5792682

>only things with observable effects exist

This conclusion is not justified.

inb4 circular reasoning.

>> No.5792687

>>5792685
Please show me evidence of one thing without observable effects.

>> No.5792690

>>5792687

Begging the question.

>> No.5792692

>>5792690
That's your fallacy.

>> No.5792697
File: 396 KB, 635x564, sam-adams-winter-classics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5792697

>>5792673

>collection of adams

>> No.5792699

Because Sauron would see the eagles coming.

>> No.5792700

>>5792698
Burden of proof is on you.

>> No.5792698

>>5792692

Convince me that thoughts don't exist.

>> No.5792712

>>5792698
Your thoughts are not yours, nor are your actions. You are like a paper moved by the wind. Any idea you think you have is only the interpretation that your brain gives... TO PLATO'S MAGICAL WORLD OF IDEAS ALSO KNOWN AS CANDYLAND CHOCOLATE III (the other II got really fucked up, don't ask)

>> No.5792721

>>5792598
>I do not experience any kind of magic
Prove it.

>> No.5792725

>>5792721

NO THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU HITCHENS SAID SO!!! I HAVE A 160 IQ

>> No.5792727

>>5792725
He made a claim, he has to post the evidence. He could be lying.

>> No.5792734

>>5792698
No one can be called upon to prove a negative

>> No.5792738

>>5792734

Yes you can. This is such a stupid bad fallacy.

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

>> No.5792740

>>5792725
>I HAVE A 160 IQ
>Means I'm right

>Burden of proof is on you but we need to investigate anymore because I PERSONALLY believe we know enough about the brain and consciousness.

This is why we can't have nice things.

>> No.5792743
File: 53 KB, 300x441, successfultroll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5792743

pic very related

>> No.5792747

>THOUGHT AND INTROSPECTION DON'T EXIST GUYZ!

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

>> No.5792748

>>5792743

>pic very related

You could have just posted the picture you fucking newfag, you don't say pic related for no reason.

>> No.5792749

>in /sci/
>cites wikipedia for arguments

>> No.5792752

>>5792749

>in /sci/
>doesn't know anything about neuroscience
>actually believes thoughts don't exist

>> No.5792754

>>5792747
Neuroscience researches the brain (a physical organ) and its functions. Dualism and metaphysics are not subject of neuroscience.

>> No.5792757

>>5792752
>in /sci/
>believes thoughts are not physical

>> No.5792764

>>5792748

I am just making it easier for children like you. No need to be hatin'. You are welcome.

>> No.5792767

>>5792550

>tfw not that guy but a philosophy major

>> No.5792785

>>5792577
serious question because i wonder a lot about consciousness. ARE we really conscious? you say no, but how?
like if i'm thinking about what happens to my cognition after death, wondering if the lights totally go out or if instead i just become a disembodied essence capable of experiencing things still: is that consciousness? i'm reasoning whether or not it benefits me to buy a new car and asking hypothetical questions to myself and shit...is that just my brain doing electrical shit and checking off boxes according to wants and needs and shit, is that consciousness or is it just a brain like running a program, so to speak, to determine priorities or whatever.

i don't know the scientific terms, i'm not educated, but do you understand what i mean?

>> No.5792788

>>5792785

I understand what you mean and I wonder the same thing. I can however tell you that the person you're asking doesn't know a goddamn thing. She/he probably hasn't even heard of Nagel.

>> No.5792790

>>5792577
>There is no reason to believe in irrational claims without evidence.
the evidence is self-apparent. it is irrational in the sense that observation is irrational.

>> No.5792800

>>5792785
No, we are not. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is no reason to keep up irrational beliefs.

>>5792790
It is not self-apparent. Please post the observational evidence.

>> No.5792814
File: 489 KB, 500x375, tallest.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5792814

Man, I love these threads. Look at /sci/ go! Taking on the big questions, watch out world!

>> No.5792820

>>5792785
Same here. So far I believe it depends on how you define consciousness and yourself for that matter. If you consider yourself as what happens I guess you're changing all the time and you're basically reborn every moment, where every notion of how you are is actually just a notion of how you were. And after death you'll just continue to change until "you" might become conscious again as something else.

If you define yourself as the backround on which things happen while being an abstract observer the same time, I reckon you would never really change, nor would you cease to exist either, and we wouldn't really differ from one another but the personal focus.

>> No.5792827

>>5792820

Yeah, if you read any good spiritual texts they seem to say that consciousness i.e. one's true identity can't even be defined in positive terms; you can only say all the things that you're not. According to them even your subjective experience of being aware is merely an object of perception and isn't even the real "I". mind fux or silly philosophy, you decide

>> No.5792845

>>5792800
>It is not self-apparent. Please post the observational evidence.
the evidence is self-apparent, and, like the primary observation, cannot be transferred directly, only expressed

>> No.5792859

We are not conscious, at least in the romanticized version of the word that everyone seems to believe in.

The thoughts in your head, which you believe is consciousness, are a result of evolution. I'm sure if we built an intelligence, the "conscious" part of it would simply be a debug console that itself could have access to and use to influence it's current functions.

We are biological computers, get over it.

>> No.5792876

>>5792845
Without evidence your bullshit has to be dismissed. Please take it to >>>/x/

>> No.5792899

>>5792506
>begging the question
you're begging for a pegging

>> No.5792939
File: 16 KB, 287x331, GEBcover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5792939

>> No.5792953

>>5792592
>MFW wearing a cross

>> No.5792958

>material world
What material?

>> No.5792983

>>5792827
Snap son.

Maybe you won't care to read this; but this has to be the most interesting element of modern western philosophy.

If you investigate the properties of what the first person means (the I), any attempt to define yourself by language hits a barrier; as consciousness can never be defined , yet we may regard that external, reality, as having a working definition, not in its being, but of its principle. That is to say, I can never know that of which reality consists, only that of which it takes form.

I can never converse, also, with another individual on the matter of my being, because I have no other comparison to determine that which of being consists. Thus, thought can only explore that which being is not. Though here too, I struggle; due to the relations of thought to what we believe of the external world. There is only us. The isolated being. The plural individual.

Thus, the being can only define themselves by reality; as it is that with which the individual regards themselves. Thus reality is used to define reality. The barrier between language and enlightenment. The impossibility of using a system of thought to define that which it is not.

>> No.5793314

>>5792859

>Comparing humans to computers
>shiggy

>> No.5793324

I like how absolutely nobody has provided any kind of answer to OP's question

>> No.5793438

material in this instance must means real
if nothing non-material exists, it is not real
so consciousness must be material

>> No.5793449

why doesn't anyone on /sci/ just read? like... a book? I know it sounds crazy. You don't even need to get off of your fucking computer. go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and do a random search until you land on a philosopher you want to read. Then go to gutenberg.org and I can almost guarantee that any text you want to read by that philosopher is there.


save you the completely wasted time on here.

>> No.5793452

>>5793449

can you show me evidence of books?

>> No.5793457

>>5793449
What the fuck does philosophy have to do with reality? Nobody cares about some hippy's metaphysical opinion.

>> No.5793463

>>5793452
>believes in books
>believes in evidence

>>5793457
>believes in reality

>> No.5793459

>>5793457

My opinion is that Metaphysics is the Philosophy of Science

>> No.5793461

If I'm not an atheist, how can I be euphoric?

>> No.5793465

>>5793461

large dosage of vicodin