/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9719900]

>Optical illusions exist therefore you don't have consciousness

[Anonymous No.9719935]

>>9719900
That guy is a retard who's literally on the level of people who say "hurr I am my brain" and somehow he is still given credit and spotlight time. I don't understand

[Anonymous No.9719938]

>>9719935
Because he gives pop-sci loving millennials the comfort of thinking they're biological robots and therefore not responsible for their shitty lives

[Anonymous No.9719953]

>>9719938
There are seem to be tons of people who say "dude, science is the best because it gives us iphones and stuff" while still acting almost hostile against science that isn't seen as apparently useful by them. "Why waste money researching anti-aging, I wouldn't wanna live forever :)". That's the most absurd view.

[Anonymous No.9719957]

>>9719935
He is le based philosophy man. Everything about him is super-fucking-fancy, and his arguments favor atheism, as he concludes that consciousness exists as a meaningless emergent phenomenon, or even not at all.

If you allow the thought that there is a demand for this sort of message, it's easy to see him as a sophist.

[Anonymous No.9720329]

>>9719957
Why are people so eager to be told they're worthless sacks of meat?

[Anonymous No.9720335]

>>9720329
The fact that you ask that question ought to prompt you to wonder whether you are fairly representing Dennett's position.

[Anonymous No.9720343]

>>9720335
Well he doesn't say it outright but it's an inescapable conclusion of his opinion that humans are nothing more than cellular automata

[Anonymous No.9720363]

>>9720335
What would his position be? Most of his talks are argumentation, and he seems to arrive at free-will compatibility, atheism, and a complete reduction of humanity. If you've seen an atheist before in your life, what value does his position hold?

[Anonymous No.9720367]

>>9719900
"I don't want God to exist, therefore God doesn't exist" -modern athiesm

[Anonymous No.9720381]

>>9719938
>dude, we have souls and like other super majik shit bruv XD evidence is for fags LMAO

>>9720367
>muh book told me some stuff so it must be true
Whoa

[Anonymous No.9720383]

So what is consciousness sci?

[Anonymous No.9720390]

>>9720367
"I want God to exist, therefore God exists" - modern theism

[Anonymous No.9720395]

>>9720383
I doesn't really have a hard definition because it's an empty metaphysical meme.

[Anonymous No.9720398]

>>9720367
"I want god to exist, therefore god exists"-(YOU)

[Anonymous No.9720399]

>>9720381
what evidence do you have for the physical world existing and your conscious experience not existing, brainlet?

[Anonymous No.9720407]

>>9720399
>conscious experience
Define consciousness, nigger.

[Anonymous No.9720414]

>>9720407
define "define"

[Anonymous No.9720415]

>>9720407
The ongoing state of self-awareness and introspection that allows humans to perform advanced mental functions of high level creativity and insight.

[Anonymous No.9720417]

>>9720407
subjective experience, the things your existence comprises of. tell me they don't exist.

[Anonymous No.9720426]

>>9720415
>self-awareness
>introspection
Both empty psychological concepts that are represented by real neurological activity.

>>9720417
>subjective experience
They are still driven by a material brain.
>inb4 u kant kno nuffin everytin iz subjekrive en shiet lmao *posts the mickey mouse memepicture*

[Anonymous No.9720429]

>>9720426
>They are still driven by a material brain.
they're most likely driven by the brain, yeah. we can't know that for sure, but no good reason to think otherwise

but dennett is basically saying those things don't exist. so he's another kind of retard, and you clearly aren't agreeing with him either.

[Anonymous No.9720432]

>>9720426
Not him, but how the fuck is self-awareness and introspection empty? They are concepts that we can recreate in computational models.

>>subjective experience
>They are still driven by a material brain.
Arguably, but why do they exist though?

>>9720429
I think Denett allows for qualia, or the subjective appearance of perception.

[Anonymous No.9720445]

>>9720432
>I think Denett allows for qualia, or the subjective appearance of perception.
he's not very clear on his stance, but a prominent claim of his is that consciousness is "an illusion". which can mean nothing else but something non-existent.

[Anonymous No.9720453]

>>9720445
He certainly does dismiss consciousness as irrelevant and not needing of explanation. I don't think that will satisfy anyone who is not wanting to be told that.

[Anonymous No.9720460]

>>9719900
Does he really think that? Because in regard to consciousness, eyes are just another body part, like arms are. His argument is basically: because my arm can't move beyond a certain angle, I must not have consciousness. All body parts have limits, so just like limbs are limited to a range of angles, eyes are susceptible to illusions.

[Anonymous No.9720462]

>>9720453
yes, and it's not only that it's obviously not something a rational person would want to hear, it also goes against both what we can intuitively sense and deduce through logic.

[Anonymous No.9720464]

>>9720390
>>9720367
You can believe in God without expecting afterlife. I won't say that you two are projecting.

[Anonymous No.9720472]

>>9720390
There is no thing outside of the natural world which did not arrive without a creator. Therefore it is more logical to assume that the universe itself was nade by a creator than that it is the one thing we observe which just arose ordered from nothing. More evidence there is an ultimate creator than that there isnt. If you found a watch in the desert, would you assume there is intelligence nearby, or that 9 trillion years ago ir ezplosed into existence? Niggerite.

[Anonymous No.9720480]

>>9720472
>the one thing we observe which just arose ordered from nothing
what about the natural world?

[Anonymous No.9720488]

>>9720329
This reminds me of when a Christian says, "if God doesn't exist then there's no reason for us to act morally".

And it's not the atheist position that is the most shocking in this case.

[Anonymous No.9720492]

>>9720343
> inescapable conclusion
Stop projecting so hard.

[Anonymous No.9720515]

>>9720460
Most perceptional illusions occur in the mind rather than the eye, though ultimately i agree with your position.
The guy is a hack.

[Anonymous No.9720573]

>>9720460
Here's a video from the horseman of atheism himself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjbWr3ODbAo

He spends more then 2/3 on optical and mental illusions, and says that consciousness is 'a bag of tricks'. It would be a non-sequitur if he actually claimed that he was presenting evidence for the second claim, this way it just seems like smoke and mirrors to me. He is presenting science, and from the title, apparently it leads to the conclusion that consciousness is an illusion.

I've looked into his books a little, and a lot of it is very convoluted, and I don't see it convincing a critical mind that consciousness is actually explained, or an illusion. He does have some quite interesting arguments and facts both in his talks and books, and should not really be that offensive to anyone, thought you might accuse him of obscurantism for the positions he's arguing.

I challenge anyone to tell me that after watching this video, they were convinced that consciousness is an illusion.

[Anonymous No.9720603]

>>9720573
What a waste of time. He really does not even make an argument as to why consciousness would be an "illusion".

[Anonymous No.9721715]

How does Santa think consciousness relates to free will?

[Anonymous No.9721720]

>>9721715
He doesn't believe that either of those exist

[Anonymous No.9721727]

>>9719935
If you think you are anything other than a brain then you are unequivocally a moron. Only evolution is required to see that this is obviously true, though you can pile on the evidence further through studying brain injury and imaging for example.

[Anonymous No.9721729]

>>9719900
This shit always pisses me the fuck off
>dude there are optical illusions so how can we truly know anything lmao
Nah go fuck yourself

[Anonymous No.9721736]

>>9721720
And he's clearly correct.

[Anonymous No.9721737]

>>9721736
I wonder what his reindeer think of all this?

[Anonymous No.9721796]

>>9721736
Maybe in your case

[Anonymous No.9721839]

this guy is too empirically, observation, outward focused.

I know he scoffs at the notion of "free will" and is definitnly a materialist.

but I wonder what he thinks of just the plain old "will" in the schopenhaur, hegelian sense of the word. or the neetch sense.

[Anonymous No.9721846]

>>9719957
This guy sounds like a memelosipher, but actual philosophers who are also evolutionary biologists make very compelling arguments that human conciousness is simply just a far more sophisticated version than that of lower order animals.

I'm also of that belief. However the buck doesn't stop there. Clearly we are an amazing and one of kind (to the best of our knowledge) species as we have the ability to ascribe meaning.

What I tend to disagree with is the undergrad meme segment of 'lol how big is the universe! Really makes you think how obscure we are!!'.

Yeah.. Maybe if you are a proton.. But you aren't a proton. You are a collection of atoms that is original unlike any other organism that can ponder it's own existence. Maybe the only kind in the universe.

Far from insignificant in my opinion.

'the universe is made of stories, not atoms'.

[Anonymous No.9722183]

>>9721839
Pretty sure that's whhat he belives. We want stuff but can't choose what to want.

I'm not sure that's actually compatibilist.

[Anonymous No.9722223]

>>9720573
>it's easy to distract you therefore you have no control over your consciousness

[Anonymous No.9722816]

>>9722223
Point out the flaw.

[Anonymous No.9722849]

>>9719935

>credit and spotlight time. I don't understand

Because "we don't actually know" doesn't sell books.

[Anonymous No.9722882]

>>9719900
>Paradoxes exist so God exists

unironically

[Anonymous No.9723193]

/sci/ is really a bunch of brainlets compared to /lit/ huh? And this is coming from a STEMfag

[Anonymous No.9723570]

[Anonymous No.9723581]

>>9719938
do something random then.

[Anonymous No.9723582]

>>9720432
computational model? citation plz.

[Anonymous No.9723585]

>>9720472
but you get an infinite regress. surely you would say a creator is more complex than a watch. shoouldnt a creator also demand a creator.

i can even put it in your language. we see a watch in the desert. surely it demands a creator. a human. surely that demands a creator too. and so on.

this is no argument.

fool. hahahahahahahahah.

[Anonymous No.9723676]

>>9723585
Oh, but the creator has a creator, that's God-God.

[Anonymous No.9723693]

>>9719953
>I wouldn't wanna live forever
Said no one ever.

[Anonymous No.9723723]

Consciousness essentially lacks free will and is a product of the central nervous system processing information. Things like emotions or pain and such are basically just genes goading consciousness to behave in a way that leads them to reproduction. To come to the conclusion that consciousness literally doesn’t exist from this is retarded, though.

[Anonymous No.9723726]

>>9720329
That’s the truth. People like the truth.

[Anonymous No.9723873]

>>9720343
No, he says it quite directly in at least one lecture. He says, paraphrase, that his entire view can be summed up as "yes, you do have a soul, but it made of a bunch of tiny robots!".

[Anonymous No.9723875]

>>9720445
He's not clear, in part because there's not a clear definition of "qualia" in academia. I suspect Dennett would grant that we have subjective experience, but he would say that this is not the interesting part. The interesting part is how it works, e.g. neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.9723877]

>>9723570
The hard problem of consciousness just isn't interesting. It's like asking "what causes magnetism?". That's not the domain of science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8
The "Hard Problem Of Consciousness" has been carefully phrased to be unanswerable., ot be not a scientific question. Therefore, it's not interesting.

[Anonymous No.9723897]

>>9719938
using that as an excuse for things is retarded but that's true

[Anonymous No.9723899]

>>9719938
>Because he gives pop-sci loving millennials the comfort of thinking they're biological robots
yes

>and therefore not responsible for their shitty lives

No. He says the exact opposite, repeatedly.

[Anonymous No.9724005]

>>9723877
>The hard problem of consciousness just isn't interesting. It's like asking "what causes apples to fall to the Earth?". That's not the domain of science.
I don't see how it is uninteresting. The video you posted doesn't seem to support your point.
Feynman says that what causes magnets to repel is an excellent question.

>"Hard Problem Of Consciousness" ... carefully phrased to be unanswerable ... not a scientific question ... not interesting
The problem would be "What is the explanation for conscious experience". If we were programs running on Intel processors, and we found our schematics, we could say that there is no physical explanation. Or we could find a black box named 'Consciousness'. We would be extremely satisfied with either of those answers.

What do you mean by 'scientific question'? We can hypothetically answer the problem without even defining 'conscious experience'.

>>9723582
diff anon, but I think he's not talking about neuroscience, but introspection in programs. It's not like we can't conceive of a way that a process could have insight into its existence or inner workings.

[Anonymous No.9724021]

>>9724005
>The problem would be "What is the explanation for conscious experience".
An impossible question.

[Anonymous No.9724025]

>>9724021
Why? Do you have proof? If you can say that there can't be no explanation, than that is a good enough answer, though you'd have to prove it.

[Anonymous No.9724033]

>>9724025
I don't have a proof. I'm decently convinced on the subject. No one has ever given me a hypothetical answer to the question.

[Anonymous No.9724038]

>>9720414
This
Definitions at this level are the biggest meme

[Anonymous No.9724063]

>>9723693
people say that a LOT, have you ever been to a "what would you do if you had immortality" escapist threads?

[Anonymous No.9724071]

>>9719900
>Optical illusions exist
yes
>therefore you don't have consciousness
whoa there, Cowboy

[Anonymous No.9724091]

>>9724071
Witness the power of this fully armed and operational Dan Dennett

https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness

[Anonymous No.9724110]

>>9722882
Paradoxes don't exist though.
The famous one about God, the all powerful being that can do anything, creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it first assumes there is a God. (No fedora intended)

The one for robots, "this statement is false" makes no sense because statements are not inherently true.

[Anonymous No.9724601]

>>9723877
What is and isn't the domain of science doesn't get to dictate what's an interesting question. If science isn't interested in questions like "what causes magnetism", then science has lost its fucking way.

The whole thing that makes it interesting is that science doesn't seem to be able to even in principle answer the question, and it challenges the notion of pure Physicalism being able to account for how the world works. It seems what you've done is taken Physicalism to be true a priori, and then therefore taken it as absolute fact that the hard problem is just some semantic trick and not an actual metaphysical, or even epistemological problem.

[Anonymous No.9724676]

>>9724110
I'm talking about ones more significant than some party trick. I posted Godel ffs

[Anonymous No.9724947]

>>9724601
>What is and isn't the domain of science doesn't get to dictate what's an interesting question. If science isn't interested in questions like "what causes magnetism", then science has lost its fucking way.
Well said. I hate these pseudo-science fanatics who aren't interested at all in the pursuit of knowledge, rather than what's "sciencey", productive, or "objective".

[Anonymous No.9725944]

>>9724601
Even on supernaturalism or idealism, etc, there will always be the question, "take your best predictive model of reality - why is reality this way instead of some other way?". That is the sort of question that can never be answered.

[Anonymous No.9725990]

>>9725944
Certainly not with that attitude.

[Anonymous No.9725995]

>>9725990
It's the basic regress argument, aka the Münchhausen trilemma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

[Anonymous No.9726203]

>>9724947
It started with Niels Bohr. Einstein was deeply troubled with what quantum mechanics implied and Bohr's response was "Dude, who cares lol. Those aren't even questions physics is supposed to answer. We're only interested in what works, not why it works" and that strain of anti-intellectualism is still alive today in some circles.

>That is the sort of question that can never be answered.
That doesn't mean it's not an interesting question. The fact that science has devolved into just finding mathematical correlations in nature is an indictment of it. The greats in history, Newton, Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, were all driven by a desire to know the truth, why the universe works the way it does. Einstein famously said his motivation was to "understand the mind of God".

[Anonymous No.9726206]

>>9726203
Yea, and there are certain questions that will remain unanswerable forever. "Why is reality this way instead of some other way?" is a fundamentally unanswerable question. The best that we will ever do is "we have a shitton of evidence for this particular predictive model of reality - it works well".

[Anonymous No.9726214]

>>9726206
>"Why is reality this way instead of some other way?" is a fundamentally unanswerable question.
No it isn't. It's been a core assumption for decades that there is an underlying reason that our universe is the way it is, we just haven't found it yet. I don't see whats to gain by pre-emptively taking a defeatist stance. Even if science can't answer a question you can't say that philosophy won't provide the answer instead.

[Anonymous No.9726227]

>>9726214
The answer isn't even imaginable. Try hitting me with an answer, and I'll just ask "why is that the truth instead of some other truth?'. You fail at epistemology and philosophy of science.

[Anonymous No.9726233]

>>9726227
>"why is that the truth instead of some other truth?'
Because we'll eventually find out some fact that makes it so things couldn't be any other way? I don't know why you can't seem to wrap your head around the idea we might find something fundamental about the way the universe works that makes it's nature inevitable. The idea that we'll find something like that has been an implicit assumption of physics for decades.

[Anonymous No.9726239]

>>9726233
>Because we'll eventually find out some fact that makes it so things couldn't be any other way?
Because there's more than one possible way that the universe can be. It's trivial to imagine ways that the universe can be. Therefore what you posit cannot exist.

[Anonymous No.9726241]

>>9726239
I know this might be shocking for you but what you can imagine has no basis in reality.

[Anonymous No.9726242]

>>9726241
And we're not discussing reality. We're discussing epistemology and philosophy of science.

[Anonymous No.9726247]

>>9726242
We are discussing reality because the entire point is we'll find a mechanism that exists in reality which causes the universe to be the way it is and rules out all other conceivable variations you dumbass.

[Anonymous No.9726249]

>>9726247
>We are discussing reality because the entire point is we'll find a mechanism that exists in reality which causes the universe to be the way it is and rules out all other conceivable variations you dumbass.
Logically impossible.

[Anonymous No.9726251]

>>9726249
Einstein disagrees

[Anonymous No.9726326]

>>9726249
Stupid.

The inability to find ultimate causes does not deter from establishing more granular, nuanced, or general models, and all you Feynman fanboys should stop using it as an excuse.

[Anonymous No.9726328]

>>9726326
We're all for finding better models, with more-basic and more-fundamental explanations. However, clearly my point is that we shouldn't confuse this for a search of "ultimate explanations", which is logically impossible.

[Anonymous No.9726333]

>>9726328
>"ultimate explanations", which is logically impossible.
For science maybe. Looks like religion wins again.

[Anonymous No.9726340]

>>9726333
"Making shit up" doesn't count.

[Anonymous No.9726355]

>>9719938
It's the other way around. Denying that we're 'biological robots' and fleeing into idealism/escapism is not only not being responsible for your shitty life, it's a denial of your life.

[Anonymous No.9726432]

>>9726355
Not really since your assumption that we are biological robots is incorrect. You're the one indulging in escapism by trying to convince yourself you're just an intelligent meatsack.

[Anonymous No.9726457]

>>9726432
>Not really since your assumption that we are biological robots is incorrect.
Not assumption. Conclusion based on solid evidence and reasoning. Ex:
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/

[Anonymous No.9726466]

>>9719900
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7DmA3yWwa6AT5jFXt/zombies-redacted

[Anonymous No.9726616]

>>9719900
He's actually right. Have you ever experienced sensation qua sensation? We just compile a bunch of sensations over time and pepper that with "rational" narratives. Each particular note is just a bit of sensation and the whole is consciousness.

[Anonymous No.9726630]

>>9726457
>http://www.preposterousuniverse.com

[Anonymous No.9728363]

>>9726616
Something being composed of stuff doesn't invalidate it.

[Anonymous No.9728373]

>>9719900

[Anonymous No.9728380]

>>9720390
>>9720472
>>9723585
>>9723726

[Anonymous No.9728384]

>>9723726
You have no idea what truth is, everything you think you know is a lie, your entire identity is built on a lie, you can start here to find the truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXGF9UUGD04&list=PLtFnfSc9NwNzMHGZzPYroNJCPDd4Ymjgf

[Anonymous No.9728387]

>>9728363
Who is invalidating consciousness?

[Anonymous No.9728404]

>>9728387
A bearded and bespectacled convincted serial child rapist.

[Anonymous No.9728409]

>>9724110
>creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it
sounds like satan to me

[Anonymous No.9728422]

>>9728384
stop. you will look at yourself few years from now and it will be really awkward to recall this shit

[Anonymous No.9728441]

>>9728422

[Anonymous No.9728451]

>>9728422
Jesuit, free mason or hebe?

[Anonymous No.9728469]

>>9728404
He's not saying it doesn't exist, it's just not what you think it is.

[Anonymous No.9728471]

>>9728469
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tT6j2lPK6s

[Anonymous No.9728478]

>>9728422
http://www.renegadetribune.com/occult-significance-number-6/

[Anonymous No.9728480]

>>9728471
lmao

[Anonymous No.9728481]

>>9728480
you should have an IQ above double digits to be on this board, just saying perhaps you would do better on /pol/

[Anonymous No.9728492]

>>9728481
I'm just here to ape your genius, I'll go back to spread the good word after you've thoroughly blown my min.

[Anonymous No.9728495]

>>9728492
Cool look but don't touch

[Anonymous No.9728504]

>>9728492
I have time for a couple questions before I crash, no autographs though

[Anonymous No.9728518]

>>9728504
Does consciousness emerge from a field in a way similar to particles emerging from quantum fields? What's the period on rebirth cycles and is there karmic continuity across incarnations?

[Anonymous No.9728527]

>>9728518
Consciousness is the field
>What's the period on rebirth cycles and is there karmic continuity across incarnations?
Interesting question, I doubt there is any math or science that could ever answer this. But obviously your karma effects your rebirth incarnation or else how would explain retardation and other maladies ascended masters etc. The creator is not cruel, the only logical conclusion is you earned whatever you received. Action > reaction

[Anonymous No.9728534]

>>9728527
What is conscious? Just humans? All organisms? Everything with moving parts? Everything?

[Anonymous No.9728535]

>>9728534
Light is conscious so yes everything, at varying levels able to express to that consciousness

[Anonymous No.9728539]

>>9728451
This is the worst of internet culture

[Anonymous No.9728541]

>>9728539
You should have a double digit IQ to be on /sci/

[Anonymous No.9728550]

>>9722223
We have horns too

[Anonymous No.9728552]

>>9728541
Fuck you nigger

[Anonymous No.9728570]

>>9728552

[Anonymous No.9728990]

>>9719900
he looks like a thought zombie lmfao

[Anonymous No.9729641]

>>9724110
A programist can model a 3d spacetime like a game or anything where there is a rock you cannot lift no matter what you do, he can still model anything tho.

[Anonymous No.9729798]

>>9720381
When /sci/ attempts philosophy it's always so painful.

[Anonymous No.9729875]

>>9719900
Legitimate skeptics like Randi are a threat to the CIA's solipsism psyop (Uri Geller). They promote Dennet to implicitly detract from Randi's criticism of CIA funded charlatans. In other words, Dennet is a manufactured straw man for James Randi (a weak atheist).

[Anonymous No.9731575]

>>9729641
He can make the rock, and there is no state in God's universe.