/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9742230]

>The experience of consciousness you are having is simply an illusion
>The experience... you are having...
oh fugg

[Anonymous No.9742241]

imagine being a rationalist talking about phenomenology

[Anonymous No.9742718]

how about you morons stop strawmanning dennett by equating consciousness and experience.

[Anonymous No.9742886]

>optical illusions exist, therefore consciousness doesn't
great job dennett-san

[Anonymous No.9742887]

>Illusion
>By definition, an illusion has to be tricking something
>But the something that's being tricked is an illusion
>The illusion is tricking itself

[Anonymous No.9743514]

>>9742718
>strawmanning
>dennett

[Anonymous No.9743524]

Is he claiming he’s a philosophical zombie, or....?

[Anonymous No.9743528]

i don't understand what the confusion people have about this is.
I think it's because the detractors of this observations are simply too small minded and dimwitted to construct any meaningful criticism, as evidence by this thread.

[Anonymous No.9743531]

>>9742230
>consciousness
not science or math

[Anonymous No.9743542]

I'm going to consciously define consciousness as nothing more than an illusion. No doctor, I don't require medication for psychosis, I'm an intellectual (an illusory one).

[Anonymous No.9743549]

I'm going to unconsciously arrive at the conclusion that my perceived experience of consciousness is illusory. No doctor, I don't require medication for psychosis [comma splice] I'm an intellectual (an illusory one).

[Anonymous No.9743551]

>>9743549

[Anonymous No.9743567]

If his consciousness isn’t real according to him, doesn’t that mean he has the moral value of, like, a rock?

[Anonymous No.9743572]

Reminder that if you're from pol you aren't smart enough to have opinions on this subject or any other. And no, spamming memes, strawmanning and lying doesn't count as arguments outside of your inbred hugbox.

[Anonymous No.9743574]

I'm an illusion, you can't see me *does John Cena hand shake*

[Anonymous No.9743576]

>>9743567
>moral value
lol

[Anonymous No.9743584]

>>9743572
you lack self awareness

[Anonymous No.9743585]

>>9743584
As implied by my first post, you're way too stupid to have any meaningful ideas on who does or doesn't have self-awareness. You need to go back to your containment board, you site-ruining disease.

[Anonymous No.9743587]

>>9743572
t. virgin non-bicameral brainthinker

[Anonymous No.9743591]

>>9743585
take your pills and don't ever reply to me again, you silky smooth mini-mind

[Anonymous No.9743592]

>>9743576
Subjectively speaking. Why should a philosophical zombie be conferred moral value in any ethics system?

[Anonymous No.9743599]

>>9743592
you're deceiving yourself as to what morals are. they are heuristics constructed by individuals and collectives to describe how best to operate in the world. they are heuristics designed for and by people who lack any significant understanding.

you lack the agency to confer anyone or anything "moral value."

I don't think you know what you're trying to argue.

[Anonymous No.9743600]

Can't see me (John Cena)

[Anonymous No.9743634]

>>9743599
I’m interested only in ethics systems that satisfy my conscious and I’m comfortable with. I don’t care about how morals are just a result of being social animals that all have some degree of inhibitions.

[Anonymous No.9743641]

>>9743599
Go eat babies, Mr. Moral Nihilism

[Anonymous No.9743655]

>>9743641
I expected this kind of pea-brained answer.

>>9743634
you're understandably making emotional requirements of your "moral systems." if you want to make decisions based on your emotions, just use your emotions. don't confuse yourself by trying to think about it AND feel about it.

[Anonymous No.9743657]

>>9742718
dennet is a mumbling idiot end of story.
close this thread

[Anonymous No.9743671]

he's a smart guy, but damned if he doesn't say some middle school level shit sometimes.

[Anonymous No.9743686]

I’m interested only in ethics systems that satisfy my conscious and I’m comfortable with. I don’t care about how morals are just a result of being social animals that all have some degree of inhibitions. Because when I multiply the integral into the product of y+ 2, I can hyptothetically arrange the atoms into the equation of the physical field of quantum atoms. As implied by my first post, you're understanding here doesn't have any meaningful ideas on who does or doesn't have self-awareness. You need to reconfigure the objective hypothesis of algebraic functioning. Subjectively speaking only, why should a philosophically confined individual be conferred immoral value in any non-ethically arranged ethics system? You're construing yourself as to what lateral distributions are. When in fact, they are neurotics constructed by individuals and thoerists to describe how to optimally operate in the world. They are also and as well as being are heuristics designed for and by people who are people who do so in a way actually lack any significant understanding of the ideas proposed by the theory such presented to them as that. This is why the experience is wrong and the idea that theories regarding the subject being objective to the proposed thoeries, can in fact, counterintuitively conflict with ideas that have been set against those in that such way. I sincerely regard the way thought of as of today to be the one of which I should choose to have in mind, and so, I choose that as the that.

[Anonymous No.9743718]

>>9743686
big brained post. i really like it.

do you mind if i send this to my friends?

[Anonymous No.9743723]

>>9743718
thanks im practicing "stream of consiousness" writing (wanted to make someone cringe at it)

[Anonymous No.9743789]

>>9743634
>morals are very important
>as long as they agree with my feelings

[Anonymous No.9743850]

>>9743655
>don't confuse yourself by trying to think about it AND feel about it.

Thank you! God! People get so defensive about their fabricated morality systems. Stop trying to make things "objective," or "universal," or "rational," or "consistent."

You know what is right and what is wrong. Let it be inconsistent, irrational, and subjective.

[Anonymous No.9743869]

>>9742230
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7DmA3yWwa6AT5jFXt/zombies-redacted

[Anonymous No.9744022]

>>9742230
Illusion is a bad word for it.
The idea is that qualia in particular aren't actually magical non-physical phantoms that appear to you. It's sufficient for the brain to just get you behaving around the idea that's what's happening. It's the same sort of way a robot behaving in response to information from a mounted camera would work. You could have the robot report audibly about what it's "seeing," but as its creator you'd know it wasn't really "seeing" things so much as responding to stimuli with reports and adjustments in how it moves.
Basically this:
>>9742718

[Anonymous No.9744045]

>>9744022
to be clear, im not an illusionist fan. but morons who make fun of dennett should be shot to death. i bet they take descartes seriously unironically.

[Anonymous No.9744103]

>>9744022
>>9744045
If illusion is a bad word for it then Dennet shouldn't be using it. People "misunderstand" what he means by illusion because he's using the word incorrectly; rather than saying that consciousness is an illusion, he should be saying that consciousness lacks certain qualities that are often attributed to it – that those qualities are illusory, not that consciousness itself is.

[Anonymous No.9744119]

>>9744103
The problem is it's a subtler situation than you're either willing or able to deal with.
We're talking about our own cognition, if you took an extra few seconds to reflect on the implications you'd realize this means language itself will be deeply impacted by how our cognition operates.
Saying "illusion" needs to involve someone having qualia isn't proof qualia exists, it's proof the way we're led to operate in terms of the idea of qualia has predictably left a mark on how we use language, much like how the word "sunrise" isn't proof for geocentrism, it's proof the way the *belief* in geocentrism left a mark on how we use language.
In any event you CAN technically use the word "illusion" in a way that doesn't require asserting the literal reality of "qualia." Google's third definition ("a false idea or belief") for example could work just fine without taking any stance on "qualia" one way or the other.
I personally prefer not to use that word because of people like you, but that doesn't mean it's even necessarily "wrong" to use it in that way. It's just something apt to cause confusion and annoying semantics arguments, that's all.

[Anonymous No.9744317]

>>9744119
>Saying "illusion" needs to involve someone having qualia isn't proof qualia exists
Yes it is and the analogy that follows is a false equivalence.

[Anonymous No.9744332]

>>9744317
>argument by assertion
wrong.

[Anonymous No.9744345]

>>9744119
>Saying "illusion" needs to involve someone having qualia isn't proof qualia exists
Never said that illusion needs to involve qualia, but it does need to involve consciousness.
>I personally prefer not to use that word because of people like you, but that doesn't mean it's even necessarily "wrong" to use it in that way.
No, it's absolutely wrong.
Consider a tribe of people who believe that raindrops are the cloud god's tears. Their belief that this is what raindrops actually are is false and could be called an illusion under your definition, but raindrops themselves could not be called an illusion in any sense because they plainly do exist.
Similarly, if consciousness exists but lacks certain qualities that people believe it has, then the illusion is not consciousness itself but rather the false belief that it possesses those traits.

[Anonymous No.9744840]

>>9744345
Raindrops exist? In what sense? Already there's a problem here because our brains conveniently package phenomena into such categorizations. We don't for instance talk about the phenomenon in terms of fluid dynamics, molecules or fundamental particles. We just invent some idea thats not very close to base reality, but good enough for our limited perceptions.

[Anonymous No.9744894]

>>9744840
the state of qualia believers.