/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 38 KB, 640x480, 1673798826724266.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/cg/ - consciousness general Anonymous Fri Jan 20 13:17:46 2023 No.15138508 [Reply] [Original]

>2023
>the hard problem of consciousness remains unsolved
*sigh*

Alright guys, let's tackle this issue
together and solve it finally.

What we know so far:
>consciousness is non-computable
>consciousness has no measurable physical properties
>the methodology of neuroscience is insufficient to explain consciousness
>quantum effects may or may not play a role, hasn't been decided yet
>eliminative materialism, functionalism and epiphenomenalism have been proven wrong

I think the most promising approach to understanding consciousness will be research into the nature of NPCs. We can easily distinguish an NPC from a conscious being. We need to find an experimentally verifiable explanation to what causes someone to be either NPC or conscious.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 13:18:41 2023 No.15138511 >>15138508 What's the matter, functionalitard? Did someone shit all over you in another thread?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 13:25:17 2023 No.15138521 >>15138511 Thanks for participating in the study as an NPC. Once we have developed a questionnaire you can fill it out and help us figure out why you have no consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 13:27:00 2023 No.15138523 >>15138508 >>consciousness is non-computable prove it

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 13:31:22 2023 No.15138529 >>15138521 >t. butthurt functionalist materialist This was weak-sauce. Next time maybe reference Gödel's proof and post a picture of Putin to poison the well better.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 13:31:34 2023 No.15138530 >>15138523 Free will is a capability of consciousness. Free will is non-computable as proven by that anon who posted the thought experiment combining the halting problem and Newcomb's paradox.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 13:33:52 2023 No.15138536 >>15138529 Noted: The NPC heavily relies on strawmen to hide her lack of critical thinking.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 13:40:17 2023 No.15138545 >>15138529 >male feminist is triggered by picture of top G Many such cases. Sad.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 13:45:23 2023 No.15138563 >>15138508 Just postulating that quantum effects DO NOT affect consciousness in any productive way they are merely foundational effects occurring at the quantum level

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 13:54:26 2023 No.15138592

What exactly is color and where does it exist? In our brain there's only just a symphony of firing neurons that's responding to radiation filtered through our eyes and optic nerve. But we perceive an apple to be red, with a particular shape, so and so meters in front of us. This is just a representation of information, but where does this representation occur. Its correlates are certainly present in our brain but that doesn't explain much about the nature of our visual experience(if So and so type of neural activity paints an object of so and so shape and color, Where's the canvas and paint)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 15:32:07 2023 No.15138758 >>15138508 Want that guy just caught on tape saying he enjoyed assaulting women and now he's going to prison etc

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 15:33:11 2023 No.15138761 There is no hard problem in Idealism - the notion that everything is consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 15:33:35 2023 No.15138763 >>15138508 Wasn't that guy just caught on tape saying he enjoyed assaulting women and now he's going to prison etc

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 15:36:35 2023 No.15138767 >>15138761 Even in solipsism you have to ask yourself where your consciousness comes from and how it works.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 15:36:39 2023 No.15138768 >>15138536 >>15138545 No matter how hard you try, it won't soothe the butthurt of getting stomped in every thread. Materialism is wank and functionalism borders on mental illness. False-flagging won't change that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 15:43:16 2023 No.15138776 >>15138768 You're too desperate today.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 15:44:46 2023 No.15138779 >>15138776 You're extremely desperate every day. Keep getting stomped and keep replying.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 15:50:40 2023 No.15138791 >>15138779 At least I'm having fun.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 15:51:34 2023 No.15138793 File: 147 KB, 888x1274, 23523423.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15138791 Pic related: artist's impression of (You) having fun.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:01:35 2023 No.15138810 >>15138793 Kek

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:05:47 2023 No.15138817

>>15138508
>What we know so far:
>>consciousness is non-computable
>>consciousness has no measurable physical properties
>>the methodology of neuroscience is insufficient to explain consciousness
>>quantum effects may or may not play a role, hasn't been decided yet
>>eliminative materialism, functionalism and epiphenomenalism have been proven wrong
no proofs? post the proofs.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:06:30 2023 No.15138820 >>15138508 How exactly do you “solve” consciousness? What’s so good about that anyway?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:08:48 2023 No.15138824 >>15138820 >How exactly do you “solve” consciousness? person - x = NPC Just solve for x.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:12:31 2023 No.15138832 >>15138824 What if x is synchronization of neuron firing? That doesn’t really solve anything

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:16:19 2023 No.15138840 >>15138817 >>15138511 >>15138521 >>15138536 >>15138545 >>15138768 >>15138767 Consciousness has been mathematically proven already https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610717301207

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:18:03 2023 No.15138843 >>15138832 We observed neurons firing synchronized in NPCs, so that can't be x. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:19:34 2023 No.15138847 >>15138843 What you refer to as NPC’s are just retards with little abstract thought or logical reasoning. They are most likely still conscious

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:21:33 2023 No.15138851 >>15138847 Wrong.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:26:11 2023 No.15138854 If you don't understand the hard problem of consciousness, you don't experience consciousness. Simple as

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:31:42 2023 No.15138865 >>15138840 Nice. I remember a similar paper from some Romanian pajeet writing about his (false) intuition of what a sheaf is after apparently only having read the definition on Wikipedia.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:32:48 2023 No.15138867 >>15138865 I'm curious, how do these people apply sheaves to consciousness?

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:33:37 2023 No.15138869

>>15138840
>quantum reality
>Rāmānuja's version of Vedanta philosophy and non-dual Kashmir Śaivism
>the quantum measurement problem implies that we cannot remove subjective experience from the practice of science.
>Axiom 1: Fundamental Awareness or Consciousness is the total Reality.
>Axiom 2: Category of all un-reified presheaves is total (un-reified) Reality.
imagine slaving away your life dedicated to such bullshit at some institution
they even cite Deepak Chopra lmfao

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:35:18 2023 No.15138873 >>15138869 Debunk it or fuck off, chud.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:37:53 2023 No.15138876 >>15138854 It’s just not a relevant problem though. Even if we somehow solved it completely, there would be no practical uses with that knowledge

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:38:54 2023 No.15138878 >>15138876 disprove that the knowledge we'd aqcuire trying to solve it wouldn't have any practical uses.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:39:12 2023 No.15138879 >>15138876 It's not a problem and there's nothing to solve. It simply highlights the absurdity of materialism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:40:23 2023 No.15138883 >>15138879 >simply highlights the absurdity of materialism No, wrong. Prove it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:41:13 2023 No.15138885 >>15138867 They just do, okay?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:42:54 2023 No.15138888 >>15138521 Maybe he actually has a soul instead muh consernis.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:46:42 2023 No.15138896 >>15138876 You can't be sure about that

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:47:31 2023 No.15138898

>>15138854
>If you don't understand the hard problem of consciousness, you don't experience consciousness.
That's what retards fall back on when illusionist arguments go over their heads. NPCs don't exist outside of thought experiments and you're a seething brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:48:23 2023 No.15138899 >>15138883 Prove what? You sound literally retarded. What do you think "the hard problem of consciousness" means?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:49:31 2023 No.15138901 >>15138899 It means the problem isn't easy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:50:18 2023 No.15138903 >>15138898 Illusionists just sweep everything under the concept of illusion They don't have any explanation other than it's just muh illusion. They can't even define what they mean by illusion lmao

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:51:01 2023 No.15138904 >>15138901 You can't explain what "the hard problem of consciousness" is?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:51:34 2023 No.15138905 >>15138508 Imagine being so pathetic that even an autistic teenage girl can publicly humiliate you for your small dick and then you get arrested for it

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:52:07 2023 No.15138906 >>15138899 >Prove what What would it be, brainlet?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:52:16 2023 No.15138907 >>15138898 Are illusionists just solipists in disguise? With their reasoning they can call literally everything an illusion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:53:33 2023 No.15138909 >>15138904 I can. It's a problem, it's hard and it's about consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:53:54 2023 No.15138910 >>15138530 You can give them free will. Just put them in a strange loop

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:53:57 2023 No.15138911 >>15138824 NPCx, the next generation of the NPC who is too dependent on arbitrary ideals of popsci psychobabble and pseudologic to realize that their programming is arbitrary ideals of popsci psychobabble and pseudologic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:54:13 2023 No.15138913 >>15138898 Even if it's an illusion you have to explain the hard problem of this illusion retard

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:54:42 2023 No.15138915 >>15138905 Greta was arrested too.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:55:40 2023 No.15138917

>>15138767
Idealism isn't solipsism.

The kind of idealism I'm talking about is one in which we are closed of sections of a universal mind that surrounds us. So, reality doesn't take placs in my isolated section of mind, nor in your idolated section of mind.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:56:50 2023 No.15138921

>>15138508
Taking awareness as the fundamental reality "resolves" the hard problem of consciousness simply because consciousness is no longer a problem in Tantric philosophy but an assumption. Each coherent worldview at its core would either be circular or rely on assumptions. Problems are what follows from assumptions, not the assumptions themselves, that's why the problem of consciousness is "solved".

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:56:56 2023 No.15138922 >>15138915 I can tell from your post that your dick is very miniscule

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:57:02 2023 No.15138923 >>15138917 Sounds like distributed solipsism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:58:14 2023 No.15138926 File: 268 KB, 1765x2560, 1674233874254.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15138922

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:58:15 2023 No.15138927 >>15138508 What is the difference between non-computable and unsolvable?

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:58:19 2023 No.15138928

>>15138767
Me again. I responded to your solipsism comment.

If you take consciousness a fundamental, it doesn't need explanation. It is a given that it is the bedrock of reality.

We shpuld try to scientifically model its behavior as you suggest. Some are working on it. Donald Hoffman for instance eith his conscious agent theory.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 16:59:43 2023 No.15138930 >>15138923 What do you mean by that?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:00:06 2023 No.15138931 >>15138926 Except tate and his fans

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:00:10 2023 No.15138932 >>15138592 The canvas is the substrate and the paint is electricity.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:00:18 2023 No.15138934

>>15138928
>If you take consciousness a fundamental, it doesn't need explanation
You're taking something to be fundamental that we don't know anything about. It has as much explanatory value as the argument "God created our universe, what is God? He's fundamental, he created everything", which is none at all.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:01:24 2023 No.15138935 >>15138851 Incorrect.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:01:31 2023 No.15138936 >>15138921 This is the only viable way. Idealism doesn't face the hard problem. People are scared of it because Idealism opens the door to life after death and God.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:01:51 2023 No.15138937 >>15138909 >I can. Then do so in your next post.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:02:12 2023 No.15138938 http://library.lol/main/0C868DA2C714C72E6C9D95C4F1B05E0A

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:03:17 2023 No.15138940 >>15138937 I won't do what you tell me. I have free will.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:04:35 2023 No.15138941

>>15138934
> You're taking something to be fundamental that we don't know anything about.

Consciousness is the only thing you know. Every moment of your life takes place in this subjective field, so your assertion that we don't know anything about it is as wrong as wrong can get.

It is the only known thing, so of course it is reasonable to have it as foundational.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:04:38 2023 No.15138942 >>15138930 It's explained in CTMU. Only high IQ people understand.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:05:55 2023 No.15138947 >>15138940 Thanks for admitting you don't know. Further replies from you will count as evidence of impotent seething.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:06:27 2023 No.15138948 >>15138941 >Consciousness is the only thing you know How do you know that?

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:06:36 2023 No.15138949

>>15138941
>Consciousness is the only thing you know. Every moment of your life takes place in this subjective field, so your assertion that we don't know anything about it is as wrong as wrong can get.
That's like saying you know how the car works just cause you can steer

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:09:30 2023 No.15138953

>>15138948

By specific conscious experiences. The taste of chocolate. The smell of a flower. The pain of a hot stove. These all occur in a field of subjectivity.

Have you not had these experiences? Is there not somethibg there is like to be you? What a ridiculous question.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:10:47 2023 No.15138955 >>15138953 >By specific conscious experiences. The taste of chocolate. The smell of a flower. The pain of a hot stove. These all occur in a field of subjectivity. Literally all of this is explained by chemistry.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:10:56 2023 No.15138956 >>15138953 Sounds like you know a few words in the English language too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:11:22 2023 No.15138958 >>15138949 I'm not talking about function here. I'm talking about what we know truly exists. Consciousness as a metaphysical category is the only thing we know truly know exists.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:12:00 2023 No.15138960

>>15138938
>all of reality consists, essentially, of one universal consciousness. Schopenhauer calls it the ‘will’ to (a) highlight the endogenous character of its original experiential states and (b) account for the dynamism of nature by attributing volitional impetus to these states.
>In its primordial configuration, the will entailed no representations, as there were no individual subjects yet—i.e. no alters of the will. The experiential states of this primordial will did not include perception of a seemingly external world, for there was no such world yet. Instead, they entailed only endogenous feelings. Moreover, the dispositions or impetus inherent to these feelings triggered self-stimulation or self-excitation of the will, which in turn led to the latter’s unfolding into the known universe.
>The primordial impetus of the will is towards self-understanding: it yearns instinctively—i.e. not meta-cognitively—to figure out explicitly what it wills and why. Without self-understanding, the will drowns in the maelstrom of its own unfolding. It is this irresistible impulse that, through self-excitation according to the will’s natural modes, led and still leads to the rise of living organisms: the images of local, dissociative configurations of the will—alters—that seemingly split off from the rest so to be able to contemplate it as object.
>With life, there arose the world as representation—i.e. the image of the will as it presents itself from across a dissociative boundary—which, in turn, enabled re-representation. And because re-representation is the sine qua non of self-understanding, with it the will finally developed the potential for self-understanding that it instinctively seeks.
>The epitome of this development is human beings, capable of many layers of re-representation.
Schizo shit

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:13:23 2023 No.15138963

>>15138955

If you coould explain a single conscious experience with chemistry or physics, we would not be talking about the hard problem of consciousness.

Go on and tell us how material processes must give rise to conscious expetiences, and pick up your 1 million dollar prize money + nobel prize.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:14:59 2023 No.15138966 >>15138963 I would reject the Nobel prize. The Nobel committee is an amoral political organization.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:15:54 2023 No.15138969 >>15138958 All we know is that subjective representation exists in our awareness. That doesn't entail the existence of a bounded metaphysical entity consciousness. We might just be reifying consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:16:48 2023 No.15138971 >>15138873 tl;dr or fuck off with your lazy outsource to some gish gallop of metaphysical bunkum.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:19:07 2023 No.15138976 >>15138971 >tl;dr see the abstract

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:20:08 2023 No.15138980 >>15138958 >MUH CATEGORIES fuck off

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:20:46 2023 No.15138981 >>15138976 I just described the abstract which Is how I know you can't provide a coherent tl;dr of any proof yourself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:21:33 2023 No.15138982 >>15138981 >I just described the abstract Cool, want a medal? You clearly didn't get it.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:23:52 2023 No.15138988

>>15138982
Nether did you which is why you still can't come up with a coherent tl;dr, bunkum isn't meant to be understood, its meant to sound smart with big words that prove nothing because they explain nothing because they mean nothing, just psychobabble and pseudologic.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:25:42 2023 No.15138991

>>15138988
Crazy that people on /sci/ are still incapable of understanding that "no u" is not and never will be an argument. Even so, why the fuck should I put in the effort to explain anything to you given how severely you've butchered the abstract with your "description", shitposter?

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:28:50 2023 No.15138997

Here is my sheaf theory of consciousness
Define the sheaf of consciousness to be the sheaf of self awareness. By the theorem of extreme sheafiness proved by the great mathematician and self explorer Deepak chopra, this means consciousness exists. Checkmate materialists

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:34:56 2023 No.15139009

>>15138991
Crazy that jews are still incapable of understanding that accusing the other person of doing what you intend to keep doing is not and never will make it true.

You just admitted it will take too much effort for you to summarize it, of course you didn't understand it and will never be able to summarize it because it is just a bunch of metaphysical jargon and eastern philosophy virtue signalling which I doubt you even read the abstract yourself or you could have just smugly referenced the name of the bunkum theory like the CTMU guy instead of just saying abstract.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:40:34 2023 No.15139017 >>15138817 Hello sir, where are the proofs please?

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:41:34 2023 No.15139018

ITT pseud retards that want to get their basedence from other psued retards instead of reading a book.
go read some metaphysics about consciousness instead of theorizing like a stoner that just found out about alan watts.
just look up philosophy of mind books that relate to consciousness.
if you're a stemtard, read up on some cognitive science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:43:18 2023 No.15139020 >>15139018 Look another pseudo who likes to "read books" but can't actually summarize anything they read because they just like looking at all the different shapes instead of forming their own thoughts about what they read.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:43:55 2023 No.15139021

>>15138997
After several times of begging chat gpt to give me a sheaf theory of consciousness, he gave me this.

Sure, as a thought experiment here is a fictional "sheaf theory of consciousness":

According to this fictional theory, the mind is seen as a topological space, where different regions of the mind are connected and interact with each other, much like the way different open sets in a topological space are connected. In this theory, different states of consciousness are modeled as different "sheaves" on this topological space, where each sheaf represents a particular way that the regions of the mind are connected and interact with each other.

For example, a sheaf that corresponds to a state of deep sleep might have fewer connections between regions of the mind, while a sheaf corresponding to a state of heightened awareness might have more connections.

It is important to note that this is purely fictional and does not have any scientific basis. It is not a valid theory, it is just a thought experiment. I hope you understand that this is not a real scientific theory but just a play on words, and it should not be taken seriously.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:44:56 2023 No.15139024

>>15138508
is funny how humans including myself try to cope with death by trying to redender consciousness out of phisics and immortal.

i understand were you're coming from because i too have this fear of death, that my consciousness should somehow outlive my physical form
however there is no proof that we're anything beyond a slab of meat

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:48:32 2023 No.15139028 >>15138997 How is that any different than "I think, therefore, I am" simply calling consciousness self awareness without physically explaining either?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:50:10 2023 No.15139034 >>15139028 Are you stupid? I was clearly making fun of attempts to link sheaf theory to consciousness?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:53:28 2023 No.15139039 File: 63 KB, 800x566, greta_thunder__rodrigo_de_matos.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15138926 kek

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:54:37 2023 No.15139040

>>15139034
You were doing a much (much) better job of presenting ideas from that "mathematical proof of consciousness" abstract than the guy who posted it, so I was humoring you in case you were him and he slipped and actually decided to reference something from the article he posted just once.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:57:27 2023 No.15139044

>>15139020
because philosophy of mind and cognitive sciences are for druggies who cannot fathom applied sciences and philosophies.
i pray that you muster up the brain cells to read a book instead of relying on other ADHD zoomer no-book retards.
if you want a retard friendly book on consciousness, read russell's analysis of mind.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2529/2529-h/2529-h.htm
but I know you won't read it because lord forbid that /sci/ reads something instead of getting all their philosophy from youtube.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:59:17 2023 No.15139047 >>15139044 >Russell Into the trash

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 17:59:40 2023 No.15139048 >>15139044 Careful there, some littard might be triggered by the mention of Russell

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 18:01:51 2023 No.15139052

>>15139044
Yes I already pointed out that you are a pseud who "reads books" but can't actually understand and summarize them, not need to provide a bunch of links to books you didn't understand and can't summarize, we already get it, you think you will earn points with all the book pseuds for name dropping some book.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 18:06:15 2023 No.15139059

>>15139052
>"wah wah, put the effort into reading books and explain them for me"
are you one of those lazy retard anti-work redditors that wants shortcuts and zoomer tiktoks explain everything to you?
i don't need to explain shit because it's already in the book and any summarization is going to be reductionist in some way.
you won't read anything anyways because you have the attention span of a hopeless zoomer.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 18:16:11 2023 No.15139076

>>15139059
>are you one of those lazy retard anti-work
No because I am not the one too intellectually lazy to summarize the books I am recommending solely for virtue signalling point because I know I didn't understand anything I read, that is all you pseud.

Any theory is reductionist, you nullifying reductionism is a nullification in any ability to condense consciousness into a communicable form of any kind of coherent theory of mind.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 18:43:59 2023 No.15139138

>>15139076
>Any theory is reductionist
which is why it is prudent to not reduce it further.
any notable philosopher of mind is going to be better at explaining theories of the mind than an average /sci/tard (including myself).
this thread reads like a less fun and more self-serious (yet equally retarded) hofstadter.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 18:50:20 2023 No.15139150

>>15139076
>Any theory is reductionist
Low IQ take.

>you nullifying reductionism is a nullification in any ability to condense consciousness into a communicable form of any kind of coherent theory of mind.
It's not his problem that some things are not amenable to your reductionist reasoning.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 18:55:53 2023 No.15139155

>>15139018
>just look up philosophy of mind books that relate to consciousness.
Holy shit, you're cognitively deficient. Most posters ITT are fully aware of the major theories in philosophy of mind AND why they're easily debunkable crap. Please be underage, I don't want to believe that such naivety exists in an adult.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 19:18:50 2023 No.15139201
File: 76 KB, 850x400, quote-in-the-province-of-the-mind-what-one-believes-to-be-true-either-is-true-or-becomes-true-john-c-lilly-151-99-16 (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15138508
John Lilly is the one who has come closest to solving this problem. Because the observations made with consciousness can be altered by consciousness you have to minimize its influence by minimizing external experience as much as possible. That is how you solve it for yourself. You cannot expect someone else to solve it for you because your own consciousness gets in the way and makes any observation unreliable. You must experiment on your own consciousness' limits, and on what it is capable of imagining. You are not likely to find the answer externally.

Ask yourself in the most sincere way possible how do you know whether the sky is blue or whether you're wearing blue tinted glasses, or whatever argument about your current observation of reality not being reliable one can give(simulation,brain in the vat etc.). Do you have any proof your current level of consciousness is the base and unfiltered one? What have you done to verify this? Yes, I know it's a tired argument but instead of dismissing without thought it like you've always done, do yourself a service for once and test it like Lilly did, like any true scientist would. Reach for the most unfiltered, base level of consciousness you can achieve and make your observations there.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 19:33:01 2023 No.15139234

>>15139138
Not prudent for someone like you who didn't understand what they read and can't encapsulate the information into a post that provides an answer to just some of the basic tenets of the theory.

>>15139150
Concession accepted on point 1, otherwise, of course its not his fault for being a pseudo who can only namedrop and copypaste, being able to reduce the basic premise of someone else's theory would require a functional mind that can actually perform some basic information processing such as context integration or low loss compressive optimization.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 19:39:29 2023 No.15139249 >>15139201 That quote doesn't postulate any theoretical tests or experiments to prove the sky is actually blue or whatever, it basically just says like whoa maaaan I have become sooo euphoric from my deep depp thoughts.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 20:21:26 2023 No.15139355
File: 3.14 MB, 1536x1994, craiyon_163304_vertiginous_question.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15138508
Scientifically, what is the answer to Benj Hellie's vertiginous question? Why am I me and not someone else?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 20:27:01 2023 No.15139365
File: 3.64 MB, 1536x1994, craiyon_152643_quantum_neuroscience.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15138508
>quantum effects may or may not play a role, hasn't been decided yet
Relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nwcbfMHNf8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHhAx3dWyTA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiWGvxjLgo0

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 20:28:11 2023 No.15139368
File: 1.66 MB, 1280x7779, arguing with zombies.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15138508
>We can easily distinguish an NPC from a conscious being.
One way to do this is to ask people if they are conscious or if they think consciousness exists. Daniel Dennett is an obvious NPC.

http://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gvwhQMKvro

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 20:36:12 2023 No.15139384 IS THAT WHO I THINK IT IS?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC0hrqbhx5M I like GM pickups myself Find the teen girls and start talking nasty Wait for somebody to cite me for lewd act

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 21:02:05 2023 No.15139436

>>15138508
>consciousness has no measurable physical properties
it has a measurable effect in that we all know what consciousness is. If it was something completely etherial we wouldn't be discussing it.
This proves that consciousness has an effect on the human thought process, so we can measure it and thus figure out what it is.
See you in a hundred years when neurology progresses far enough for this problem to have a hope of being solved. Until then this discussion is pointless.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 21:05:26 2023 No.15139440

>>15139436
no no no
consciousness has no scientifically measurable properties because that would mean doing human experiments or animal experiments, i.e. it would be immoral evil, not moral science
it is not science that my hand goes up every time I will it to go up
if it were, you would be emboldened to torture me by replicating this "experiment" on demand, which is really just a way of harassing me by forcing me to jump when you say jump

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 21:07:12 2023 No.15139443

>>15139436
so the properties are measurable, they just aren't scientific, because that would mean contaminating science, and that's a no no
we can't let you be evil and create the suspicion that other real scientists doing good experiments are just as bad as you
no no no
not at all
so your so-called "consciousness experiments" are just plain evil, not science
and we're cutting you off as far as "scientific rationalizations" are concerned

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 21:10:22 2023 No.15139448 File: 44 KB, 576x713, 20120715.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 21:11:44 2023 No.15139451

>>15139368
I've been thinking about this.
I'm almost certain for a while now that Isaac Arthur is not conscious.
When talking about what makes a person, he talks of memories and personality but doesn't mention consciousness. I remember him talking about a criminal who replaces his memories with those of an innocent man and vice versa. He then argued that perhaps the innocent man is now guilty as he has the memories of the motive, and of comitting the crime. When discussing mind uploading, he correctly states that simply copying your brain to a digital version wouldn't magically put you in the computer, but the underlying issue escapes his grasp.
How can a man like that be conscious?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 21:17:47 2023 No.15139455 >>15138530 Free will is entirely a matter for philosophy. Consciousness is clearly a physical, material phenomenon which can be studied objectively (even if we currently lack the ability to do so) Let's not mix discussions of one with the other.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 21:26:07 2023 No.15139465
File: 357 KB, 866x686, sitdown.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

the hard problem is unverifiable and irrelevant. If we make an AI that looks, sounds, and acts like it is conscience then we did it. There's always going to be someone saying B-B-BUT U CAN'T KNO FO SHO DOE about anything. I can't say what's actually happening in anyone's head but I can sleep easy knowing that they are conscience beings like me. The hard "why" and how EXACTALLY it functions are always going to be unprovable but that doesn't mean it not's happening and can be explained as any other physical phenomena. My personal hunch is that it's just language. It's just a social tool so that we can better understand the motivations and actions of other people. If language learning becomes sophisticated enough to do the same thing to better understand what it's trying to communicate with then we can say that it's self aware and conscience. Basically in order to have a "you" we must create an "I" as well.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 21:27:15 2023 No.15139468 >>15139465 >the hard problem is unverifiable and irrelevant. Explain what the hard problem is. >If we make an AI that looks, sounds, and acts like it is conscience then we did it Did what?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 21:36:00 2023 No.15139485 >>15139468 he thinks that when a chatbot says "I'm conscious" then it's conscious

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 21:45:52 2023 No.15139511

>>15139365

Quantum processes leading to consciousness does not help solve the hard problem. The hard problem exists because you're trying to bridge something that isn't related to consciousness with consciousness, so If you insert Quantum xyz process, you are left in the same situation - no bridge between that and what it is like to be in that experience.

Any material explanation, whether it be quantum or not, will just reach that abyss between that which is not consciousness and consciousness.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 21:50:45 2023 No.15139525

>>15138508
Tell me, when the wave function collapses do the measurements that didn't take place just disappear? If not then I say we work on isekaing a volunteer retard over the event horizon with a prototype communication device. We need data. All of this mental masturbation is getting us nowhere.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 21:51:10 2023 No.15139528 File: 57 KB, 1665x1162, the_hard_problem.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Basically, picrel.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 21:54:21 2023 No.15139535 >>15139528 That's not the hard problem. The hard problem is that you can't have a testable theory for the origins of something you have no direct physical evidence for.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 21:59:03 2023 No.15139558 >>15139528 >no conection between the two autist you wanna see consciousness affect shit in the material world? Here you go: consciousness I know that consciousness is a thing, clearly consciousness has produced a measurable effect on my mind.

Anonymous Fri Jan 20 22:32:45 2023 No.15139632
File: 882 KB, 2817x2117, Brian Tomasik.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15139451
>Isaac Arthur
There are a lot of people like this who are examples of this sort of thing. Brian Tomasik might be another person who isn't conscious.

https://longtermrisk.org/the-eliminativist-approach-to-consciousness/#Denying_consciousness_altogether

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 22:51:56 2023 No.15139668 >>15139039 Is Andrew Tate the villain of the story? https://youtu.be/pVzYS3Ga_j8

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 20 22:53:10 2023 No.15139672 File: 444 KB, 1789x3116, andrew tate cars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15139039 Is Andrew Tate the villain of the story? https://youtu.be/pVzYS3Ga_j8

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 04:39:18 2023 No.15140331 >>15139368 So a chatbot becomes conscious ass soon as it can tell you it is? You don't even need AI, a modified Hello World program could do that.

>>	bodhi Sat Jan 21 06:19:47 2023 No.15140441 >>15138521 you arent supposed to tell the subject what you are testing for it will skew the results. tell him he is super galaxy brain smart and you want to try to figure out he got his galaxy brain with your questionnaire

>>	bodhi Sat Jan 21 06:41:44 2023 No.15140453 >>15138960 makes perfect sense to me, my money is on you are just stupid so you cant understand it

bodhi Sat Jan 21 06:49:58 2023 No.15140461

>>15139024
I am much more afraid of being a prisoner in a simulation I cant escape for eternity to some being who is in control of the simulation and can do whatever they want to me without me knowing if said being is benevolent or malevolent than I am of dying and it all being over. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

The conclusions I came to (and men far more intelligent than you or I) were based on science you apparently arent smart enough to understand, yours on the other hand are just shit you are making up on the fly, making yourself look like an idiot. But hey, you likely are an idiot so it is what it is I guess. tks for the gem of wisdom DUMBlewhore

bodhi Sat Jan 21 06:56:59 2023 No.15140467

>>15139465
Ai runs code moron. Why cant anyone but CS chads understand this? Computers can never think for themselves THEY CAN ONLY RUN CODE, that is "instructions" for you mental midgets. They can only make binary decisions within parameters set by someone else fucking pseuds. Hell it is arguable whether humans can even think for themselves or only run code

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 07:33:46 2023 No.15140502 >>15138876 If we understood consciousness there's a possibility we could engineer it and make it more intense or more broad. Just speculation though

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 08:04:45 2023 No.15140530 >>15140502 Just eat some shrooms. It's clearly not supposed to be any more intense or more broad than it is normally.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 10:41:10 2023 No.15140706 >>15140453 So the what exactly are the will's natural modes?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 10:42:25 2023 No.15140708 >>15140461 You don't understand anything, you are just rambling into the abyss out of fear like everyone else around here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 10:52:15 2023 No.15140723 >>15138508 >consciousness has no measurable physical properties then how can i even think i am conscious? my neurons need to get that information from somewhere

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 11:10:01 2023 No.15140744 >>15140723 >then how can i even think i am conscious? immeasurably >my neurons Neurons aren't measurement devices.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 11:21:13 2023 No.15140757

>>15140744
not sure i follow
i know i am conscious; that information is processed by my neurons, they must receive it from somewhere (potentially other neurons)
>neurons arent measurement devices
the point is they integrate input through physical means

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 11:48:48 2023 No.15140796

>>15140757
>i know i am conscious
Unless you are programmed to assume as much.

> that information is processed by my neurons
Unless it is generated by your neurons randomly firing as a result of some random event or mutation.

>the point is they integrate input through physical means
That doesn't mean they are measuring anything, they could just be chaotically firing and forming ad hoc networks of largely self-generated information.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 12:01:25 2023 No.15140827

>>15140796
>Unless it is generated by your neurons randomly firing as a result of some random event or mutation.
on the level of neuron populations the effects of noise average out

>That doesn't mean they are measuring anything, they could just be chaotically firing and forming ad hoc networks of largely self-generated information.
they dont have to measure anything, where did this idea of measurement come from?
i dont want to argue about this specifically, but i am operating under the belief that excitatory neurons in the cortex act as detectors
the information could be random, but then you would not expect others to report that they are also conscious

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 12:10:20 2023 No.15140847

>>15140827
>on the level of neuron populations the effects of noise average out
Unless the noise is the entire basis of the network.

>where did this idea of measurement come from?
Its how this reply chain began.
>>15140723

>but then you would not expect others to report that they are also conscious
No, you would expect some random amount of them to claim they are, a random amount to claim they aren't, a random amount that doesn't know, a random amount that give some indecipherable answer, and a random amount that admits they don't understand the question at all.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 12:24:29 2023 No.15140881

>>15140847
>Unless the noise is the entire basis of the network.
i doubt, the brain has multiple ways in which noise is removed, such as:
- feedforward inhibition
- feedback inhibition
- spikes, not real-time values (though this saves energy too)
when it comes to neurons spiking late or early due to noise, that actually does average out

>Its how this reply chain began.
right, but the neurons themselves dont need to measure anything necessarily, im saying that something measurable may be physically there

>No, you would expect some random amount of them to claim they are, a random amount to claim they aren't, a random amount that doesn't know, a random amount that give some indecipherable answer, and a random amount that admits they don't understand the question at all.
i am conscious in that there is 'something' looking through my eyes that does not appear to exist when i am sleeping (excluding dreams)

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 12:40:36 2023 No.15140924

>>15140881
Those processes are simply ways to make sure they are trying to crystallize the first noise signals they generated.

>im saying that something measurable
Yet I notice you aren't trying to say consciousness is measurable anymore.

> there is 'something' looking through my eyes that does not appear to exist when i am sleeping
Oh, so you are a drug addict who sleeps with their eyes open, no wonder your easily refutable questions sound like something a crackhead came up with.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 12:53:01 2023 No.15140957

>>15140924
>Those processes are simply ways to make sure they are trying to crystallize the first noise signals they generated.
what does that even mean? if not for your other messages i would call you GPT

>Yet I notice you aren't trying to say consciousness is measurable anymore.
all this time i thought we were having a discussion, not an argument... oh well
lets look through what i actually said:
>then how can i even think i am conscious? my neurons need to get that information from somewhere
>i know i am conscious; that information is processed by my neurons, they must receive it from somewhere (potentially other neurons)
>the point is they integrate input through physical means
what does "conscious being measurable" even mean? im stating that because our brains know they are conscious, that information must have a source, and that source is physical and measurable

>Oh, so you are a drug addict who sleeps with their eyes open, no wonder your easily refutable questions sound like something a crackhead came up with.
i havent even drunk alcohol for a month, are you just unable to process abstract concepts?

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 12:56:06 2023 No.15140964

>>15138903
>>15138907
>>15138913
And the willfully ignorant brainlets come out of the woodwork. Do the effort to understand the things you criticize and stop embarrassing yourselves. Do you seriously think that you deserve to feel superior because you managed to understand something so blatantly trivial as the Hard Problem? Get a clue, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 13:04:57 2023 No.15140982

>>15140957
>what does that even mean?
Confirmation bias.

>we were having a discussion
Yes we were until you took issue with the fact that consciousness isn't completely measurable.

>because our brains know they are conscious, that information must have a source
So if a GPT says it is conscious that must be true?

>unable to process
Nope just know that if you are sleeping without closing your eyes so that you can't see things, you are probably addicted to drugs because that is a common symptom of drug addiction.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 13:07:27 2023 No.15140988 >>15140964 Your post is an illusion.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 13:13:53 2023 No.15141012

>>15140982
>Confirmation bias.
i dont follow

>Yes we were until you took issue with the fact that consciousness isn't completely measurable.
>>15140723 was my first reply in this thread
i didnt say consciousness is completely measurable
i initially responded to the claim that consciousness has NO measurable properties

>So if a GPT says it is conscious that must be true?
different problem, i have no way to know if you are conscious, i simply assume you are since i am

>Nope just know that if you are sleeping without closing your eyes so that you can't see things, you are probably addicted to drugs because that is a common symptom of drug addiction.
i never said i sleep without closing my eyes?
this whole discussion feels like youre reading some corrupted version of every message, i said there is 'something' looking through my eyes that disappears when i am... unconscious; that 'something' is my consciousness

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 13:28:19 2023 No.15141037
File: 122 KB, 640x788, erwin-schrodinger subjective consciousness.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15138523
>>15138523
The burden of proof would be on you give a particular input or brain state that produces a particular thought in a repeatedly demonstrable and objectively verifiable way. You can't. Why? because unlike physical things, conscious experience is first person and subjective. Worse for you, we are talking about coding not just for a particular thought or experience, we are talking about producing and EXPERIENCER ITSELF to to experience the experience. Explain how meat computation creates an experiencer.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 13:35:14 2023 No.15141052
File: 669 KB, 2403x1785, The neural binding problem(s).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15138523
worse for you with regard to this
>>15141037
You have things like the neural problem(s), see pic, specifically this
>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information.
There is no such neural circuitry which exists that could even encode even just one element of the CONTENT of consciousness, let alone how this content gets transmitted to the observer to experience. On top of that, you need to explain how neural circuitry creates the observer to present the experience of the content in the first place. How do you create the medium of consciousness in the first place?

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 13:43:11 2023 No.15141060

>>15140796
>Unless you are programmed to assume as much
What does that even mean? What does it even mean to code for somebody 'assuming they are consciousness'. You don't have to assume shit. If you get punched in the nose, it hurts. To assert someone can assume they are conscious but be wrong is an incoherent assertion. You are even conscious in dreams.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 13:43:35 2023 No.15141062 >>15138763 Something like that, last I saw about it was that he was arrested for human trafficking.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 13:50:16 2023 No.15141075
File: 459 KB, 2630x1502, simulatable consciousness Quant herm page 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15140502
>If we understood consciousness there's a possibility we could engineer
No, you couldn't. You might be able to SIMULATE certain things consciousness DOES, like reasoning, or some of the CONTENT that is EXPERIENCED by a consciousness, but by definition a simulation of consciousness can never be consciousness itself. Virtual things can't support consciousness see pic. In before
>the room itself is consciousness.
No, it isn't. Read the actual searle paper, He addresses this. This just kicks the can down the road.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 13:59:19 2023 No.15141102
File: 52 KB, 250x250, 1674008411283715.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15141037
>Explain how meat computation creates an experiencer.
It doesn't
>but i'm really, really strongly biased to believe i'm experiencing my experience
Yeah, I know (inb4 how can I know)
Don't worry about it big guy

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:03:12 2023 No.15141114

>>15139525
>Tell me, when the wave function collapses do the measurements that didn't take place just disappear?
They don't have to disappear. They are not defined values in spacetime. The wave function doesn't exist in the universe. A hilbert space in not in the universe with defined values like classical position and momentum. There is no wave function floating around somewhere as a physical object in spacetime. It's an inferential tool used to make predictions .

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:09:41 2023 No.15141123

>>15141102
>but i'm really, really strongly biased to believe i'm experiencing my experience
This is irrelevant. If you are experiencing your experience or not is not something you have to infer. The SOURCE of the experience can be doubted, ie is it coming from the goings on inside an observer independent material brain in an observer independent head of an observer independent body in an observer independent universe, is it an idealist situation, where consciousness is fundamental, ect. You can't doubt the fact that you are consciousness though. Doubting is something you have to be conscious to do. It's a thought. Thoughts require consciousness. Durr.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:11:26 2023 No.15141127

>>15141012
>i dont follow
It describes the tendency of brains to use the first signal as a calibration point for all future signals.

>i initially responded to the claim that consciousness has NO measurable properties
You responded without mentioning any metrics of consciousness that can actually be measured, you just asserted that since consciousness makes you conscious, firing neurons are a result of consciousness, but neurons don't measure or transmit consciousness. they often just fire off randomly and they are located all over the body, not just the brain, the heart has more neural density than some parts of the brain.

> i said there is 'something' looking through my eyes that disappears
No, if you sleep with your eyes closed like a normal non drug addicted person, then nothing disappeared, you just closed your eyes and everything looks like it disappears, are you an infant lacking object permanency or something you haven't figured this out yet?

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:12:14 2023 No.15141129

reminder time doesn't exist, a lot of things don't exist but they exist in our minds which is non-physical space

>>15141052
exactly i can instantly conjure in my mind an entire original scene with characters and have them act, a complete fictional history of events and i see it in my mind. Important this is instant faster than a computer can process.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:12:57 2023 No.15141131 >>15138508 Who is in Your Soul Family and What is Their Purpose? \| Stephanie Kraft https://youtu.be/1ebIq979ilY

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:14:12 2023 No.15141136

>>15141123
>You can't doubt the fact that you are consciousness though. Doubting is something you have to be conscious to do. It's a thought. Thoughts require consciousness. Durr.
I'm skeptical of how that experience presents itself to me as a fact, seems like some tyrannical drive is trying to meme the rest of my body into believing it runs things

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:21:04 2023 No.15141153

>>15141060
>If you get punched in the nose, it hurts.
Not necessarily, there are plenty of tricks to overcome pain.

>To assert someone can assume they are conscious but be wrong is an incoherent assertion
while (Iamconscious==true)printf("I am conscious");
So that loop is conscious because it says so based on the feedback of some arbitrary softward variable?
Dreaming is specifically defined as brain activity that occurs while in an unconscious state, you can't be conscious and unconscious at the same time law of excluded middle.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:22:20 2023 No.15141157

>>15138592
I read this and now I am more convinced of the computation hypothesis. You are basically describing a simulation, that's exactly what a computer can do. It takes input, does something with it, saves it and gives an output if you want. That's what the human mind is doing essentially. You are not really asking about consciousness, you are asking about the concept of a thing. Like why do we know an apple from a frog, both are just atoms.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:22:45 2023 No.15141159 >>15141153 thats just how you subjectively feel pain, some people like pain

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:24:37 2023 No.15141166 >>15141157 t. babies first understanding of the brain, the brain does non-computational things so therefore can not be a computer and a computer cannot simulate it. Which means the universe is also not a simulation.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:26:13 2023 No.15141170

>>15141075
The guy is not going to pass the test and be able to accurately communicate in chinese with the outside until he can decipher chinese well enough to actually translate what he is reading and the process of repeatedly deciphering another language until you can do it quickly enough to show you intuitively understand what you are deciphering is called learning.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:27:43 2023 No.15141173 >>15141129 If time doesn't exist, why do you have to use time dependent words like history, events, faster, process to describe your existence?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:27:59 2023 No.15141174 File: 426 KB, 451x619, hmm.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15141159 >thats just how you subjectively feel pain, some people like pain Yes, how does the fact girls like being spanked and tickled fit into this? Are girls subjectivitistists?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:28:52 2023 No.15141177 >>15141159 Some people can numb themselves and don't feel pain if they need to not feel pain.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:30:35 2023 No.15141179 >>15141173 cause we made it up

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:30:59 2023 No.15141181 >>15141177 My uncle was like this

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:32:55 2023 No.15141187

>>15141153
>Not necessarily, there are plenty of tricks to overcome pain.
Irrelevant as this anon said
>>15141159
You have to experience the pain and be conscious of the pain to be able to feel it in the first place. Otherwise you wouldn't have to even overcome it. Unconscious things don't have to overcome pain because pain is a QUALITY of CONSCIOUSNESS. So this has nothing to do with the ability to first, even be able to code for creating an experiencer and second, being able to code for somebody 'assuming they are consciousness' while in fact not being conscious. Assuming is something consciousnesses do. to assume you are OR to assume you are NOT conscious both require being ACTUALLY conscious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:33:38 2023 No.15141191 >>15141181 There are surgeons teaching techniques like that to their patients so they can perform waking operations that would benefit from sober feedback without anesthetics or sedation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:34:43 2023 No.15141195 >>15141187 >Irrelevant as this anon said If anyone can be numb instead of in pain after getting punched in the face, it directly disproves anons claim that everyone will feel pain when punched.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:35:55 2023 No.15141197 >>15141173 >anons says time only exists in our minds >they conjure an scene in their mind Gee i dunno why would the thing made up in our minds be in our minds

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:37:10 2023 No.15141199

>>15141187
>You have to experience the pain and be conscious of the pain to be able to feel it in the first place.
No, you can just experience a sensation and feel it as something different than pain.

>Assuming is something consciousnesses do
No, light assumes it can travel at the speed of light and it doesn't claim to be conscious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:41:50 2023 No.15141211 to experience pain as good you need to metaphysically discuss the issue in your head to ascertain its a good pain Like goal setting, walking a journey barefoot is painful but you set the goal to do it. A computer cant do this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:42:54 2023 No.15141213 >>15141173 >>15141197 >YEARS of TIME and yet no use found for going higher than yearly CROP CYCLES >"Yes please give me 1 SECOND of time" Statements dreamed up by the utterly Deranged

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:48:55 2023 No.15141227
File: 1.38 MB, 3840x2160, non-physical consciousness-Erwin-Schr-dinger-Quote-Consciousness-cannot-be-accounted-for-in copy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15141170
>The guy is not going to pass the test and be able to accurately communicate in chinese with the outside until he can decipher chinese well enough to actually translate what he is reading and the process of repeatedly deciphering another language until you can do it quickly enough to show you intuitively understand what you are deciphering is called learning
First, you are appealing to an already consciousness entity being able to learn when the question at hand is can consciousness emerge from a non-conscious process. So this is a false argument for the computational theory of mind and for emergent consciousness in general. This is not entirely your fault though. This is a function of the argument itself not being strong enough. It appeals to an already conscious entity doing the procedure. Second, and the reason your argument fails still, even in the weaker sense, you have no evidence that just by symbol shunting, the human conscious would some how learn chinese. Have you ever taken a chinese college course as a non-chinese person? If not. I have. Let me tell you, even given semantic and syntactic instruction, this is still very difficult. To assert that just by syntactic symbol shunting, an already conscious person could learn chinese is a claim you have no evidence for, and you CERTAINLY have no claim that organic human-like consciousness could emerge from a non-conscious procedure is absolutely not something you have evidence of and you are just begging the question.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 14:54:14 2023 No.15141244
File: 79 KB, 850x400, quote-the-mechanical-brain-does-not-secrete-thought-as-the-liver-does-bile-as-the-earlier-norbert-wiener-108-49-43.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15141170
I constructed this sentence wrong here
>>15141227
>To assert that just by syntactic symbol shunting, an already conscious person could learn chinese is a claim you have no evidence for, and you CERTAINLY have no claim that organic human-like consciousness could emerge from a non-conscious procedure is absolutely not something you have evidence of and you are just begging the question.
It should read
To assert that just by syntactic symbol shunting, an already conscious person could learn chinese is a claim you have no evidence for, and you CERTAINLY have no evidence that organic human-like consciousness could emerge from a non-conscious procedure. This is something you have evidence for and you are just begging the question.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 15:11:36 2023 No.15141277

>>15141227
>>15141244
>when the question at hand is can consciousness emerge from a non-conscious process.
You are the one who brought up the chinese room metaphor that includes two conscious entities to somehow prove that it can apply to non-conscious trickery, if it didn't apply to the conversation at hand you shouldn't have brought it up, but think about why I specifically invoked the word learning.

>you have no evidence that just by symbol shunting, the human conscious would some how learn chinese.
Except he isn't the only one involved, he is also accurately translating the information along the way, and if he wasn't accurately passing along information the chinese person would not validate his translation, so the validation from someone verified to understand the symbol serves as proof that there was consistent recognition of the meaning of the symbols. Its like saying you can have a coin sorter that accurately sorts coins without understanding which coin goes where, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter and can't even be determined how understanding comes into play if it produces the same functions as understanding in the end.

I will admit they might not understand as well as a native speaker, but if they can correctly sort the symbols to the standard of the native speaker they have directly demonstrated a level of understanding of the symbolism.

>Organic
So consciousness must be a specific type of material called organic? Which metrics of consciousness consist of organic units again?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 15:12:43 2023 No.15141285 >>15141277 >material

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 15:14:03 2023 No.15141291 >>15141157 Sure but the problem Where's the display in our mind. There's only neural information.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 15:19:05 2023 No.15141305 >>15141291 its not in our mind, its tapping into the universe

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 15:19:51 2023 No.15141307

>>15141285
Yes, organic specifically means organic material, its impossible to form organs without organic material in biological form and your argument is only technically sound because it is impossible for non organic material to be organic material, it is not necessarily related to the amount of consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 15:23:51 2023 No.15141317 >>15141307 our brains are made of elements

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 15:30:39 2023 No.15141336
File: 35 KB, 850x400, 70e015d86207fda7d4b0b863601ca86e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15141170
Notice also with regard to these
>>15141075
>>15141227
>>15141244
That also, we are not just talking about learning. We already there exists ways for using non-conscious
>data and algorithms to imitate the way that humans learn, gradually improving its accuracy
I will just use this concise definition of machine learning from IBM. We know that this exists. The assertion is that if you do this the right way, that a consciousness to EXPERIENCE the the learning and KNOW and UNDERSTAND that there is an entity with identity over time doing this, will somehow emerge from this non-qualitative and solely quantitative data and process. So there is a substantial, essential, and QUALITATIVE element to the issue as well. Can you create the MEDIUM of consciousness 'in' which the experience OF the learning occurs? Not just mimic some of the goings on in consciousness or what a consciousness does or the CONTENT which is presented to observer. There are even worse problems for you as well. Like meta consciousness. By the way, brains are things only ever experienced as mental objects in minds, as are physical computers. It's very strange to start from something (a brain) made of something we never experience (observer independent matter outside of consciousness) to derive as a first principle the one thing we DO have experience of (consciousness) as opposed to deriving matter from exactly what as we observe it as, namely as an object of mind, a mental object.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 15:33:14 2023 No.15141346

>>15141317
So are processors, but they aren't organic, you sneakily tried to shift the argument from conscious to organic as if nobody would notice and just because something is not organic will never be organic doesn't mean that you can't build consciousness from non-conscious precursors and, in fact, if you are saying that only organic things can be conscious, then consciousness must be composed of non-conscious materials such as a network of organs containing nerve cells.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 15:42:39 2023 No.15141369

>>15141336
With regard, all things must be virtual before they can be realized, without the potential for existence, it couldn't possibly exist, you have to have an idea before you have a product and you can fake it until you make it or someone else helps you make it, it happens all the time.

>non-qualitative
Its literally called machine LANGUAGE, programmers are trained to communicate in programming languages and code, code inherently being a quantitative rather than qualitative existence.

>brains are things only ever experienced as mental objects in minds,
Brains aren't the only organs people possess, if neurons are responsible, even the skin is packed with neurons as is every part of the nervous system and all the organs. I don't know about you and why you are so focused on just the brain, but I don't experience myself as a brain, experience seems to be as a whole, not as a sum of parts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 15:55:36 2023 No.15141404 >>15141346 or the mind is made up of non-material. Hence its amazing properties

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 15:59:16 2023 No.15141414
File: 25 KB, 660x360, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15141277
>You are the one who brought up the chinese room metaphor that includes two conscious entities to somehow prove that it can apply to non-conscious trickery
Yes, I stand by that as well, I just think it's not strong enough. I see why he did it though. You can't appeal to another UNCONSCIOUS entity doing the symbol manipulating because the idea is to appeal to us already conscious beings if this process that we all can relate to would create understanding. He had to use the human.
>Except he isn't the only one involved, he is also accurately translating the information along the way, and if he wasn't accurately passing along information the chinese person would not validate his translation, so the validation from someone verified to understand the symbol serves as proof that there was consistent recognition of the meaning of the symbols
Yeah, so you are just appealing to more already consciousness entities. The idea is that consciousness can not emerge from UNCONSCIOUS processing.
>Its like saying you can have a coin sorter that accurately sorts coins without understanding which coin goes where, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter and can't even be determined how understanding comes into play if it produces the same functions as understanding in the end.
No, it's not like that. The man in the room is conscious already. We are talking about if a MEDIUM which all of this takes place in can emerge just by executing some syntactic shuffling AND can our type of qualitative and semantic understanding emerge 'IN' (consciousness has no position or momentum or these physical quantities, I must still use location words like 'in' still though because of flaws in language) a consciousness by syntactic symbol shunting.
>So consciousness must be a specific type of material called organic?
Consciousness IS the the material. Matter is a form of mental object which is only ever observed in minds. I will have to continue in the next post.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 16:06:50 2023 No.15141432 >>15138508 >consciousness general >OP's image is that of a non-sentient creature Wdhmbt?

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 16:23:27 2023 No.15141474

>>15141414
>Yes, I stand by that as well,
Then why couldn't I invoke it without you saying it isn't valid?

Since he used humans and we know humans learn symbolic meaning through repeated use and validation from natural users of the symbols, he is just describing a shitty way to teach chinese to a prisoner.

>The idea is that consciousness can not emerge from UNCONSCIOUS processing.
Machine learning doesn't simply emerge from unconscious processing, it is consciously imparted and tested through training and information from highly functioning conscious entities.

>can our type of qualitative and semantic understanding emerge 'IN'
What is the difference between awareness emerging from it and it being consistently and repeatedly able to demonstrate awareness of the symbolic meanings to the same degree as the most highly functioning conscious entity you are aware of?

Consciousness is ill defined and mind/body duality is not falsifiable of course the language of it is flawed and you have no way to distinguish consciousness from an exact replication of consciousness.

>Consciousness IS the the material
Then everything is conscious and your talk of non-conscious material is nonsense.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 16:23:58 2023 No.15141477

>>15141277
>Which metrics of consciousness consist of organic units again?
There are no physical metrics of consciousness in terms of observables like position or momentum. This should be your first clue that consciousness is fundamental and doesn't have it's seat not 'in' some brain. The brain has it's seat in mind. What you are asserting is that mental objects called physical computers which, like all experience ever experienced ever by any human , have only ever been experienced as a virtual (informational) datastream rendered in minds, will someday have emergent within them thier own mental sensual/experiencial data stream to be experienced in their own medium of mind. I am asserting that you have no evidence of an experiencer emerging from such a thing along with a meaningful and semantical experience.
>I will admit they might not understand as well as a native speaker, but if they can correctly sort the symbols to the standard of the native speaker they have directly demonstrated a level of understanding of the symbolism
No evidence that there is any understanding. Just as the guy didn't understand chinese after correctly symbol shunting. Nothing semantical in any of that. Nothing that says that there is the QUALITY of understanding or the FEELING of understandment. Understanding is a quality of consciousness, not a function. And beyond that, no evidence of creating the medium 'in' which the understanding takes place, ie consciousness. You will never be able to demonstrate this.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 16:38:11 2023 No.15141515

>>15141477
>What you are asserting is that mental objects called physical computers
Also other people since you claimed that all matter is just a mental projection and other people are experienced as eternal matter rather than another part of your mind and if consciousness can emerge in them, then it can just as well emerge from what ever other matter you imbue with consciousness because consciousness is the base material of everything in your scenario.

Most babies were first experienced as virtual objects since kids are generally taught the process before it happens and naming the baby comes before delivering a baby.

> Just as the guy didn't understand chinese after correctly symbol shunting.
Not according to the native speaker who was able to directly validate a demonstration of the correct meaning of the symbols by the prisoner being taught chinese very inefficiently.

> Nothing that says that there is the QUALITY of understanding or the FEELING of understandment.
There is no way for you to confirm that you experience the exact same quality or feeling of anything compared to other conscious entities other than symbol shunting or everyone would all naturally like the same things and have the same goals and there would be no need for symbols such as language, it would be experienced directly rather than communicated symbolically.

You will never be able to demonstrate that the way you see blue is the same way some other conscious entity sees blue, you can only communicate through symbols and correct consistent usage of the symbols is all you need to infer that they know how to use the symbols correctly in the same manner as yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 16:41:42 2023 No.15141525 >>15141515 >eternal matter *external matter

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 16:50:46 2023 No.15141548

>>15141474
>Then why couldn't I invoke it without you saying it isn't valid?
For one, you haven't even proved that the man would have the qualitative and meaningful (semantical) experience of understanding. You appealed to the idea that he would somehow just start being able to understand chinese without showing evidence of this. And you CERTAINLY didn't make a case that an UNCONSCIOUS process has a qualitative and semantical experience of understanding and KNOWING and feeling that it understands.
>Since he used humans and we know humans learn symbolic meaning through repeated use and validation from natural users of the symbols, he is just describing a shitty way to teach chinese to a prisoner.
A CONSCIOUS prisoner though. We are talking about if the consciousness that we have or the prisoner ALREADY has in terms of having the medium that the whole experiencial data stream is rendered to/in, ie consciousness, can emerge from manipulating symbols in some what. This is what you need to do. You can't. Not because you are not smart enough. You seem to have a decent grasp on the concept. Many intelligent people, such as the Gödel, Escher, Bach guy also have the same wrong opinion as you. He has a very hand wavy idea of why physicalism must be true as well. The problem is that you guys have the backward pre-supposition of physicalism, as I put it here
>>15141336
>It's very strange to start from something (a brain) made of something we never experience (observer independent matter outside of consciousness) to derive as a first principle the one thing we DO have experience of (consciousness) as opposed to deriving matter from exactly what as we observe it as, namely as an object of mind, a mental object.
Planck, for one, was on to this. Nearly all of the founding fathers of QM were.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 17:07:37 2023 No.15141575

>>15141548
>you haven't even proved that the man would have the qualitative and meaningful (semantical) experience of understanding.
A native speaker validated their qualitative and meaningful use of the semantics and it would take randomness beyond reason for someone to have a complete accurate meaningful conversation by complete random accident without understanding the response sequence.

>We are talking about if the consciousness that we have or the prisoner ALREADY has in terms of having the medium that the whole experiencial data stream is rendered to/in, ie consciousness, can emerge from manipulating symbols in some what.
No, the direct question posed was about whether the understanding of a foreign language be developed by a prisoner forced to sort through chinese symbols until a native speaker validates their correct usage of the symbols and I think if the prisoner gets to the point that it can match symbols to meaning at the standard of native speaker's assessment, then the prisoner has successfully learned chinese, it doesn't have to have anything to do with consciousness even though you can use it as a metaphor, but you keep confusing the metaphor for consciousness with the actual thought experiment and then scolding me if I humor you and also try to apply it to a discussion of consciousness.

>He has a very hand wavy idea of why physicalism
Kind of like how you have a very hand wavy idea of other people's consciousness basically calling yourself some big mind guy that projects the rest of us as mere matter for you to think about occasionally?

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 17:26:02 2023 No.15141623

>>15141515
>Also other people since you claimed that all matter is just a mental projection
It's not a claim. It's a fact, unless you can prove otherwise. Give an example of how any experiment could ever be set up to prove otherwise.Experiments are devised in consciousnesses. The the data is collected through the experiencial data stream rendered to consciousnesses. the experiments are observed as sensual data streams in the medium of consciousnesses. ALL human experience of matter from womb till tomb is a consciousness based experience.
>and other people are experienced as eternal matter rather than another part of your mind and if consciousness can emerge in them, then it can just as well emerge from what ever other matter you imbue with consciousness because consciousness is the base material of everything in your scenario.
I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. Maybe you misspelled a couple of words.
>Not according to the native speaker who was able to directly validate a demonstration of the correct meaning of the symbols by the prisoner being taught chinese very inefficiently.
The question is not whether the output was correct. I think you mis-understood the experiment. The question was about UNDERSTANDING the input and output, not just outputing the right answer based on the shapes of the characters. You can output the right answer without UNDERSTANDING. You can learn the right thing to output without UNDERSTANDING the language in other words. Read the actual paper. It's granted that the correct output is verified.

>>	bodhi Sat Jan 21 17:38:16 2023 No.15141658 >>15140708 stop projecting and screeching you childish gimp. grow up pathetic sack of shit

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 17:45:08 2023 No.15141679

>>15141575
>A native speaker validated their qualitative and meaningful use of the semantics
The question is not whether the native speaker understood the meaning. The question is whether the man in the room did. Symbols have no inherent semantic meaning. The meaning takes place in minds. It's qualitative. Outputting the right answer in terms of of just matching one shape to another doesn't mean you UNDERSTAND the semantic implications of the symbol.
>a prisoner
There is no prisoner in the paper by searle. This makes me think you haven't even read the paper
>No, the direct question posed was about whether the understanding of a foreign language be developed by a prisoner forced to sort through chinese symbols until a native speaker validates their correct usage of the symbols and I think if the prisoner gets to the point that it can match symbols to meaning at the standard of native speaker's assessment, then the prisoner has successfully learned chinese
The question is about UNDERSTANDING. Outputting the correct answer doesn't imply understanding what the formal symbol means. Try reading the paper.
>Kind of like how you have a very hand wavy idea of other people's consciousness basically calling yourself some big mind guy that projects the rest of us as mere matter for you to think about occasionally?
This doesn't have anything to do with the matter at hand. Try actually reading searle's paper and understanding what the chinese room experiment is even arguing about. It's not about returning the right output. It's about the conscious understanding of the input and output. You don't have to semantically understand symbols to functionally map the right input to the right output. Symbols don't even have any inherent meaning and the man in the room is never even given access to the meanings of the words. There's no glossary in the room.

bodhi Sat Jan 21 17:45:40 2023 No.15141681

>>15140706
>what is God's motivation and emotional state/make up
Well gee idk my guy, it appears shop is explaining that using logic making his best guess based on his observations of what he has created. I have written articles myself asking these questions and answering them in the same manner, but in the end we are only guessing obviously. They are educated guesses backed with supporting evidence, but guesses none the less in the end.

1. https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe
2. https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-part-2

read them in that order

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 17:53:14 2023 No.15141697

>>15141623
>unless you can prove otherwise.
The burden is on you to prove I am just your mental projection, as an experiment that is not just a thought experiment, If you were mentally projecting everyone else, you could tell me what brand of computer I am using and the other thing I am watching while doing it and if you have to cope with some higher consciousness that would just mean you aren't actual consciousness and you can't actually validate your own consciousness with the primary axiom of your system being that it was suppose to be the only thing you can validate.

>I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say here.
I specifically corrected eternal in the first reply to the post you are quoting.

>I think you mis-understood the experiment. The question was about UNDERSTANDING the input and output, not just outputing the right answer based on the shapes of the characters.
Consistent correct usage is the demonstration of understanding and if the even native speakers validate the prisoner's understanding, that is the highest standard of assessing s understanding his understanding possible and provides the exact function of understanding if the input and output results are mutually consistent.

> It's granted that the correct output is verified.
Yes and if correct language use is mutually consistently demonstrated between the two, it means the two have developed an understanding, the alignment process of inducing or certifying proper use of language is called learning or (educating (ie certification (aka accreditation))) and doing it forcefully to a prisoner is not the best way for them to learn, but if they pass the demonstration of understanding language test with flying colors, why should they not be credited for their correct usage of the language?

bodhi Sat Jan 21 17:55:36 2023 No.15141707

>>15140706
I will say, if I had to guess, I would say we are the imperfect reflection of the platonic form of the highest being, "brahman" or "mind", in God's image so, I know most religitards won't like this, but I would imagine God motivations and emotions are very much like our own as they all come from him. He has a sense of humor, infinite love and conversely ...... a great capacity for cruelty. It is much like how people in movies shit their pants when they realize the AI can "feel" (see sphere)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GLDqvA6tKI

great book btw, you should read it

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 18:00:04 2023 No.15141726

>>15141679
>The question is whether the man in the room did.
Which man, the one who clearly demonstrated that he did as well as any other native speaker could have?

>Symbols don't even have any inherent meaning and the man in the room is never even given access to the meanings of the words. There's no glossary in the room.
Right, he learned the language through trial and error and nothing else to do but be a prisoner who had to solve the meaning to earn commissary privileges or freedom or whatever from his chinese captors.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 18:16:04 2023 No.15141767
File: 422 KB, 922x1792, The Chinese Room.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15141697
>The burden is on you to prove I am just your mental projection
Such a thing can't be 'proved'. The problem of other minds is intractable no matter if you are a materialist or an idealist or a dualist.
> If you were mentally projecting everyone else, you could tell me what brand of computer I am using
You misunderstand what idealism is. It doesn't imply that everything is one person's mind. It implies that everything is essentially of a mental nature. Your experience and my experience and every other humans ever was experienced as a mental experience. That's a fact. It doesn't imply that I would have omniscience.
>you can't actually validate your own consciousness with the primary axiom of your system being that it was suppose to be the only thing you can validate
I don't have to validate my consciousness to myself. If I wasn't conscious I wouldn't even be able to consider the matter in the first place. It's self evident.
>Consistent correct usage is the demonstration of understanding
No, it is not.
See pic from the actual paper. The guy doesn't understand chinese. He has the instructions (program) which are written in english. The chinese characters are just forms which to him have no meaning either as input nor is and understanding of meaning gained as he outputs them. He is able to output the right answer based on his understanding of the operation to be conducted which is expressed in english.
>Now suppose further that after this first batch of Chinese writing I am given a second batch of Chinese script together with a set of rules for correlating the second batch with the first batch. The rules are in English, and I understand these rules as well as any other native speaker of English. They enable me to correlate one set of formal symbols with another set of formal symbols, and all that 'formal' means here is that I can identify the symbols entirely by their shapes.
ect

bodhi Sat Jan 21 18:17:27 2023 No.15141771

>shit their pants
Which is what this what this childish gimp is doing and projecting btw >>15140708

I came to my peace on the subject a long time ago. We are trapped here, rats in a cage, whether we like it or not. Your solace at having come to this realization is that the sim is interactive and there are hacks. But there are dangers in this as well, again read sphere it explores this in depth. But ..... there are advantages as well. We may be able to run our own sim someday (see elder scrolls)
https://esotericawakening.com/elder-scrolls-lore-of-the-mysteries

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 18:24:10 2023 No.15141784

>>15141726
>hich man, the one who clearly demonstrated that he did
No, he did't clearly demonstrate that. See here
>>15141767
The only reason he could output the right answer is because the instructions were in english. The chinese characters were only ever just shapes (forms) to him. He didn't have to understand chinese to understand the program of to output the right shapes.
>Right, he learned the language through trial and error and nothing else
He didn't learn the language. And there was no trial and error. He gave the correct output based on english instruction. You have never even read the paper you fucking goofball. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are trying to defeat the argument without having read the paper.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 18:28:30 2023 No.15141793

>>15138508
>I think the most promising approach to understanding consciousness will be research into the nature of NPCs

>the most promising approach to understanding consciousness will be researching the p-zombie phenomenon

You went full retard there, never go full retard, pseudo-intellectual drivel

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 18:29:24 2023 No.15141799 It's pretty easy. If consciousness is just made up of atoms, etc. like everything else why can't we recreate it? And if it isn't when why do some people who suffer brain trauma change their personalities? Answer those 2 questions and it's solved

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 18:33:29 2023 No.15141810

>>15141767
>Such a thing can't be 'proved'
I am sure there are other ways besides the test I laid out.

>You misunderstand what idealism is.
No you forget that the entire basis of your argument about minds is that you personally know you have a mind, but if your mind is just some mental trick of a higher power, your mind is a lie and you have no merit in the basis of any mind theory you were to surmise based on your initial assumption which turned out to be a lie. If some other mental superpower with true consciousness can imbue you with a false projected consciousness, then it can imbue anything it wants with consciousness and any AI or even a much simpler loop can be more conscious than you if that is how true consciousness projects it.

> I am given a second batch of Chinese script together with a set of rules for correlating the second batch with the first batch.
That is called translation, he is just describing a glossary with fancy pompous words,

>all that 'formal' means here is that I can identify the symbols entirely by their shapes.
That is called interpretation.

As for the pic it clearly says he is locked in a room, so he is a prisoner and he is just dissociative and has a bias against admitting he has been coerced into learning chinese by force and trying to sound smart in english to virtue signal his pride in english and disdain for chinese.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 18:34:42 2023 No.15141814 >>15139436 >it has a measurable effect in that we all know what consciousness is Ok What is it? Define conciousness Holy fuck when will mods finally kich this entire subjest to /x/ where it fucking belongs ffs

>>	bodhi Sat Jan 21 18:47:24 2023 No.15141838 >>15141814 you can go to >>>/lgbt/ any time. no one is forcing you to screech like a spastic retard here. do you lack agency as well as intelligence golem?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 18:48:41 2023 No.15141842 >>15141814 Not him, but Consciousness is the ability to demonstrate subjective awareness by making accurate predictions and intentional manipulations of one's environment.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 18:49:54 2023 No.15141847 But WHAT is consciousness? Your "personality" or your "soul"? Your self-awareness? Your ability to feel pain? How is that any different than your ability to read or walk?

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 18:51:46 2023 No.15141854

Consciousness is an internally manifested sensory-based representation of the world outside our skin boundary. It's an emergent property of the trillions of compartmentalized creatures that make us "the self". It's fun to think of it as a wavelength, but that's an abstraction. Consciousness is not an actual invisible force that persists like some fantasy novel. We mistake the fingerprint it leaves in the material world for some kind of grand unified "energy".

The universe is god by the way.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 18:53:44 2023 No.15141860

>>15141810
>I am sure there are other ways besides the test I laid out.
You didn't lay out shit. The problem of other minds can't be defeated. The consciousness can simulate other consciousnesses and present them to the observer (dream characters) in a consciousness based datastream (dream). There's no reason that couldn't be the case in the more persistent waking reality.
>but if your mind is just some mental trick of a higher power, your mind is a lie and you have no merit in the basis of any mind theory you were to surmise based on your initial assumption which turned out to be a lie
Bullshit. The source of the experience is irrelevant to whether I am HAVING THE EXPERIENCE or not. I said that here already
>>15141123
>The SOURCE of the experience can be doubted, ie is it coming from the goings on inside an observer independent material brain in an observer independent head of an observer independent body in an observer independent universe, is it an idealist situation, where consciousness is fundamental, ect. You can't doubt the fact that you are consciousness though. Doubting is something you have to be conscious to do. It's a thought. Thoughts require consciousness.
There's no way to doubt if one's self is conscious. It's a self defeating statement. You have to be conscious to doubt.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 18:55:56 2023 No.15141868 >>15141854 Why would a god need a universe and why does the universe obscure the existence of gods?

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 18:56:25 2023 No.15141870

>>15138508
>consciousness has no measurable physical properties
So it's something that exists outside of the material world that you're magically imbued with when you're born? Where was it before? And where does it go after you die? It just floats in some astral plane?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 18:57:56 2023 No.15141876 >>15141814 >define consciousness The ability to collapse wave functions. Equivalently: The unique solution to the equation "NPC + x = human being".

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 19:00:10 2023 No.15141882

>>15141854
>Consciousness is an internally manifested sensory-based representation of the world outside our skin boundary. It's an emergent property of the trillions of compartmentalized creatures that make us "the self".
Nice premise. Now give the technical details. No ones interreted in you basic bitch question begging presupposition of 'consciousness is created by the brain because consciousness is created by the brain'. There's no need in even chiming in with this circular low IQ intervention. Explain HOW 'trillions of compartmentalized creatures' add up to one unified consciousness and how these creature present the experience to the observer. Read pic related here first though
>>15141052
specifically this
>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information.
The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry.
THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE IS THUS INCONSISTANT WITH NEURAL CIRCUITRY

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 19:00:44 2023 No.15141884

>>15141868
You're starting with god whereas I'm starting with the universe. Using the "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent" rule of thumb, the universe - the extent of all things observed and postulated between the edge of the visible universe and smallest detected particles - fulfills all of those things.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 19:04:02 2023 No.15141892

>>15141860
>The problem of other minds can't be defeated
The postulate you made where you know you are conscious (can't be denied) and are the only one who can prove consciousness to yourself which means you know that everyone else is a mental projection of your consciousness is easily testable and you will never pass because it obviously isn't true when your next claim is that your consciousness is actually some trick of some true consciousness.

> The source of the experience is irrelevant to whether I am HAVING THE EXPERIENCE or not. I said that here already
It is definitely relevant if the source is a mischievous higher power successfully performing some mentally projection trick to entertain itself.

>There's no way to doubt if one's self is conscious.
You raised doubt when you introduced the ability of some truly conscious higher being to mentally project simulated consciousness that is indistinguishable to the real thing.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 19:04:26 2023 No.15141893

>>15141810
>That is called translation
No shit you absolute idiot. The argument is NOT about translation. It's about conscious understanding of chinese. There are no definitions of the chinese words given to the man at any point in the thought experiment. So where and how does the understanding of chinese possibly enter into the situation?

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 19:08:56 2023 No.15141905

>>15141884
Yes because god is a self contained eternal entity with the 3 permanent properties you introduced while the universe is transient and enigmatic.

Why would god need continuous change if it is the form of eternal perfection and why is the universe dependent of observation and prone to loss if has all the same exact properties as god?

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 19:14:28 2023 No.15141919

>>15141893
>There are no definitions of the chinese words given to the man at any point in the thought experiment
Yes there is a script that tells how to interpret them and as a prisoner being forced to do it, he just can't mentally accept his enslavement even though he is obviously demonstrating his translation and interpretation abilities. Is there any real difference between a translator and performing the identical function of a translator without understanding translation? Could you deny this man a translators license if he passes all the tests needed to demonstrate that he understands how to translate?

>So where and how does the understanding of chinese possibly enter into the situation?
In the prison through his enslavement to be a certified as a chinese translator which is a trauma that has induced a dissociative state with "job".

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 19:18:10 2023 No.15141929 >>15141876 >t. know less about q physics than pop-sci midwit normie Any interaction collapses wave function you retard And x=critical thinking +common sense

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 21 19:20:43 2023 No.15141935 >>15138508 OP hasn't read a single book on the topic.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 19:23:56 2023 No.15141940

>>15141892
>the postulate you made where you know you are conscious (can't be denied) and are the only one who can prove consciousness to yourself which means you know that everyone else is a mental projection of your consciousness
I didn't make that claim you idiot. I am not arguing for solipsism. I am arguing for the fact that the only way ANYONE, not just me, experiences the world is through the medium of mind. Matter and the physical world are mental objects. Prove or give evidence that this is not the case. You can't.
>It is definitely relevant if the source is a mischievous higher power successfully performing some mentally projection trick to entertain itself.
I am not even arguing that there is some mischievous anything jackass. I am arguing that I am having a conscious experience. I am conscious. That fact can't be doubted. If you want to doubt that you are conscious, fine. It's a self defeating argument though, since you have to be conscious to doubt something. You seem just stupid enough to atempt though.
>You raised doubt when you introduced the ability of some truly conscious higher being to mentally project simulated consciousness that is indistinguishable to the real thing
No, I didn't raise doubt of if I am having a conscious experience. This is a self defeating idea. You have to be conscious to doubt consciousness.
>Yes there is a script that tells how to interpret them and as a prisoner being forced to do it
No, this is some experiment in your own mind. It boils down to this
IF presented with this formal symbol that you don't understand
THEN hand this other symbol that you don't understand to the native chinese speaker outside the room
At no point is there understanding of chinese in any of that.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 19:44:47 2023 No.15141986

>>15141940
>I am arguing for the fact that the only way ANYONE, not just me, experiences the world is through the medium of mind.
Yes by defining the medium of the mind as the only way anyone can experience the world, circular reasoning.

>Matter and the physical world are mental objects.
Nonsense, your mental projections are more dependent on matter and the physical world than matter and the physical world are dependent on your mental projections and you have proven no link between subjectivity being subjective and objectivity not being objective.

If you can't phase into my body and give me your experience, then I am not just your projection, I am independent of your silly assumed mental projections and being independent infers separate bodies which indicates parallel experiences rather than anyone projecting everyone else.

>I am conscious.
Exactly, you are merely conscious of some events and characteristics of the outside world, you are not manifesting external projections, especially all of them you are not even mentally aware of and you have no way to prove otherwise because it is outside the scope of your conscious awareness so you invoke some subconscious or external meta awareness to justify the claim that the physical world is a conscious projection that only invalidates your own experience and ability to infer other consciousnesses in the end.

>I didn't raise doubt of if I am having a conscious experience
You raised doubt that physical reality is a result of your conscious experience rather than your conscious experience being dependent on some external reality.

>No, this is some experiment in your own mind.
The mind is where dissociation occurs which is why the prisoner's mind is so dissociated from the induced trauma of slavery that he can't even admit he fluently speaks with his captors in their own native language.

>At no point is there understanding of chinese in any of that.
Its at the point where he can consistently provide the correct response.

Anonymous Sat Jan 21 23:11:38 2023 No.15142510

>>15141127
>It describes the tendency of brains to use the first signal as a calibration point for all future signals.
without already extant higher-level cognition, this tendency is extremely limited in the cortex (though this is exactly what the hippocampus does)

>... you said firing neurons are a result of consciousness, but neurons don't measure or transmit consciousness. they often just fire off randomly
you misunderstand
i did not say neurons measure or transmit consciousness.
neurons often spike randomly, this noise averages out within populations of neurons.
the representation of consciousness physically exists because i am able to think i am conscious.
a representation here is an active set of neurons which code for different aspects of a concept.
understanding how this representation developed will shed light on physical properties of consciousness.

>... the heart has more neural density than some parts of the brain
the type of neuron and structure is relevant here, of the ~100 billion neurons in your brain ~20 billion are cortical, and ~50 billion are in your cerebellum.
the cortex is almost exclusively responsible for higher level cognition, though organ transplants can change personality.

>... you just closed your eyes and everything looks like it disappears
youre trolling, right?
ill spell it out for you in case youre not:
1. closing your eyes does not mean you are sleeping (i can open and close my eyes without sleeping)
2. closing your eyes does not make you unconscious (i can open and close my eyes without losing consciousness)
3. you are unconscious during certain phases of sleep
4. when i am unconscious, this 'something' that existed when i was conscious (my consciousness) disappears

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 22 01:02:42 2023 No.15142697 >>15140467 >Hell it is arguable whether humans can even think for themselves or only run code and that's the thing, isn't it? so why is it so hard to believe computers can have self awareness too

Anonymous Sun Jan 22 01:07:52 2023 No.15142710

>>15142510
>when i am unconscious, this 'something' that existed when i was conscious (my consciousness) disappears
No, when you close your eyes, most of your conscious awareness of your surroundings disappear as your vision become obscured, you are just resting and so is your responsiveness, you can dream in this state there is no total loss since you can also be awoken by light, heat, noise, smell. any sensation and sometimes even just perceived sensations can startle you into awakening into a greater level of awareness, there is no disappearance only reduction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 22 01:09:02 2023 No.15142714 >>15142697 Not to mention that AI doesn't just run code, it self modifies the structure of its own code.

Anonymous Sun Jan 22 01:15:27 2023 No.15142726
File: 470 KB, 1159x769, physics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

consciousness was already solved
there is a hyperdimensional mind over matter consciousness field
ufos use it to levitate, astral project, and teleport just like people can when they meditate
you can also use telepathy, manifestation, and other abilities
there is a big synthetic telepathy program using AI
UFOs use electromagnetic gravitics and zero-point energy
it's all electromagnetic manipulations

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 22 01:17:24 2023 No.15142731 >>15142710 i somewhat agree, but we are arguing over a definition here what do you think about anesthetic?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 22 01:27:57 2023 No.15142744 >>15142731 Nothing to do, nowhere to go, oh, I wanna be sedated.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 22 13:39:00 2023 No.15143786 >>15142726 I want to believe it. Source?

Anonymous Sun Jan 22 18:50:22 2023 No.15144541

>>15138854
>If you haven't studied anatomy/sports/martial arts, you must not have a body
Your preferred mental gymnastics is disgusting. It's a fragment of religion. You've ruined it by isolating it. The first defence is to deny the prompt, and your response is to dehumanize. Your response isn't proportionate. You did the grown-up version of:
> Your game is stupid! I won't play with you
> Well, I won't care if you die

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 22 19:44:40 2023 No.15144668 >>15144541 Wrong and absurd analogy detected. You are obviously an NPC who doesn't understand the hard problem.

Anonymous Sun Jan 22 19:55:38 2023 No.15144698

>>15141052
>>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information.
>There is no such neural circuitry which exists that could even encode even just one element of the CONTENT of consciousness, let alone how this content gets transmitted to the observer to experience. On top of that, you need to explain how neural circuitry creates the observer to present the experience of the content in the first place. How do you create the medium of consciousness in the first place?
It could be spread out over the brain. It could be encoded in a way they simply haven't been able to decode yet. It could be such that only certain parts are visible depending on where attention is. They haven't found the equivalent of a .jpg on a memory card, doesn't mean there is no neural representation of it at all.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 22 19:58:54 2023 No.15144705 One thing I find astounding is that NPCs don't jut fail to understand the hard problem, they are outright enthusiastic in denying whatever humanity they could have and that everything is an illusion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 23 06:20:31 2023 No.15145992 File: 271 KB, 1400x2220, stalking-the-wild-pendulum-9780892812028_hr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] this thread is shit and I really wish that weren't the case

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 23 07:59:46 2023 No.15146084 >>15138508 There is no hard problem of consciousness, because there is no consciousness. Any observation you will ever be able to make will tell you that brains are nothing but bags of chemicals. There is no room for consciousness.

Anonymous Mon Jan 23 08:06:34 2023 No.15146093
File: 568 KB, 800x472, 352434.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15144705
>they are outright enthusiastic in denying whatever humanity they could have
This. That's a key observation. Take any dehumanizing view or agenda and you'll find the exact same people foaming at the mouth and straiting to defend it at all costs. It's not about some intellectual disagreement. These "people" are programmed to demoralize others.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 23 17:24:26 2023 No.15146976 >>15144705 What no spirituality does to a mf

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 23 20:22:19 2023 No.15147608 >consciousness has no measurable physical properties >there is no measurable property of wetness Hard Problem of Wetness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 23 20:23:27 2023 No.15147617 >>15147608 When she's wet my dick slips in more easily. There, it's measurable.

Anonymous Mon Jan 23 21:38:16 2023 No.15147915

>>15146093
Materialism is heavily pushed by Israeli "thinkers" like Yuval Noah Hararri. He has recently made videos on the subject of consciousness assuming materialism is true.

If you let go of the incoherence of materialism, you can find deep meaning in a superior worldview. I don't think these people want you to reach that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 23 21:40:04 2023 No.15147930 >>15146084 I feel bad for you. This is self-denial. Consciousness is all you have.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 23 21:44:41 2023 No.15147962 >>15147915 >Materialism is heavily pushed by Israeli "thinkers" like Yuval Noah Hararri. Literally who? I guess we only export this stuff for golem consumption. lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 23 21:51:11 2023 No.15148002 >>15138508 >metaphysics well well well, looks like the materialists have hit an invisible wall.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 23 22:13:42 2023 No.15148105 >>15141814 >what is it me, I'm consciousness. if you need to ask this then you're clearly not conscious. Cheer up, at least that means nothing will be lost when you die.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 23 22:36:06 2023 No.15148187 >>15138508 The NPC may have some form of zombie-like consciousness on a rudimentary level, there may not be significant insights to be gleamed upon study, therefore this thread may be a wasted effort.

Anonymous Mon Jan 23 22:42:44 2023 No.15148208

>>15148105
I don't get why people are obtuse about it. You are stuck in it day in and day out. Consciousness is the field if subjective states. The taste of chocolate can arise in the field. The smell of a flower can arise in the field. The burn of a stove can arise in the field, etc.

It is the only thing you have ever known and will ever know. I can't stand "people" who are obtuse about the most obvious thing of all.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 07:19:20 2023 No.15149258 >>15148002 Metaphysics? Sorry, philosophy chud. The hard problem is a SCIENCE question.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 07:29:36 2023 No.15149270 >>15141771 >read sphere https://youtu.be/KNjFkMJbDq0?t=611

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 08:13:14 2023 No.15149310 File: 309 KB, 800x1249, daniel dennett hard problem solver.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15141814 t. Daniel Dennett

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 09:15:16 2023 No.15149382 >>15138508 The problem lies in the fact that we have a dualistic identity. Living as an NPC is a sorry life, but living as an agent is even worse.

Anonymous Tue Jan 24 09:37:29 2023 No.15149424

>>15149382
No, the problem lies in the fact that human's reach exceeds their grasp and you desire a way to justify being some sort of demigod that transcends your apparent material nature, but all efforts to naturally communicate it falls apart and relies on over 9000 layers of analogy and metaphor while generations of people die trying to realize that the exact same pretext of divinity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 09:38:19 2023 No.15149426 >>15149424 It's so funny to watch insane drones like you lash out.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 09:42:27 2023 No.15149432 >>15149426 Those are objective facts lashing out is when you start appealing to emotions and using a bunch of derogatory names and trying to ridicule some other position instead of address its content, funnyman.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 09:44:13 2023 No.15149436 >>15149432 You're literally losing your mind.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 09:47:09 2023 No.15149443 >>15149436 Sure right after you solve consciousness and the soul in just two more weeks, chuckles.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 09:48:24 2023 No.15149444 >>15149443 See? Fully psychotic. Every single one of your replies is incongruent with the posts you're responding to. What is it about the word "consciousness" that makes nonsentients like you devolve into violent hysteria?

Anonymous Tue Jan 24 09:53:25 2023 No.15149450
File: 237 KB, 987x1280, body-scientific-international-anatomy-of-the-muscular-system-laminated-wall-chart-with-digital-download-code__87144.1603827379.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15149444
By gosh, you are right, man has lost the mind, so why don't you help out and point out on this anatomy chart where man's "mind" is, maybe if we goes looking for it one more time we will find his consciousness and soul too while we are at it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 09:55:14 2023 No.15149455 >>15149450 >psychosis intensifies

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 09:57:21 2023 No.15149458 >>15144705 >>15146093 >>15146976 >>15147915 >>15147930 >>15148002 >>15148105 >>15148187 >>15149382 >>15149426 >>15149436 look at him go! Kind of sad now that everyone has learnt to just ignore you. Have some (you)s.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 09:59:17 2023 No.15149461 File: 13 KB, 798x330, 5123.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15149458 See? You are mentally ill. There's no way around it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 10:01:30 2023 No.15149467 >>15149461 aw it's a circle jerk, even sadder

Anonymous Tue Jan 24 10:01:40 2023 No.15149468

>>15149455
You are always worried about psychosis because you can't actually find this imaginary mind that is so important to your fake identity.
You will never find the mind, consciousness, or any other stand in for the soul, you are just a piece of rotting meat like everyone else, you are not special and you will fail to point out the mind or any other kind of soul on the chart until the day you die just like everyone else has failed for countless generations, so you will just have to cope by calling people who point this out derogatory names from your tiny little database of real mean names.

Anonymous Tue Jan 24 10:03:09 2023 No.15149469
File: 197 KB, 1440x810, nikola.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15143786
Source is your inner wisdom. We are all attuned to the Light. Cultivate your wisdom through meditation, yoga, and proper breathwork. I have personally been able to see in monochrome while meditating and control its duration and intensity at will. Also read Eureka by Edgar Allan Poe. He presaged a majority of scientific theories that are considered fact now. Einstein was influenced by him. https://baltimorepostexaminer.com/edgar-allan-poe-albert-einstein-greatest-thinker-time/2013/12/28

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 10:08:03 2023 No.15149476 >>15149467 It's at least 4 different posters. Just stop and contemplate the degree of your delusion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 10:09:04 2023 No.15149480 >>15149468 It seriously looks like you're arguing against the voices in your head. I don't have a clue what your s

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 10:10:08 2023 No.15149481 >>15149480 ...chizorambling is about. Oops.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 10:14:35 2023 No.15149486 >>15149480 >>15149481 It's so funny to watch insane drones like you lash out.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 10:16:10 2023 No.15149489 >>15149486 What are your intellectual achievements outside of blowing your professor after class?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 10:16:46 2023 No.15149491 >>15149486 >the drone starts to parrot me Down to literal kindergarten antics. lol. The absolute state of your mental health.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 10:18:28 2023 No.15149495 >>15149491 You're literally losing your mind.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 10:20:08 2023 No.15149499 >>15149495 I'm sure your imaginary reddit audience is impressed, but all I see is your desperation. Auto-hiding your replies now, but write me another, golem slave. :^)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 10:21:46 2023 No.15149504 >>15149499 >psychosis intensifies

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 10:26:01 2023 No.15149520 >>15149491 >Copying my tactic is kindergarten tier Stop using kindergarten tactics and they will look like something better when they copy you, then.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 12:41:50 2023 No.15149661 >>15149461 >>15149467 It's true, mental illness is a metaphysical proof against Physicalism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 13:55:19 2023 No.15149755 >>15138508 >consciousness is non-computable >eliminative materialism, functionalism and epiphenomenalism have been proven wrong Ah, so this is another cope thread for morons who believe in the supernatural. Are you a christcuck too?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 13:56:28 2023 No.15149758 >>15138530 >Free will lol lmao

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 13:57:37 2023 No.15149761 >>15138869 >cite Deepak Chopra AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA who even published this?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 13:59:26 2023 No.15149767 >>15138508 just another thread for idiots who should shut up and read Dennett go back to /x/

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 14:20:15 2023 No.15149789 >>15149767 Reading Dennett made me realize how hard the hard problem is.

Anonymous Tue Jan 24 15:11:53 2023 No.15149871

With a certain rewiring of the brain, you could go from you to a person who only wants to lick dinosaur bones. The conscious is affected by physical properties all the time. Remember Charles Whitman. He murdered people because of a brain tumor affecting his thinking and consciousness. Consciousness is purely a result of the physical. I understand people want to think that they're more than themselves but please, just stop. It's tiring and gets in the way of actually figuring out things.

>>15138530
>Free Will
Silly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 15:32:41 2023 No.15149893 >consciousness is non-computable Show me why this must be true.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 15:46:36 2023 No.15149912 https://youtu.be/qiZ0JhlSGKc

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 15:49:51 2023 No.15149917 >>15149893 Has been explained. Read the thread.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 17:59:52 2023 No.15150178 >>15149424 Even in materialism, could you not see that you are reality itself? Human is only one of our identities.

Anonymous Tue Jan 24 22:03:49 2023 No.15150775

>>15144668
It could just as easily be the opposite: certain p-zombies argue to make their social hierarchy. Some argue about code formatting or which measurements go on the pressure vessel drawing. They're arguing about what it is like to see those things. The winners and losers get to see the winners preference. The philosophy of mind losers get to see the winners preference too. Whoever convinced you to see NPCs must see you as one too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 22:10:04 2023 No.15150797 >>15138508 You know these threads might actually have fun discussion if people would dispense with the heated autism for once.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 22:23:15 2023 No.15150827 >>15138530 >free will Stopped reading there.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 22:44:10 2023 No.15150879 >>15138530 >Free will I don't even laugh at people still putting stock into free will. It's clearly some neurodegenerative condition to attach oneself to an abstract concept so viciously.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 24 23:56:43 2023 No.15151063 >>15149893 Embodied Cognition. Not what you're expecting, but its a notion of consciousness that opposes the computation and the spiritual/atheist/religious consciousness entity.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]