Why does consciousness make many seethe here?

[Anonymous No.15211314]

You were caught with your pants down, unable to explain the most basic fact of all - consciousness.

You were playing a video game all along about modelling the behavior of nature with useful fictions like a material world, atoms, particles, fields, etc. Now, you want to shut down all discussion on consciousness

[Anonymous No.15211325]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ

[Anonymous No.15211333]

>>15211325

He is a materialist, which makes consciousness mysterious by default. It is a failed metaphysical view, and there are far better options like Idealism on the table.

There is no hard problem of consciousness in Idealism because consciousness in fundamental.

[Anonymous No.15211362]

>>15211333
>He is a materialist, which makes consciousness mysterious by default.
I mean if you're posting the universe and comparing it to neurons and saying the universe is "God's brain" then that makes you a materialist to. It's just a schizo version of materialism.

[Anonymous No.15211370]

>>15211362

Materialism can't account for the fact that the universe at a scale appears and functions very similar to our brains.

Idealism can. When we look out into the universe, we are seeing the image of the mental activity of the universal consciousness that we are embedded in, so it is not a surprise that it would look like the image of our own mental activity. It is all the same stuff - consciousness.

This is just another example of the poor explanatory power of materialism. It can't say anything on these results.

[Anonymous No.15211386]

>>15211370
>When we look out into the universe, we are seeing the image of the mental activity of the universal consciousness that we are embedded in, so it is not a surprise that it would look like the image of our own mental activity.
Isn't this just pattern-seeking?

[Anonymous No.15211394]

>>15211370
Why do idealists always confuse """""""universal consciousness"""""" with the dumb, random, chaotic, and nonsensical Hindu-Buddhism type of universal consciousness.

Everything exists inside the mind of God and is the dividing factor between your own dreams and mind, and God that holds it all together regardless of human perception of it.

[Anonymous No.15211396]

Scientifically, why can't materialists answer Hellie's vertiginous question?

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

[Anonymous No.15211400]

>>15211396

I see you post this a lot, and I feel bad that no one responds. I will read it this weekend.

[Anonymous No.15211408]

>>15211394
>Why do idealists always confuse """""""universal consciousness"""""" with the dumb, random, chaotic, and nonsensical Hindu-Buddhism type of universal consciousness.
Because most of them are drug abusers and drug abuse and diluted Buddhism/Gnosticism go together like hippies and unkempt pubic hair.

[Anonymous No.15211413]

>>15211408
>Because most of them are drug abusers
It has to be that. The Hindu-Buddhist conception of the universal conscious is so fucking obscure, ill-defined, lacking of order, that only an actual crackhead that thought ingesting some chemical from a boiled plant would somehow give him the power to see reality as it truly is could be so retarded

[Anonymous No.15211473]

>>15211333
>there are far better options like Idealism on the table
What about Neutral Monism or Interactionist Dualism?

https://nintil.com/consciousness-and-its-discontents

>What theories do I think are probably true, with probabilities, as of today:

>1. Neutral monism/Panpsychism(60%)
>2. Interactionist dualism(30%)
>3. Epiphenomenalism(10%)
>4. Idealism(~epsilon%)
>5. Non-interactionist dualism(~epsilon%)
>6. Identity theory(~0% as it rejects consciousness as real)
>7. Eliminativism(~0% as it rejects consciousness as real)

[Anonymous No.15211477]

>>15211314
Consciousness literally doesn't exist.
>inb4 you're an npc
Yeah and so are you.

[Anonymous No.15211483]

>>15211477
Consciousness is another word for self-awareness which only man has been proven to have.

Only a dumb nigger Dennett-tard thinks consciousness doesnt exist because he and his followers are pure stimuli reactions

[Anonymous No.15211485]

>>15211314

[Anonymous No.15211494]

>>15211396
I don't really get the question, unless you are a solipsist you will agree other's feel the same about their consciousness, aren't their consciousness live as well? I agree it's kinda mind boggling to think that other's are conscious as well (maybe it also depends on how much empathy you have), but it just seems logical

[Anonymous No.15211497]

>>15211314
because most kids here grew up watching their favorite "basedentists" on youtube tell them they are meat robot and everything is an illusion/delusion, so these ideas got ingrained in their developing minds. they become very defensive about it just like religiotards

[Anonymous No.15211516]

>>15211396
A double-bind is resolved by accepting both states/facts/(assumptions) as true. It looks like a form of a double-bind to me. "live" is also assuming too much about perception and and the reality of conscious beings.

If you think in a binary manner, it's unsolvable.

[Anonymous No.15211520]

>>15211483
Dennett doesn't think consciousness doesn't exist, retard-kun.

[Anonymous No.15211527]

>>15211325
.

[Anonymous No.15211552]

>>15211477
>p-zombie calls others p-zombies
like clockwork

[Anonymous No.15211555]

Consciousness was solved by Leibniz. You're literally just a monad.

[Anonymous No.15211570]

>>15211325
To be fair, that was a pretty modest view considering he is a materialist. He didn't used the "it's just an illusion" cope or it "just" the brain doing this or that. He tacitly admitted that materialism will leave it as a mystery. And even when you accept the correct position of idealism, there's still plenty of mystery. Mystery is good.

[Anonymous No.15211593]

>>15211570
yes mystery pervades our existence, it's just that the hyper autistic virginoids here and the reddit baasedence fans can't accept that and have to pretend we know and can explain everything

[Anonymous No.15211595]

>>15211314
>Consciousness is immaterial
Then how does it affect material things?
in the chain of events from from OP's eye photoreceptors receiving light from of a cock to his immaterial consciousness qualia seeing a cock there has to be a step where the material interacts with the immaterial.
problem 1: what is this "relay" made of without contradicting the distinction between matter and immatter? 50/50 material/immaterial? third substance?
problem 2: why can't we use this relay to gain insight into the immaterial?

[Anonymous No.15211609]

>>15211570
>He tacitly admitted that materialism will leave it as a mystery.
Why? Consciousness interacts with the brain. Once the brain is sufficiently understood, studying consciousness should be perfectly possible. The revival of demonology by materialists is only a question of time.

[Anonymous No.15211617]

>>15211609
>studying consciousness should be perfectly possible
How can you study something you have no access to, or even direct empirical evidence of? lol

[Anonymous No.15211620]

>>15211617
by tipping fedora

[Anonymous No.15211670]

>>15211617
By using tools.

[Anonymous No.15211672]

>>15211670
What tools do you use to study things you have neither access to, nor empirical evidence of?

[Anonymous No.15211676]

>>15211314
>Why do [bad-faith agenda-driven threads] make many [mildly irritated] here?
It's a mystery to me, anon. I find the spectacle of dumb wingnuts affirming one another quite interesting.

[Anonymous No.15211681]

>>15211676
You're not "many". You're in a minority of 3 obsessive drones that the whole board regularly dunks on.

[Anonymous No.15211690]

>>15211333
You keep repeating this nonsense in every thread even though it has been pointed out multiple times already that idealism does not solve the hard problem. It merely reverses it. Idealism has no more explanatory power than "it just is, okay?" It's a shallow cope.

[Anonymous No.15211696]

>>15211400
It's not worth reading. He's a bot and his "question" is semantically nonsensical pseud babble.

[Anonymous No.15211697]

>>15211609
>studying consciousness should be perfectly possible
You can already study it, second hand. That's called psychology and cognitive science. Subjective consciousness is not like physical objects though, as this anon alluded to
>>15211617
You have a sensory data stream of the physical world which presents mental objects to you in your mind which we call 'the physical world'. These include planets, trees, brains, and macro objects like that, as well, we can infer data about micro 'objects' such as the goings of the quantum world as well. If there are two or more human minds assessing their respective subjective corresponding data streams and they come up with useful and predictive and repeatedly demonstrably true information about the corresponding 'objective world' inferred from the data streams, we say this knowledge is 'objective' empirical or scientific knowledge. But my SUBJECTIVE consciousness can never be experienced or objectively observed via YOUR subjective mental sensory data stream, and my subjective consciousness can never be accessed by YOUR data stream. My BRAIN can be observed in your data stream, and vice versa, but not my mind and it's content. So subjective consciousness has no one to one identity with the brain. Mind is not a physical object. And so you you can't know it like a brain. You can never know mind in that comprehensive way.

[Anonymous No.15211698]

>>15211690
"He" doesn't keep repeating anything. You keep repeating your mentally ill drivel while everyone shits on you.

[Anonymous No.15211701]

>>15211595
>Then how does it affect material things?
Quantum. Mechanics.

[Anonymous No.15211704]

>>15211697
Spoken like a typical nonsentient. Thanks for demonstrating that "people" who share your opinions have no qualia.

[Anonymous No.15211708]

>>15211698
>"He"
Oh no, did I misgender you? What are your preferred pronouns?

[Anonymous No.15211709]

>>15211708
No, it's just funny that you assume everyone who shits all over you is a single person, because I remember your mentally ill drivel from the last thread, where I was one of at least 3 other people who shat on you.

[Anonymous No.15211720]

>>15211709
I never made this assumption. You're making up shit. And you haven't told us your pronouns yet.

[Anonymous No.15211726]

>>15211720
>I never made this assumption
Then why did you assume you know that poster and claim that he "repeats" himself? No one is repeating anything except for you, who keeps making the same mentally ill argument.

[Anonymous No.15211731]

>>15211726
I keep dabbing on pseuds, debunking them with Facts and Logic. Your denial is futile.

[Anonymous No.15211736]

>>15211731
You keep shitting and pissing yourself in public while random passersby keep noting that your opinion is a nonstarter.

[Anonymous No.15211738]

>>15211736

[Anonymous No.15211744]

>>15211738
You are mentally ill and you will never have an education.

[Anonymous No.15211745]

>>15211690
>idealism does not solve the hard problem
Yes, it does. There is no observer independent material thing called a brain that consciousness arises from. There is no observer independent matter at all. And so there is no need to explain how consciousness arises from something that doesn't exist. Then, the task becomes describing how mind derived universe and the objects in them, like brains, come into existence. And this is something that we have experience of through day dreams and dreams and the like. You can THINK worlds into existence. MINDS create simulations of observer independent material worlds. You do it in day dreams all of the time. Universes arise IN MINDS. And this universe is grounded in the ALL mind, of which we are individuated units of consciousness. Minds also create virtual realities in the waking reality as well, like video games. It also solves things like the interaction problem, which arises from the idea that there is some substance called 'observer independent matter' and the question of how two different substances, mind and matter, can causally interact with each other. In idealism, this becomes mind interacting and having causal effect on mental objects, being that matter is something only ever viewed as mental objects. And the CORRELATION of, say, damage to the brain and the rendered effects on consciousness then make much more sense. It's two mental objects correlating to each other. The virtual mental object called brain and the mind assigned to the particular avatar.

[Anonymous No.15211751]

>>15211672
>What tools do you use to study things you have neither access to, nor empirical evidence of?
your brain
we should repeatedly kick you in the balls and monitor how your consciousness influences the working of your brain

[Anonymous No.15211754]

>>15211697
>You can already study it, second hand.
The brain can make fake memories and lie.

[Anonymous No.15211755]

>>15211744
At this point you're not merely projecting anymore. You're the projective limit in the category of all projectors.

[Anonymous No.15211759]

>>15211745
It doesn't "solve" the Hard Problem. The Hard Problem simply doesn't occur in the context of idealism, or any context except materialism for that matter. You are talking to a nonsentient drone.

[Anonymous No.15211762]

>>15211751
How come /sci/ materialists are invariably violent and mentally ill apes that spew incoherent rhetoric?

[Anonymous No.15211764]

>Why does consciousness make many seethe here?
Every schizo has a take on consciousness. You need to constantly pull Matrix level shit to dodge all the nonsense. Most conversations you will find on the subject is nonsense written by people who haven't read a single book on the subject. If they did they'd know their take has been discussed for decades.

[Anonymous No.15211766]

>>15211764
>You need to constantly pull Matrix level shit to dodge all the nonsense
All you have to do is to hide the thread instead of getting triggered and executing materialist_dogma.exe in a loop. lol

[Anonymous No.15211770]

>>15211766
I'm not talking to you. Miss me with your mystical shit. It gets us nowhere.

[Anonymous No.15211775]

>>15211770
Called it.

[Anonymous No.15211789]

>>15211745
>The Hard Problem simply doesn't occur
A yes, so the problem disappears. This is a form of resolution, ie a solving of a problem dummy. You are just being obstinate and trying to obfuscate and obscurantize the matter. You are doing some kind of cope maneuver.

[Anonymous No.15211791]

>>15211745
Your solipsistic fantasy drivel is disproved by my existence. Your midwitted mind doesn't have the intelligence to create a genius like me.

[Anonymous No.15211797]

>>15211789
You can't "solve" a problem that doesn't exist in the first place, tard. How is that hard for you to wrap your head around?

[Anonymous No.15211800]

>>15211754
>The brain can make fake memories and lie.
Observer independent matter based brains don't produce consciousness in the first place, but if they did, you would have a problem then anyways with your physicalist world view because it's within this dubious mental data stream that you assert that brains create that your very knowledge of the brain derives from in the first place. Brains, like all matter, are only every observed as mental objects in minds.

[Anonymous No.15211821]

>>15211797
In a Dennettian fashion you're retrospectively reinterpreting the problem in such a way that you can deny it without addressing it. Repulsively anti-intellectual, just like you would expect from a teenaged pseud.

[Anonymous No.15211826]

People talk on consciousness without having either tried psychedelics on an empty stomach in total sensory isolation or simply gone into a cave, forest or desert to fast for 7+ days. Materialists like Dennet or many psychology therapists are not explorers of consciousness, they're afraid of it and build frail models to defend themselves. Psychiatrists who try to fix people with drugs they have not taken themselves is a sham. Most mental illnesses are a sham too, they're societal, spiritual and cultural illnesses manifesting themselves in people. It's not simply "a chemical imbalance". I have little interest in hearing what someone has to say about the taste of an apple when they've never tasted it themselves.

[Anonymous No.15211827]

>>15211821
You are clearly mentally ill. The question of how and why physical brain states give rise to subjective experiences doesn't apply if subjective experiences are not a result of physical brain states. The Hard Problem only exists in the context of materialism, where it is assumed that everything arises out of material interactions.

[Anonymous No.15211837]

>>15211370
>functions very similar to our brains
the fuck

[Anonymous No.15211839]

>>15211821
not him but
>creates unsolvable problem from assumption
>maybe the assumption is incorrect
>wow what an intellectual brainlet you can't do that!

[Anonymous No.15211845]

>>15211839
>creates unsolvable problem from assumption
Yeah, that's materialists. It seriously looks like this thread consists of broken GPTs.

[Anonymous No.15211846]

>>15211797
>You can't "solve" a problem that doesn't exist in the first place, tard
If you are a materialist, then yes, it DOES exist FOR YOUR WORLD VIEW. You are trying to step out of your world view and say 'it doesn't exist because I don't believe it exists', in a circular manner. If it doesn't, then go ahead and account for consciousness via a materialist explanation. You can't. Where as Idealism doesn't even have to account for consciousness since the world view is held by consciousnesses WITHIN consciousness. It's fundamental and doesn't have to postulate some outside of consciousness substance such as observer independent matter, which can never be accessed, as planck says here
>>15211800
Consciousness simply IS, and if it ISN'T, then none of us would be having this experience because you have to be a consciousness to even have an experience.

[Anonymous No.15211848]

>>15211827
The hard problem is threefold: linguistic, epistemological and ontological. You solved none of these three. You are repeating a wikipedia tier strawman and you are incapable of addressing criticism. In analogy to Dennett I will call your position "eliminative idealism" because it is based on denial, not on explanation.

[Anonymous No.15211850]

>>15211846
>If you are a materialist, then yes, it DOES exist FOR YOUR WORLD VIEW.
And if you're an idealist, this problem doesn't even exist for you, so you aren't "solving" it, nor are you supposed to. How difficult could this be to grasp? lol

[Anonymous No.15211851]

>>15211839
The "assumption" is a strawman and has nothing to do with the problem. No assumption of materialism is implied in the problem of qualia, moron.

[Anonymous No.15211854]

>>15211848
You are a qualialess, nonsentient drone. This is made obvious by your fully automated spergouts against some materialist boogeyman that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I posted.

[Anonymous No.15211857]

>>15211850
Everyone doesn't share my worldview idiot. Within the paradigm of materialism/physicalism, the problem DOES exist. So to explain how the idealist worldview better accounts for the available data IS a resolution of the asserted problem.

[Anonymous No.15211863]

>>15211857
>Within the paradigm of materialism/physicalism, the problem DOES exist.
And your alternative paradigm doesn't solve it; it simply reframes everything in a way that renders that particular question logically invalid and rises different unresolvable questions instead.

[Anonymous No.15211868]

>>15211854
>a Dennett fanboy accusing others of being qualialess
Oh the irony

[Anonymous No.15211875]

>>15211868
Thanks for confirming your total nonsentience. At no point did I reference Dennett or embrace his views. Killing both you and your consciousness-denying counterparts is rational, moral and necessary.

[Anonymous No.15211887]

>>15211875
You are a shallow copy of Dennett, merely replacing materialism with idealism while denying the hard problem.

[Anonymous No.15211889]

dennet lives rent free in some people's mind, and i can't even fathom why

[Anonymous No.15211892]

>>15211887
Every time you post, you confirm your lack of basic humanity. Keep doing it.

[Anonymous No.15211896]

>>15211863
>that renders that particular question logically invalid
It's not just that question that is invalid, it's the while idea of observer independent matter in general that is in valid, for the whole reason planck mentioned here
>>15211800
Our whole existence from womb to tomb is experienced AS consciousness in the medium OF consciousness. This includes any experience of a brain, which, like all matter, is only ever experienced as a a mental object in minds. Explaining the physical world in terms of idealism has the ONLY explanatory power. There is nothing that can be explained without postulating consciousness as a first principle because only CONSCIOUSNESSES go about trying to explain things in the first place. DURRR.
>rises different unresolvable questions instead
Like what? And I am not saying that there are not still unresolvable metaphysical questions, but any of these would have to be pondered by CONSCIOUSNESSES. Observer independent matter is not going to ponder something. MIND ponders.

[Anonymous No.15211897]

>>15211892
I'll leave "basic" humanity to low lives like you. For me it's advanced humanity.

[Anonymous No.15211906]

>>15211896
>It's not just that question that is invalid
It is invalid if the very premise of the question contradicts reality, which it does according to idealism. Just how profoundly retarded are you?

[Anonymous No.15211910]

>>15211897
You've repeatedly admitted to being a nonhuman automaton. Your life has no moral value. Society really needs to take out its trash once in a while and remove pollutants like you.

[Anonymous No.15211911]

>>15211906
The question has no premise. You made up that premise for your strawman. You are cognitively impaired.

[Anonymous No.15211912]

>>15211889
>dennet lives rent free in some people's mind
Dennett believes that the only access we have to the outside world is an 'illusion', and so his worldview is self defeating. He declares that the only data we have of the outside world is dubious and then says that we should trust his dubious data as being the correct take on the subject.

[Anonymous No.15211915]

>>15211910
>this is what WEF shills actually believe

[Anonymous No.15211933]

>>15211314
>thing looks like thing
>must be the same thing
This might shock you, but a web like pattern will often have a high likelihood of looking like another web like pattern

[Anonymous No.15211937]

>>15211906
>It is invalid
Yes, it is invalid, I didn't deny that. It's a dumb question posed by people with a dumb worldview (materialism/physicalism). All of the worldview is dumb and no such thing as observer independent matter can ever be verified because GUESS WHAT? Consciousnesses verify experiments. Consciousnesses conduct experiments and observe the results which they observe WITHIN the medium of consciousness. And in fact, experiment such as the bell type experiments confirm bell's theorem that if you try to assign classical type hidden variables to data objects (particles) before measurement/observation, you get an inequality. And no, instruments which are not consciousness can not be confirmed to do it because instruments are things that only ever appear as mental objects in minds and verification of instruments are done by CONSCIOUSNESSES in the medium of mind.

[Anonymous No.15211943]

>>15211937
>Yes, it is invalid, I didn't deny that.
Then why do you insist that idealism solves it?

[Anonymous No.15211947]

>>15211911
>The question has no premise.
It has the premise that subjective experience is an outcome of physical interactions in the brain. Deny it in your next post to confirm your lack of sentience and morally justify the appealing option of your extermination.

[Anonymous No.15211950]

>>15211947
False. The hard problem can be phrased without ever mentioning the brain. Sorry to hear that you are incapable of abstract thinking.

[Anonymous No.15211952]

>>15211950
Thanks for confirming that you are, indeed, nonhuman, and that your life has no moral value.

[Anonymous No.15211957]

>>15211952
>autism

[Anonymous No.15211959]

>>15211950
>he hard problem can be phrased without ever mentioning the brain
go ahead

[Anonymous No.15211976]

>>15211959
1. Epistemological hard problem of consciousness:
>What can be known about other people's qualia? Do they have qualia at all? ("Problem of other minds")
2. Linguistic hard problem of consciousness:
>How can we linguistically separate qualia from the informational contents of experience? I.e. how can we describe qualia without referring simultaneously to physical phenomena like "redness"?
3. The ontological hard problem of consciousness:
>How do qualia arise in the first place and how are they tied to the contents of experience? (related to, but not synonymous with the "binding problem")

[Anonymous No.15211982]

>>15211943
If you hold a world view of materialism/physicalism, and in this world view an explanatory gap with regard to mind arises, and someone explains that this is a problem of paradigm of world view, and the materialist relizes this, then for at least that person, the problem has ben resolved, but also just in general as an existential objective fact. It doesn't solve it in the way you want to drive at, in that it doesn't explain how materialism gives rise to consciousness in the first place, but it resolves the very purpose in asking such a question in the first place. It's a resolution or solving of the very world view that gave rise to not only that silly idea, but the one that gave rise to many other silly ideas, such as the many worlds interpretation of QM, objective, stretchy spacetime, observer independent worlds of matter that pop into existence out of no where, physical wave functions floating around in hilbert space somewhere outside of spacetime which 'collapse' upon measurement, ect.

[Anonymous No.15211986]

>>15211976
none of these are the hard problem, which you ironically point out yourelf. you need to take your meds

[Anonymous No.15211992]

>>15211986
>Dennett cuck keeps arbitrarily misinterpreting the hard problem to fit xir strawman
Like cockwork

[Anonymous No.15211994]

>>15211982
>If you hold a world view of materialism/physicalism, and in this world view an explanatory gap with regard to mind arises, and someone explains that this is a problem of paradigm of world view, and the materialist relizes this, then for at least that person, the problem has ben resolved
It doesn't resolve the problem in any way for him. He may very well decide to stick to his views and either try to resolve the problem in his terms, or accept that it's unresolvable in those terms, either way rejecting your "resolution".

[Anonymous No.15212001]

the idealist's task of explaining how matter emerges from mind, is at least as problematic as the materialist's task of explaining vice versa. they're equally problematic. stop acting like idealists have a leg up.

[Anonymous No.15212002]

>>15212001
>the idealist's task of explaining how matter emerges from mind, is at least as problematic as the materialist's task of explaining vice versa
No, it isn't. An idealist can simply take the position that "matter" doesn't exist beyond its appearances to the mind.

[Anonymous No.15212006]

>>15212002
that's not enough. they need to explain HOW it emerges as an appearance.

[Anonymous No.15212012]

>>15212001
>the idealist's task of explaining how matter emerges from mind, is at least as problematic
just declare everything's a dream duh

[Anonymous No.15212014]

>>15212002
>it just is, okay?

[Anonymous No.15212017]

>>15211986
As expected, the eliminative idealist tries to deflect because xe fails to answer any of the questions.

[Anonymous No.15212022]

>>15212006
>they need to explain HOW it emerges as an appearance.
No, they don't. Being able to take such shapes is implicit in the nature of the thing.

[Anonymous No.15212036]

>>15212022
In other words: >>15212014

[Anonymous No.15212038]

>>15212022
>No, they don't
LOL
>Being able to take such shapes is implicit in the nature of the thing.
no it isn't. mind could experience no matter, instead pure feeling or pure thought, or something like 'pure consciousness' which some meditators report. the material world isn't immediately entailed with just the concept of mind.

further to this problem, is must be explained why the mind doesn't experience the infinity of other varieties of material world that we can imagine (e.g. unicorns, green blood etc.), it must be explained why the mind doesn't see those but instead sees this particular material world.

[Anonymous No.15212041]

>>15212014
That's always the starting point, no matter what view you take. Something "just is" and it has some basic properties that everything else stems from. It's just that materialists start from a basic elements with properties that just don't add up to consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15212043]

>>15212036
See >>15212041 then reflect on your low-IQ hypocrisy. If I receive a reply from you within the next 30 minutes, I will know you are incapable of such reflection and therefore you are nonsentient.

[Anonymous No.15212044]

>>15212041
>That's always the starting point.
Nope, you're just being lazy.

[Anonymous No.15212047]

>>15212043
>"it just is, okay" is a legitimate answer because ... it just is, okay?
We've reached previously unimaginable levels of onions

[Anonymous No.15212052]

>>15212038
>mind could experience no matter, instead pure feeling or pure thought, or something like 'pure consciousness' which some meditators report
It can experience no matter and it can experience matter. There isn't any constraint inherent to the nature of experience so there's nothing to explain in that regard.

>is must be explained why the mind doesn't experience the infinity of other varieties of material world that we can imagine
This is just a variation of "why is reality the way it is?" which is an unanswerable question no matter what you assume reality is like.

[Anonymous No.15212055]

>>15212044
There's no limit to how many times you can ask "but why IS it this way?". It's an infinite regression. If you don't understand this, you are demonstrably nonsentient.

[Anonymous No.15212057]

Why are idealists obsessed with discussing consciousness when their viewpoint is fundamentally unknowable and non-interactable? Your theory is complete. You've solved consciousness. Your work here is done, congratulations.

[Anonymous No.15212061]

>Why are idealists obsessed with discussing consciousness when their viewpoint is fundamentally unknowable and non-interactable? Your theory is complete. You've solved consciousness. Your work here is done, congratulations.

[Anonymous No.15212065]

>>15212061
I'm giving it away. You won. Is there anything your theory is missing?

[Anonymous No.15212067]

>>15212057
Your materialist metaphysics is every bit as scientifically irrelevant as theirs, the only difference is that yours effectively denies consciousness while theirs doesn't.

[Anonymous No.15212068]

Consciousness can never be fully explained in the same way physics can never be accurately explained by math, it always falls short eventually and fails to account for infinite complexity

[Anonymous No.15212069]

>>15212055
I'm not asking why, I'm asking how. This is Science and not philosophy. And in Science we expect convincing answers, not your goalpost moving deflection.

[Anonymous No.15212071]

>>15212052
>There isn't any constraint inherent to the nature of experience so there's nothing to explain in that regard
there very much is constraint. for example, why have i personally never experienced pure consciousness? it's not even clear if i could achieve such a thing, just because someone else allegedly has done so. even those who claim to have experienced such a thing, must admit to always being dragged back into this 'default state' of the material world. why is it ever there to begin with? explanation needed.

>This is just a variation of "why is reality the way it is?" which is an unanswerable question no matter what you assume reality is like.
idealism must at least try to address that question. materialists at least attempt to do so in the field of cognitive neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.15212072]

>>15212057
Poor materialist can't imagine anything without a quanta despite complete immersion in the exact opposite. Democritus was ironically posting about the atom and you are the OP faggots preaching it like gospel. There must be a conscious corpuscle like there must be an electric rat pokemon.
>hicks bosom
>souleon
>mindotron

[Anonymous No.15212075]

>>15212069
>I'm not asking why, I'm asking how
HOW does matter bend timespace? HOW do elementary particles create the weak nuclear force? Pointless verbal masturbation. You can ask "how" ad infinitum. No matter what the fundamentals of your system are, I can ask how it is that they're this way and not that.

[Anonymous No.15212080]

>>15212072
>There must be a conscious corpuscle like there must be an electric rat pokemon.
Great. Is it interactable or outside the physical as we understand it?

[Anonymous No.15212084]

>>15212071
>there very much is constraint. for example, why have i personally never experienced pure consciousness?
Probably because you're nonsentient. What bearing does this have on anything?

>idealism must at least try to address that question.
No view needs to address the question of what its fundamental axioms stem from because it's a logically invalid question. Fundamentals are fundamental.

[Anonymous No.15212086]

>>15212075
Again, this isn't about retarded philosophical language games. You simply fail to convince me with your dogmatism. And this is only your own fault.

[Anonymous No.15212088]

>>15212086
>You simply fail to convince me with your dogmatism
You are not sentient and I'm not trying to convince you. The only one ITT shitting out dogma is you. Still waiting for you to explain HOW matter bends spacetime. Notice how you are frothing at the mouth over this question.

[Anonymous No.15212091]

>>15212084
>No view needs to address the question of what its fundamental axioms stem from because it's a logically invalid question. Fundamentals are fundamental
this leaves idealism and materialism on equal footing. neither has a leg up

[Anonymous No.15212095]

>>15212091
>this leaves idealism and materialism on equal footing
Any system is on an equal footing with regard to explaining what its fundamentals stem from, but your dogma has a clear disadvantage when it comes to accomodating the reality of conscious experience, since it cannot be shown to stem from its fundamentals.

[Anonymous No.15212098]

>>15212091
>decades of consciousness studies and more to come
vs
>I thought about it and I'm really sure I'm right
neither has a leg-up

[Anonymous No.15212101]

>>15212098
There is no such thing as "consciousness studies". Neural correlates would appear the same no matter whose metaphysics is the right one.

[Anonymous No.15212104]

>>15212095
like i said, "matter emerges from the mind" is an equivalent leap to the reverse. just as you say "matter is entailed by mind's nature", the materialist can say "mind is entailed by x arrangement of atoms"

[Anonymous No.15212107]

>>15212101
Except there are. There are multiple journals, books and scientists dedicated to it. You've discarded them all.

[Anonymous No.15212108]

materialism, as in science can explain consciousness, is in itself based on a fallacies interpretation and use of science. just discard it.

[Anonymous No.15212112]

>>15212108
>it's wrong because...it just is, okay?!

[Anonymous No.15212113]

>>15212104
>[some appearance] emerges from mind
It's in the nature of a mind for appearances to emerge in it. We've already covered this. You sound literally retarded.

[Anonymous No.15212125]

>>15211314
consciousness is a bijection between ideal and material codomains

[Anonymous No.15212126]

>>15212088
>moving le goalposts once again

[Anonymous No.15212129]

>>15212113
you're just wrong when you deny that the move being made is equivalent.

[Anonymous No.15212131]

>>15212126
Wipe the foam off the corners of your mouth and explain how matter bends spacetime.

[Anonymous No.15212135]

>>15212129
>the move being made is equivalent
It's trivial that the mind gives rise to various appearances. It's unfathomable how particlse create minds.

[Anonymous No.15212144]

>>15212131
Gravity is not my problem yet. My problem is the hard problem of consciousness, and you are contributing nothing to its solution.

[bodhi No.15212149]

>>15211362
It is only "schizo" to someone with a low IQ. You do the exact same thing in materialism you are just too stupid to realize it. "Bro if you use this microscope there is this entire miniature Universe right under your nose you dont even know about! There are these things called germs you cant see, smell or taste, this stuff called DNA that is the software that programs all your physical traits, there are viruses, bacteria, electrons, atoms hell thee are even these things called water bears that are the hardest thing in the Universe to kill!"

You claim there is an entire Universe right inside of our own bodies but are too low IQ to ponder that you may be that same miniature Universe inside of a larger entity? What exactly is "schizo" about that to smol brains like yours? Describe in detail what it is that is so hard for you to process this. Because it wasn't in textbook you were told to memorize and repeat? You have never even seen any of the things I mentioned above in the tiny invisible Universe you believe in without question and I bet you would also call people "schizo" who would challenge whether they even exist because you dont really know or understand things, you just believe in what you are told to believe in

[Anonymous No.15212154]

>>15212135
notice how these now aren't equivalent enquiries. for the former, you didn't ask "how", but when it comes to the materialist account, you demand a "how". it IS equivalently trivial THAT (not how) brain matter gives rise to the mind, see: chemical or mechanical interference of the brain affecting mind, e.g. alcohol.

[Anonymous No.15212155]

>>15212149
>missing the point that hard

[Anonymous No.15212156]

>>15212149
>It is only "schizo" to someone with a low IQ
Says the low IQ literal schizo. Go back to your blog.

[Anonymous No.15212159]

>>15212154
>for the former, you didn't ask "how",
Because the "how" doesn't apply. It's fundamental that the mind gives rise to appearances.

[Anonymous No.15212161]

>>15212144
>Gravity is not my problem

[bodhi No.15212162]

>>15212156
hylics are always the same, you never change. You have no insight into anything, you repeat what you are told like a little bot and attack anyone that exposes how simple and clueless you are. Dont ever address me like we are on the same level, you are an insect compared to someone like me

[Anonymous No.15212167]

>>15212159
it's fundamental that brains give rise to mind.

[Anonymous No.15212168]

>>15212144
How does matter bend spacetime? You told me a viewpoint is only valid if it can answer every "how".

[Anonymous No.15212169]

>>15212167
>it's fundamental that brains give rise to mind.
Nothing elementary particles implies minds. Everything about minds implies appearances.

[Anonymous No.15212177]

>>15212168
I don't know and I don't care. Currently I care about consciousness though. Still waiting for your answer to the hard problem.

[Anonymous No.15212178]

>>15212169
everything about BRAINS implies minds, it's not at the level of individual particles.

[Anonymous No.15212186]

>>15212178
You are trully a vile subhuman arguing in bad faith because you have no other recourse. The concept of a mind has always been inextricably tied to the ability of experiencing appearances. The idea that matter could someone give rise to a mind has always baffled thinkers.

[bodhi No.15212187]

>>15212156
I asked yo to explain what is "schizo" about it. Are you not capable of doing it? Is schizo just the word you use when you are incapable of putting together sentences to explain things you dont understand and your mind is too mall to understand little fella? It's fine to admit it, we all already know

[Anonymous No.15212189]

>>15212187
Lol shut up schizo

[Anonymous No.15212191]

>>15212177
>I don't know and I don't care
Then your point of view is invalid according to your own standard. Autohiding all further posts form you. You will demonstrate your nonsentience by replying, even though I won't see your post and no one will read it. Go ahead and show that you are an animal with zero impulse control. :^)

[Anonymous No.15212205]

>>15212191
I didn't express any POV on gravity. You are strawmanning again, cuck.

[Anonymous No.15212210]

>>15212186
historical intuition is not relevant.

[Anonymous No.15212213]

>>15212210
You will never experience consciousness. You will always be an automaton regurgitating corporate dogma.

[Anonymous No.15212218]

>>15212187
>I asked yo to explain what is "schizo" about it
No you didn't. Dumb schizo.

[Anonymous No.15212223]

>>15212187
Okay you're not schizo. But tell me, what were the last drugs the government tried to control you with?

[Anonymous No.15212224]

>>15212162
We're not on the same level, I'm sane and you're a literal schizo who believes anything as long as it's idiotic and insane. Back to your blog, little schizo.

[Anonymous No.15212229]

>>15212224
You're angry because you're one of bodhi's many abandoned sons.

[bodhi No.15212258]

>>15212218
kys mouth breathing donkey. your inability to read and understand a single paragraph of one syllable words I would ay is indicative you are a legit schizo projecting.

[bodhi No.15212278]

>>15212155
>the irony
truly a retard

[Anonymous No.15212367]

>>15212178
>everything about BRAINS implies minds
proof?

[Anonymous No.15212433]

>>15211314
consciousness is not something that can be explained. It is outside of the scope of explanation. As far as the external world is concerned it does not even exist. consciousness only exists within my own mind, it does not exist in the outside world.

[Anonymous No.15212447]

>>15211609
Nope. No observation in physical world will ever find consciousness. Even if one day we 100% understand the brain and can even simulate it in a computer will will still not find consciousness, all we will see it matter blindly following the laws of physics.

[Anonymous No.15212449]

>>15212447
Math is (always) the answer. You don't need to see stuff when you can think (math) stuff.

[Anonymous No.15212464]

>>15212367
it's intuitive from what brains are (organising centres for sensory inputs) that they would engender the mind. not to mention the observed consequences to the mind of physically messing with the brain, which i already mentioned.

[Anonymous No.15212476]

retarded faggot thread

[Anonymous No.15212478]

>>15212476
explain.

[Anonymous No.15212485]

>>15212478

[Anonymous No.15212496]

>>15212485
kind of agree; however in this debate, one of us has to be right. this matter isn't a question of taste or opinion. it should be a concern for scientists, even if it's far away from being testable.

[Anonymous No.15212498]

>>15212464
>it's intuitive to me subjectively
that's not a proof

[Anonymous No.15212504]

>>15212498
it's equivalent to the subjective intuition which was earlier appealed to for idealism.

[Anonymous No.15212515]

>>15212504
what are you on about, retard? do you have a mind? does your mind have any contents? are observations relating to your hypothetical "matter" part of that content?

[Anonymous No.15212521]

>>15212515
>do you have a mind?
I literally don't know. I don't know how I could know.

[Anonymous No.15212523]

>>15212515
what are you on about, retard? do you have a brain? does your brain have any function? are observations relating to your hypothetical "mind" necessary for that brain to exist?

[Anonymous No.15212534]

>>15212523
how come you were forced to deflect instead of answering my questions? how come you will deflect again in your next post?

[Anonymous No.15212538]

>>15212534
how come you can't accept the fact that idealism has no advantage over materialism?

[Anonymous No.15212549]

>>15212538
maybe i'll accept it if you make a coherent case. you can start by answering my questions instead of weasling out and deflecting

[Anonymous No.15212597]

>>15212447
ok assumer

[Anonymous No.15212602]

>>15212549
i'd be more inclined to do so if you didn't cheapen the discussion with petty ad homs.

[Anonymous No.15212624]

>>15212602
why do you keep deflecting and making excuses? did you work yourself into a corner? :^(

[bodhi No.15212679]

>>15212224
you are about 2 standard deviations short of being able to understand anything I write about. your brain is as tiny as your pecker twinker

[Anonymous No.15212685]

people should watch this

https://youtu.be/xGbgDf4HCHU?t=2839

[Anonymous No.15212690]

>>15212679
He's one of your sons and therefore has your genetics.
>inb4 denial
You regularly boast fathering every retard on this board.

[bodhi No.15212696]

>>15212690
including you, welcome home son

[Anonymous No.15212697]

>>15212696
Daddy, how come me and my brothers are all retards? You're the only common factor in every case.

[bodhi No.15212700]

>>15212697
your mom drank too much, my dna and seed is stronk, but not that stronk

[Anonymous No.15212701]

>>15212700
So do you only have sex with low IQ alcoholic women?

[bodhi No.15212710]

>>15212701
I am not a bigot, I give my seed freely to help improve the world and offset the sub-human breeding explosion that is on full display with the idiocy commonly displayed on this board

[Anonymous No.15212711]

>>15212685
orch-or is a bunk theory.

[bodhi No.15212724]

>>15212701
if this world had more people like me and less people like the fools like yourself who pollute this board with your ignorance and ego we would have been exploring the stars in ancient rome

[Anonymous No.15212827]

>>15212724
>pollute this board with your ignorance and ego
projection to the max

[bodhi No.15212858]

>>15212827
projection to the max

[Anonymous No.15213155]

>>15211314
nobody has explained what consciousness is. afaik only a subset of the population has any perception of it. the rest of us dont have it and cant understand what people are trying to say when they explain it.

[bodhi No.15213322]

Always remember kids when these imbeciles call you "schizo" what it really means is they have not been pre-programmed on how to react to their information you are giving them (pic rel)

[bodhi No.15213323]

Most people in this world are shudra morons who are only programmed to eat, drink, shit and fuck and any information that doesnt help them to eat, drink, shit and fuck more is largely unimportant to them. When they call you "schizo" what they really mean is you are not pre-approved by their programmers -who provide them the means to eat, drink, shit and fuck- to fuck around with their operating system therefore you must be ostracized and attacked (pic rel)

[Anonymous No.15213331]

>>15212724
>if this world had more people like me and less people like the fools like yourself
But you keep fucking retarded alcoholic women and producing retarded sons, by your own account. You have single-handedly fathered every retard on this board. How does that help solve the problem? Are you, by any chance, too retarded to evaluate the consequences of your actions? :^(

[bodhi No.15213333]

They lack intuition, imagination, and insight. They have never had an original idea and they hate those that do.

[Anonymous No.15213354]

>>15213333
Aren't you being a little harsh towards your own children made from your own genetic material? :^(

[Anonymous No.15213415]

>>15211764
The thing is, as right as you are, scientific experts have barely much more of a clue of how to ultimately tackle the problem than the schizos do, as our understanding of consciousness and how it arises in and relates to a physical world is at a stage equivalent to pre-Newtonian physics, so here, while being widely read in philosophy and the like might be a great help to prevent people from retreading arguments, if a serious breakthrough happens in this area there's really nothing to say where it's likely to come from.

Maybe some massively funded military research team will make some of the first dents, maybe a poet living in a shack in the woods will come up with a serious crack at it, making further progress possible. We just really don't fucking know and don't have anything like an education/research pipeline that we have reason to believe will produce people better equipped with the knowledge needed to deal with this, despite this being a very serious problem at this point in time given the progress being made in AI and brain interfacing technologies.

[Anonymous No.15213668]

>>15212711
it is. but the empiric knowledge he presents is extremely interesting and relevant. personally, I think he and penrose do an excellent job in debunking materialism in this talk

[Anonymous No.15213947]

>>15213668
Roger Penrose is a pseudo-scientist. You cannot be both idealist and scientist. And I bet he refuted the vaccine, fucking crackpot.

[Anonymous No.15213971]

>>15211314
because "many" here believe conciousness is beyond science, it is an almost magical concept to them that refuse to explain in scientific terms.

[Anonymous No.15213988]

>>15213947
it's still SIR Roger Penrose for you, punk

[Anonymous No.15214009]

>>15213947
Oh no no no, how did we let a pseudoscientist win the nobel prize?

[Anonymous No.15214040]

>>15213668
>>15213947
penrose isn't exactly an idealist

[Anonymous No.15214046]

>>15213947
>You cannot be both idealist and scientist
Wrong. The only metaphysics hindering proper science is materialism, since its religious believers are too dumb to separate their metaphysical claims from the empirical world.

[Anonymous No.15214054]

>>15214040
it is unintentional debunking

[Anonymous No.15214065]

>>15211764
>If they did they'd know their take has been discussed for decades
For thousands of years, not decades.

[Anonymous No.15214067]

>>15214065
>it's been discussed for a long time therefore it's wrong and my retarded neoreligion is better

[Anonymous No.15214344]

>>15214065
Thousands of years is just a lot of decades nerd

[Anonymous No.15214414]

>when you are dreaming, you can't tell that it's a dream, even when it's completely unrealistic.

Uhh conciousness sisters, is it really that easy to decieve the brain; to give the false impression of concious experience?

[Anonymous No.15214580]

>>15214414
how do you know that it is a false impression and not real?

[Anonymous No.15214627]

>>15211314
The internet, but with each computer working towards the same goal or target.
>>15211370
We're made of the same materials that make the universe, distinguished by our combination of interactions.

[Anonymous No.15214900]

>>15211570
why does no one here understand meterialism. Conciousness being a product of the configuration of matter doesnt debase or lower its significance. And just like in physics just because a phenomenon like entropy is emergent doesnt make it less fundamental. Cant believe that people can think can consciousness can be anything else but material

[Anonymous No.15214958]

>>15214900
Materialism is a mental illness. Mental patients rarely understand the nature of their mental disease and thus feel misunderstood by those around them. :^)

[Anonymous No.15214968]

>>15211314
It’s electricity flowing through insanely complex circuits you superstitious mongoloid

[Anonymous No.15214973]

>>15214958
Sure thing anon, tell your doctor that your brain creates reality and that nothing is real. Please report back.

[Anonymous No.15214974]

>>15214973
See? Your delusional mental illness is making you lash out at imaginary characters in your head. What does your spergout have to do with anything I said?

[bodhi No.15214995]

>>15214973
tell a psychiatrist someone else's brain creates your reality instead of yours and see how quick you end up in a straight jacket

[Anonymous No.15214997]

>>15214995
That’s not what I believe so I wouldn’t do that, feel free to try.

[Anonymous No.15215003]

>>15214997
Notice how your only resort is to seek out an actual schizophrenic to have a discussion down on your level of cognition once your delusions are called out.

[Anonymous No.15215011]

>>15215003
I already made my reply to op
>>15214968

[bodhi No.15215016]

>>15215003
literally every single argument any of you mentally retarded psueds on this board use against materialism comes directly from me. It is very telling how you try to insult people who are orders of magnitude above you in intellect even while you parrot them word for word. You are a hack and it is all you will ever be, in the shadow of men like me

[Anonymous No.15215024]

>>15215016
You are every bit as much of a delusional and zogged golem as the "people" you hate. There has never been an opposition more controlled than you.

[Anonymous No.15215027]

>>15215011
Okay, but we're not discussing the contents of your materialist mental illness. I just want to know why you lashed out at imaginary characters in your head when you replied to me.

[bodhi No.15215030]

>>15215024
you never even heard of ZOG before you met me. You never knew a single thing in this world that wasnt shit directly into your head by ZOG before you met me. take your meds schizo

[Anonymous No.15215038]

>>15215030
You're a truly delusional golem, a hylic with no qualia and an admitted homosexual. Time for you to kill yourself.

[bodhi No.15215042]

>>15215038
legit schizo hours we got here, you are an ant

[Anonymous No.15215043]

>>15215027
Yeah man you seem well adjusted.

[Anonymous No.15215056]

>>15215043
Why did you lash out against imaginary boogeymen when talking to me? You seem to be very uncomfortable with this question.

[bodhi No.15215062]

>>15215043
>the people who sit on anime forum all day calling everyone who isnt a mouth breather like them a schizo, are in fact themselves schizos
wow imagine my shock

[Anonymous No.15215071]

>>15215062
My first time posting on /sci/ and you seem to literally do that as everyone here recognizes you.

[bodhi No.15215076]

>>15215071
yah sure buddy, take your meds and stfu

[bodhi No.15215098]

>>15215071
I am werry sorry my friend
I have been working late at the convenience store and am so werry tired

[bodhi No.15215103]

>>15215071
sometimes I am up all night sending unsolicited dms on the Facebook and forget that reality is made out of matter and energy