/lit/ - Literature

>One thing that almost everybody agrees on

Consensus doesn't make facts. The only truth that arises from this "agreement" are that these people agree with eachother. It has zero bearing on the actuality.

Even with this agreement, they STILL cannot point to any "substance" in the brain which is consciousness, or the mind as they call it. So much for "agrees on".

>>19152871
All psychology is founded on the deranged projections of a perverted blackmailing kike.

>>19152871
>"There is a higher power"
>t. Gauss
>t. Bohr
>t. Heisenberg
>t. Leibniz
>t. Newton
>t. Tesla

>>19152871
>brain and consciousness—cannot be two different substances.
Why not?
>b-b-but how can they interact then?
This was already solved over two thousand years ago in Indian philosophy, do you have any other arguments against it or is that it?

>>19152871
>science has debooonked Christianity!
scientism was a mistake

>only the unconscious are spiritual
Do not trust OP with your drink

>>19154289
>This was already solved over two thousand years ago in Indian philosophy, do you have any other arguments against it or is that it?
How? If consciousness is different than the brain it must produce some detectable physical impact in the brain otherwise it's superfluous. If you believe in a soul you also believe that there is some special region of the brain we just haven't found that violates the laws of physics.

>>19154311
but how can I feel special if consciousness isn't magic?

>>19152871
>brain and consciousness—cannot be two different substances.
Just from a purely medical standpoint, this makes no sense. From a broader physical perspective, it's largely impossible unless we've really fucked up everything we know about physical reality. I mean, I'm not saying that's totally impossible. I'm just wondering why these people would disavow basic material facts of their disciplines and all further study based on previously held assumptions. Was there some massive Kuhnian shift I missed? It seems more likely they were bribed into abject corruption of science or they are being misquoted.

>>19154344
What the fuck kind of medicine deals with consciousness without a brain? I guess you can talk about a brain without consciousness I've seen them preserved in formaldehyde

>>19152871
You know who also condemns the teachings of Descartes' dualism? The motherfucking Church and theology departments of his time. Christcucks would be BTFO'd if dualism was true. Also, Susan Blackmore is a dumb cunt and you should read better books.
t. atheist who has the first clue about philosophy and literature on consciousness

>>19154366
Everything to do with acquired brain inquiry, anaesthesia, the autonomic nervous system, child development, actually a lot of things. Most of the things that people feel consciousness relates to are nowhere near the brain in a medical sense, such as hormones and the autonomic nervous system. You can be fully conscious during and after an icepick lobotomy, but you'd still be considered brain damaged even if you didn't experience any change in presentation.

>>19152871
>brain and consciousness—cannot be two different substances.
Consciousness is literally not a substance. I am not even religious, but nobody should take philosophylets seriously when they delve in to such matters

>>19154435
And which of those examples has consciousness without a brain?

>terminal lucidity
This kills the materialist.

>>19154451
The 21 grams experiment refers to a scientific study published in 1907 by Duncan MacDougall, a physician from Haverhill, Massachusetts. MacDougall hypothesized that souls have physical weight, and attempted to measure the mass lost by a human when the soul departed the body. MacDougall attempted to measure the mass change of six patients at the moment of death. One of the six subjects lost three-quarters of an ounce (21.3 grams).

MacDougall stated his experiment would have to be repeated many times before any conclusion could be obtained. The experiment is widely regarded as flawed and unscientific due to the small sample size, the methods used, as well as the fact only one of the six subjects met the hypothesis. The case has been cited as an example of selective reporting. Despite its rejection within the scientific community, MacDougall's experiment popularized the concept that the soul has weight, and specifically that it weighs 21 grams.

>>19154441
most philosophy graduate believe in physicalism

>>19154446
The obvious examples are jellyfish. Unless you think they are brain-dead.

>>19154469
Yes I'm absolutely willing to say that jellyfish are not conscious.

>>19154474
Are you willing to say snails are?

>>19154476
Maybe. Consciousness isn't a well demarcated concept it's a product of a complex brain or nervous system(more generally information processing) and is subject to the same issues as any composition type of definition has.

>>19154486
>it's a product of a complex brain or nervous system(
So jellyfish would be conscious

>>19154491
Not complex enough. This is just the Sorites paradox in a different context. I believe in consciousness the same way I believe in a pile of sand. What I don't believe in is some metaphysically simple quality called consciousness.

>>19154511
Jellyfish have two nerve nets, while snails only have a few ganglions. The amount of information and complex actions the jellyfish has to assess is exponentially greater even if you turn off the small network that would effectively render it brain-dead.

>>19154525
I don't know enough biology to really argue but I do know that the quantity of information a system has to process doesn't necessarily say anything about the complexity of the processing. Either way snail or jellyfish or maybe even neither there is some point where the complexity of information processing reduces to a level at which I'm happy to say the animal is no longer conscious.

>>19154549
I'm saying you're wrong on a level of physical fact that makes it apparent you don't know anything about biology, and less about physics. What you're saying is basically metaphysical nonsense equivalent to "only Dutch people have souls". It wouldn't even make sense within mainstream metaphysical nonsense. It's like thinking your emotions originate in your heart and it looks like a cartoon.

>>19154311
>How? If consciousness is different than the brain it must produce some detectable physical impact in the brain otherwise it's superfluous. If you believe in a soul you also believe that there is some special region of the brain we just haven't found that violates the laws of physics.

Nah. See 'Mind-body interaction: What’s the problem?'
>http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/09/mind-body-interaction-whats-problem.html

See also: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/05/mind-body-problem-roundup.html

>>19154573
>feser
lmfao, sorry, but I don't take men who write reviews about books that they haven't read seriously.

>>19154549
So then if it's all about complexity of information processing, then you must admit that particularly large fungal networks or plasma complexes are also conscious, would you not?

>>19154570
You've brought up unrelated facts about jellyfish and then claimed victory when I don't know about them. My original point stands and you haven't touched it if consciousness is separate from the brain there must be some part of the brain that is physically effected by consciousness otherwise consciousness is superfluous. Metaphysics is made up.

>>19154585
>So then if it's all about complexity of information processing, then you must admit that particularly large fungal networks or plasma complexes are also conscious, would you not?
Again I don't think consciousness is a well defined concept but I'm fully willing to accept the possibility of a fungal network or plasma complex that we would find conscious. Notice the we would find conscious part it's a subjective judgement.

>>19154573
>mind-body interaction isn't a problem for christcucks
>all you have to do is accept these the even more ridiculous idea of four types of causality
Your teleological purpose in this argument is to lose. Dread it, run from it, destiny arrives all the same.

>>19154587
Jellyfish being conscious without brains directly contradicts your point. To say that there needs to be a brain for there to be consciousness is just physically not true. It is as sloppy a "fact" as imagining that your heart has a little happy face on it when you're happy. It's a retarded children's book non-fact that's been made up for people who don't understand brains but like retarded fictional cartoons about them. I'm convinced the reason so many idiots don't take into account any of the nervous system outside the brain is because comic book drawings don't extend to that level of line work.
tl;dr- read a book aimed at someone above an eight grade level. plenty of the authors in OP have them.

>>19154630
Who says jellyfish are conscious? I said several times they weren't. Then you pointed out that snails have less capacity than jellyfish so sure let's say they're not conscious either. This is not the slam dunk you think it is. I've said several times that consciousness is a vague subjective judgement. I asked you to point to something in medicine that we could agree was conscious without a brain. And like I said earlier as well a complex nervous system is fine for me to call something conscious.

>>19154311
>How?
Because the non-conscious physical mind maintains two-way causal relations with the world and in this way accounts for causality and the mind mentally responding to exterior events, but non-physical consciousness illumines or observes this non-conscious mind as immaterial awareness that induces no change in the mind or other physical change. This awareness isn’t superfluous though because without it there would be no awareness of mental events, as mental events are not self-aware and even if they were they couldn’t produce united experience anyway as they are disconnected. This doesn’t contain the central flaw which people associate with the claim of consciousness and body being different:

>The unfolding of thought forms is an integral part of the evolution of prakṛti, and mental processes are simply the result of appropriate transformations of unconscious material substance. It is perhaps worth noting at this point that the Sāṅkhya-Yoga (and Advaita) view thereby avoids one of the most serious pitfalls of Cartesian dualism, since on the Indian account, mental causation does not violate any physical conservation laws. By including mind in the realm of matter, mental events are granted causal efficacy, and are thereby able to directly initiate bodily motions. And, conversely, material objects are able to have genuine mental effects, as required by normal accounts of, say, the flow of information involved in perceptual awareness of the environment. The representational content of sensory experiences, such as those which attend perceiving the blueness of the sky or the pungent flavor of espresso, can now be treated as straightforward consequences of the physical environment's causal impingements upon the mind. This is because, in contrast to standard Western dualism, there is no longer a causal/ontological gulf separating mind from matter

>>19154670
>>19154311
> If consciousness is different than the brain it must produce some detectable physical impact in the brain otherwise it's superfluous.
Producing a physical impact has no intrinsic relation to what the meaning of “consciousness” (i.e. being conscious, aware, sentient) is, so what you said is actually spurious reasoning, because you are taking something which has no intrinsic connection with consciousness and then using that or its absence as a reason to call consciousness superfluous and dismiss it, but this is wrong because whether or not consciousness produces any physical impacts is unrelated to the primary function it performs of making us aware, sentient. It’s like if I said “if you can’t eat air, then air is superfluous”. Consciousness may not be necessary to induce physical changes in the world since we see unconscious objects affecting each other, but it is certainly necessary for is to have subjective experience as self-aware beings, which we do.

>If you believe in a soul you also believe that there is some special region of the brain we just haven't found that violates the laws of physics.
No I don’t, that’s not true. I believe that consciousness is non-physical and is not a part or region of the brain. We could hypothetically know 100% about the material structure and biology of the brain and still not be able to find and measure consciousness if it exists but is non-physical. Scientists have already found evidence of things which violate physics btw, there is no good reason to make it your object of worship.

>>19154462
Souls literally don't have weight they aren't a physical thing by definition. this is retarded and idk why people mention it as anything but an embarrassment.

>>19154465
consciousness isn't a substance by its definition either. consciousness is not the same as the intellect. maybe some people think they are the same because the term is so poorly defined in general discourse and probably even most philosophical discourse meets that same ambiguity but they aren't.

>>19154511
Sorites paradox isn't a paradox it's proof that differentiation by degree only is meaningless.

>>19154670
Do you realize how stupid this is? What you've described is someone else(our physical brain) playing a video game while we("immaterial awareness") watch and think we are the ones playing.

>>19154673
>Producing a physical impact has no intrinsic relation to what the meaning of “consciousness” (i.e. being conscious, aware, sentient) is
Do you believe that your consciousness controls your very physical body? If you do there has to be a point of physical interaction.

>>19154660
>so sure let's say they're not conscious either. This is not the slam dunk you think it is.
It highlights that you don't know about the authors in question, because you could at least defend the snail is conscious but the jellyfish is not using the text. True, the author isn't medically or scientifically trained, which is why his work isn't taken seriously by the people actually doing medical and biological research on consciousness, but you could have at least pretended to have read one of the authors you are championing by picking the most pop sci of the bunch and flipping a coin. Do you think trying to save face on a point you don't understand is going to change biology somehow?

>>19154465
An idea is by its nature not physical. The “place” where your thoughts “sit” is outside of physical reality

>>19154720
I haven't read the book where did you get that idea from. This is me >>19154311 first responding to some Indian yoga schizo I assume the same as this guy >>19154670

>>19154682
>Do you realize how stupid this is?
Why and how is this stupid? Do you actually have any arguments or are you just upset because the stock argument against Descartes' dualism no longer applies?

>What you've described is someone else(our physical brain) playing a video game while we("immaterial awareness") watch and think we are the ones playing.
Yes, the Bhagavad-Gita and other Indian scriptures talk about this, it's the mind that thinks this and not awareness though, awareness doesn't think.

They alone truly see who understand that all actions are performed by material nature, while the embodied soul actually does nothing.
- Bhagavad-Gita 13.30
> Being without beginning and being devoid of qualities, the Supreme Self, imperishable, though dwelling in the body, O Kaunteya, neither acts nor is tainted.
- Bhagavad Gita 13.32

>>19154747
You've doubled down on the stupidity. To be fully explicit I believe that if your answer to the mind-body problem involves our consciousness not controlling our body you're an idiot who protects his favored idea(immaterial consciousness) by accepting an even more ridiculous idea(we are just passengers in our experience).

>>19154691
>Do you believe that your consciousness controls your very physical body?
No, but I hold that consciousness is necessary for there to be awareness of the body and mind doing things, in any case that is still an incidental relation and not something that immediately proceeds from the meaning of the word ‘consciousness’ itself.

>>19152871
>One thing that almost everybody agrees on is that classical dualism does not work; mind and body—brain and consciousness—cannot be two different substances

Agreed.

>>19154761
See >>19154757. This is a stupid position I don't need to say anything else. Heck I can't say anything else since my consciousness isn't controlling my body it's my purely physical brain doing the typing.

>>19154757
>You've doubled down on the stupidity.
You have not explained why it should be considered stupid in the first place, you are forfeiting the debate by resorting pejoratives instead of actual arguments. When confronted with a coherent explanation of non-physical consciousness that doesn't suffer from the same flaws as Descartes, you had no arguments to debunk it but instead had to call it stupid to save face.

>To be fully explicit I believe that if your answer to the mind-body problem involves our consciousness not controlling our body you're an idiot who protects his favored idea(immaterial consciousness) by accepting an even more ridiculous idea(we are just passengers in our experience).
Why and how is this ridiculous? It follows quite naturally from the fact that awareness observes deliberation and volition in the mind as something different from that awareness, deliberation and volition are not self-aware but are observed by awareness; if awareness/consciousness registers these while itself remaining a presence which differs from them, then why should we ever consider that awareness to be controlling anything like the body when it's actually the non-sentient volition which does?

>consciousness is this! No, consciousness is that!

The whole question is stupid. Consciousness literally cannot be observed, since you cannot directly experience someone else's consciousness. The best you can do is to locate some brain patterns that correspond to someone's external behavior, but never consciousness as such. It's outside the realm of science exactly because it cannot be observed unless some Borg Collective-type of mind-link tech ever gets developed.

>>19154821
This has been exactly my position through multiple posts. The other guys are the Indian mystic and the animal consciousness gotcha ones. There is no consciousness without the brain and even then consciousness is vague and subjective

>>19154837

>This has been exactly my position through multiple posts bro I'm just like an open-minded skeptic who doesn't commit to anything for which there is no proof... why yes I do believe without proof that there is no consciousness without the brain how did you know.... What? You're saying that people in other cultures have already written accounts of consciousness and the body being different that don't have the flaws of Decartes which I rely on citing when shilling materialism? Uhh... actually I exclude them for arbitrary reasons and say that everything remaining is 'vague' and 'subjective'

>>19154734
He's probably referencing Dennett about snail brains. He's not at all qualified to speak about brains but did hypothesize that snails have a "smaller" consciousness because they have smaller brains. Bigger brain = bigger consciousness is the kind of mistake about anatomy that neuroscientists and paleontologists get annoyed about, but that isn't Dennett's market.

>>19154446
Plants are conscious, and when a tree in the forest gets attacked by (((pine beetles))) it communicates to other trees and they mount a collective defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants
https://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/

"Behaviors like mycorrhizal symbiosis, kin recognition, and collaborative environmental transformation suggest that overall, plants are better together. By staying in tune with their external environment, plants can determine when working together and fostering interdependence is better than going it alone."

https://www.inverse.com/science/plants-talk-to-each-other

>>19155110
It's not Dennett because listening to a Dennett lecture on youtube is where I got >>19154549
>but I do know that the quantity of information a system has to process doesn't necessarily say anything about the complexity of the processing
from.

>>19155126
Here's him quoted in a 2021 news article on whether consciousness is in the brain
>The consciousness of a snail is minuscule compared to the consciousness of a monkey or a bird, which is minuscule [compared with] our consciousness,
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/does-the-key-to-consciousness-lie-within-our-brains-1.4506233
Dennett's known for this. He maintained only humans were conscious because only humans were complex enough. Biologists pointed out that was not a solid argument. Now the argument is something like
>only human consciousness is complex enough for us to understand but not so complex like the list the biologists gave me
He's really not qualified to speak about brains. Consciousness as a philosophical musing he's very apt to do, but that doesn't mean he understands what a brain is or what animals have them. He doesn't really have to know anything about brains because that's not his job; his job is to speculate about a physically undetectable thing which is defined differently by everyone.

>>19152871
Dennett is an NPC

http://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html

>>19154771
all you keep saying is the idea is stupid without elaborating at all. everyone you're arguing with is giving reasons, except you

>>19154465
How can MOST so called philosophers believe in compatibilitism, inarguably the most retarded of the bunch? Are they too afraid to fully commit to the absurd logical conclusions of their materialism?
What a farce.

>>19155938
It's almost like there's something you don't understand.

>>19155938
compatibilism is literally just “no free will but shut the fuck up about it and become an artistotlian”

>>19152871
Who would have thought that the overwhelming majority of scientists - who conduct their work within a dogmatically materialist field - are themselves materialists? It’s not like non-physicalism is antithetical to the framework of the scientific method or anything

>>19152871
How does that btfo christians? You think christians are all cartesian dualists? lmfao.

>>19154465
>Aesthetic value
>objective - 41%

Lmao wut

>>19157098
If anything Christians are platonists

>>19157098
It BTFOs the idea of eternal souls

>>19157188
The soul can exist independent of the mind. I don't see the point in conflating them.

>>19152914
Conversation over with the first post. Nice bait OP

>>19157207
>The soul can exist independent of the mind.
Literally no neuroscientist believe in this shit. There is zero empirical evidence of consciousness without brain. Anyone can lose their sense of Self with even minor accident. Eternal self is made up bullshit.

>>19157221
Your sense of self on earth is material and grounded in lived experience, the soul is an eternal substance temporarily residing inside you.

>>19157239
According to Christians your current self is the extension of eternal soul. So fuck off with semantics.

>>19157249
Why is that impossible? I don't see how the soul can't reflect your selfhood in a higher sense when liberated from the body. The mind is material, and can be shaped with lived experience, can be molded, desires change, etc, but again, this all comes with the transience of earthly existence. When the soul is free from the body, I suppose the desires of earthly life will be eradicated, because a disembodied soul will of course be a pure intelligence, instead of an animal body. So the soul in a sense is a higher (You) instead of the (you) that is currently identified with.

>>19157263
Souls have no empirical basis. With faith I can say I am a meme.gif for some Outside autistic shitposting entity on Outsidechan. And you can't disprove that.

>>19157272
Heckin rad, dude. Would you like some gold with that?

>>19152871
>materialist proves that everything is material to another materialist

>>19157290
Fucking kino, anon. What you like same Based with that?

>>19157323
I prefer Schway, good sir.

Multi-Sense Realism bends anti-consciousness fags over the table and fucks them to prolapse. You were warned.

>>19157340
Have a (You) faggot

>>19154570
>Only Dutch people have souls
Provably correct. Other "peoples" aren't even human.

>>19157221
Neuroscientists don't study the soul - they study the mechanics of the brain. Also you're using "self" in a different context. Self here is equivalent to "what makes you you" and indeed the soul is eternal. It's not the same as personality or memories (though iirc memories are eternal too, idk).

>>19157390
The thing is there is no empirical evidence of existence of consciousness without brain. If soul or self was eternal then any brain damage or disease wouldn't be able to effect the sense of self or memory(which make the sense of self possible). There are no eternal souls, keep coping.

>>19154670
>non-physical consciousness illumines or observes this non-conscious mind as immaterial awareness that induces no change in the mind or other physical change.
Trivially wrong. We're talking about consciousness right now. We wouldn't even have hint of it without consciousness affecting our minds.
>there is no longer a causal/ontological gulf separating mind from matter
There is a causal gulf separating mind and consciousness now instead.
>>19154673
>We could hypothetically know 100% about the material structure and biology of the brain and still not be able to find and measure consciousness if it exists but is non-physical.
Consciousness has two way relationship with the mind. It needst to be aware of things (consciousness->mind) and mind needs to be aware of consciousness, enabling us to appreciate it. If it has two way relationship with the mind then it doesn't differ from the rest of material word interacting with it and is open for scientific investigation.
>Scientists have already found evidence of things which violate physics btw, there is no good reason to make it your object of worship.
Doubt. I believe that figuring out brains will make Advaita Vedantra incompatible with science.

>>19157407
That only indicates that the organ can be damaged, not that there is no soul or self.

>>19157419
>I believe that figuring out brains will make Advaita Vedantra incompatible with science.
Not that anon but you're right.
Awareness as true reality is total bullshit. What true reality when consciousness lie to us about the most basic thing as white light? We know that white is the muddiest mix of colors from experiments but le awareness tell us that it's the most neat color. What a fucking joke.

>>19157429
According to Christians this self is responsible for afterlife. So self is eternal how something immaterial can be damaged by material events?

>>19155118
None of those observable reactions are indicative of consciousness. If I drop a ball and it reacts by falling to the ground, what in that action would make you think the ball has consciousness?

>>19157455
>what in that action would make you think the ball has consciousness?
He possessed an aggregate of your consciousness.

"The experience of red" cannot be a tangible object. That's a completely incoherent idea. They're ontologically distinct.
A 1st year philosophy student should be able to point this out.

>>19157439
I just explained it to you.

>>19157483
Which are mental gymnastics.

>>19157501
>word salad
Yawn.

>>19157419
>Trivially wrong. We're talking about consciousness right now. We wouldn't even have hint of it without consciousness affecting our minds.
That’s a trivial assertion because you have no evidence for it, it’s completely baseless. That we find our consciousness to be associated with minds/brains proves nothing about what happens to consciousness when the brain and body are no more. You are just assuming materialism to be true, which isn’t an argument.
> >there is no longer a causal/ontological gulf separating mind from matter
>There is a causal gulf separating mind and consciousness now instead.
There isn’t anything in this though that would present a problem or paradox for Advaita and Sāṅkhya-Yoga and their explanation of mind and consciousness because consciousness for them is non-volitional and so it doesn’t make decisions and direct actions, so there is no question of not being able to explain how it directs/impacts the world, since it doesn’t.
>Consciousness has two way relationship with the mind. It needst to be aware of things (consciousness->mind)
Where is the proof for this? That’s a baseless claim, just because we experience that in the human body proves nothing about possibilities beyond the human body, you are like a deep-sea fish saying “life cannot exist above water and we know this because we only find life underwater”. Again, assuming materialism as true isn’t an argument.
>and mind needs to be aware of consciousness, enabling us to appreciate it.
Mind isn’t aware of consciousness, awareness is synonymous with consciousness, but consciousness/awareness does not observe itself as its own object. The mind can create and call forth mental representations of awareness, the concept or idea of awareness, but that is not the same as actual awareness itself. It’s actually illogical to say as you did that “the mind is aware of consciousness”, because it’s implying two centers of sentience, like there are two subjects or two foundational awarenesses, but we only ever experience ourselves as having one center of witnessing-awareness and experience instead of multiple. Saying “the mind is aware of awareness” is incoherent for this reason, in this case what is happening is that the mind is forming itself into the mental image/concept of awareness, and then this idea is illuminated by the actual awareness occurring at the same time as that unconscious/unaware concept.
>If it has two way relationship with the mind then it doesn't differ from the rest of material word interacting with it and is open for scientific investigation.
You didn’t prove or even provide a pretense of a logical argument for the claim that it has a two-way relation with the material world, but you just made two unsubstantiated assertions, the latter of which is incoherent.

>>19157786
>>19157419
>>Scientists have already found evidence of things which violate physics btw, there is no good reason to make it your object of worship.
>Doubt.

It’s been demonstrated by multiple independent labs around the world that in certain circumstances the human body can inexplicably detect and initiate physiological changes such as increased heart rate, in response to stimuli occurring ~10 seconds in the future before that physiological change actually occurs; it is a mirror image of the post-stimuli physiological response that occurs before the actual stimuli. This violates physics because there is no model of physics that permits events to induce physical changes 10 seconds before that event happens.

>A recent meta-analysis of experiments from seven independent laboratories (n = 26) indicates that the human body can apparently detect randomly delivered stimuli occurring 1–10 s in the future (Mossbridge etal., 2012). The key observation in these studies is that human physiology appears to be able to distinguish between unpredictable dichotomous future stimuli, such as emotional vs. neutral images or sound vs. silence.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24723870/
>Conclusions: In summary, with this update, the main findings reported in Mossbridge et al’s meta-analysis, are confirmed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6124390/

> I believe that figuring out brains will make Advaita Vedantra incompatible with science.
“Figuring out brains” is the “TWO MORE WEEKS” of materialists. You guys will just keep denying the obvious, waiting for your imagined future validation that never happens like a materialist rapture.

>>19157908
>. You guys will just keep denying the obvious,
What's obvious retard? White light is the muddiest mixture of colors yet our eyes perceive it neat as fuck. Our awareness lie to us about the most basic thing. So can you claim that what is or isn't obvious?

>>19154311
>it must

>>19157407
> If soul or self was eternal then any brain damage or disease wouldn't be able to effect the sense of self or memory(which make the sense of self possible
But that's not true if they are working together.

>>19157439
That is not what is being said. Nothing in the intellect is damaged by material events. However, may hold the position that the material body is responsible for some amount of work prior to the immaterial intellect. Sense perception is a notable example. Obviously your ability to see if removed if you have no eyes anymore. But that isn't damaging anything immaterial it's just removing the material perquisites for that faculty to do something with. Idk what Aristotle really said about memories though you'd be better off just reading him if you want to know a position that might be held by a christian.

>>19152914
/thread

>>19158018
>That is not what is being said. Nothing in the intellect is damaged by material events.
>Aristotle
Christcuck are now citing thousands of years old assumptions to deboonk contemporary neuroscientific empirical evidence, well done.

>>19157434
>right.
>Awareness as true reality is total bullshit. What true reality when consciousness lie to us about the most basic thing as white light? We know that white is the muddiest mix of colors from experiments but le awareness tell us that it's the most neat color. What a fucking joke.
That’s wrong, the mind is what processes visual data, awareness is simply the presence which registers what the mind is doing. When the mind produces an imperfect representation of white and awareness is simply aware of that imperfect representation, that’s not awareness itself lying but only the mind lying. Hence, your example fails to demonstrate that the concept of awareness as absolute reality is bullshit, instead you’ve just showed that you confuse consciousness and unconscious mental distinctions.
>>19157930
>What's obvious retard? White light is the muddiest mixture of colors yet our eyes perceive it neat as fuck. Our awareness lie to us about the most basic thing.
That’s wrong, the mind does, awareness just registers whatever display the mind comes up with, that’s not awareness lying about anything. We never have the experience of awareness lying.
>So can you claim that what is or isn't obvious?
That consciousness is different in nature from matter

>>19158174
>That’s wrong, the mind is what processes visual data, awareness is simply the presence which registers what the mind is doing. When the mind produces an imperfect representation of white and awareness is simply aware of that imperfect representation, that’s not awareness itself lying but only the mind lying. Hence, your example fails to demonstrate that the concept of awareness as absolute reality is bullshit, instead you’ve just showed that you confuse consciousness and unconscious mental distinctions.
Before doing experiments humanity was sure that white light is the result of a white color. So yes human consciousness is liar and and shitty instrument for metaphysical inquire when it deludes us for is right under our noses.

>>19158222
>Before doing experiments humanity was sure that white light is the result of a white color. So yes human consciousness is liar and and shitty instrument for metaphysical inquire when it deludes us for is right under our noses.
That’s wrong, because as I have already explained, visual perceptions and thoughts are not consciousness (awareness) but are changing and unconscious mental distinctions/ phenomena which are different from awareness. Your example is still just an example of the mind and its thoughts lying and deluding and not consciousness doing either. When the mind comes up with an imperfect representation of what something is, awareness infallibly gives us access to that subjective experience/representation of qualia. Awareness does not delude or mislead us here in any way about what the mind is portraying, awareness is instead just notifying us accurately and without deception of the contents which the mind has arranged, any fault in the display lies with the mind for not producing a perfect representation, and subsequent thoughts and beliefs about that display made in error are also not consciousness either.

>>19154289
>This was already solved over two thousand years ago in Indian philosophy
?? Hinduism resort to dualism, Buddhism reject the existence of an eternal soul and is pretty much materialistic

>>19158273
Then what is consciousness?

>>19152871
Good thing we will be resurrected with the body

>>19154465
Large percentage of atheism and a large percentage of cope. Not really surprising.

Strange I thought New Atheism btfo of Christianity in the early 2000s

>>19158285
>?? Hinduism resort to dualism
In a way yes, but this doesn’t face the problems of western dualism since in multiple Hindu schools consciousness is non-volitional and so there is no problem of interaction and causality; hence this solves the main problem associated with western mind-body or consciousness-body dualism in western philosophy; materialists tend to bring up this point in order to argue for consciousness being material, that’s why I said they solved this problem because their conception of consciousness allows it to be different from matter without containing that problem.

>>19158286
> Then what is consciousness?

It is reflexive awareness-presence which is partless, undifferentiated, immediate and constant, free from the distinction of subject and object (this distinction is imposed by and inheres in the mind). It reveals itself as well as other things.

>The fact of consciousness is entirely different from everything else. So long as the assemblage of the physical or physiological conditions antecedent to the rise of any cognition, as for instance, the presence of illumination, sense-object contact, etc., is being prepared, there is no knowledge, and it is only at a particular moment that the cognition of an object arises. This cognition is in its nature so much different from each and all the elements constituting the so-called assemblage of conditions, that it cannot in any sense be regarded as the product of any collocation of conditions. Consciousness thus, not being a product of anything and not being further analysable into any constituents, cannot also be regarded as a momentary flashing. Uncaused and unproduced, it is eternal, infinite and unlimited. The main point in which consciousness differs from everything else is the fact of its self-revelation. There is no complexity in consciousness. It is extremely simple, and its only essence or characteristic is pure self-revelation.

>The so-called momentary flashing of consciousness is not due to the fact that it is momentary, that it rises into being and is then destroyed the next moment, but to the fact that the objects that are revealed by it are reflected through it from time to time. But the consciousness is always steady and unchangeable in itself. The immediacy of this consciousness is proved by the fact that, though everything else is manifested by coming in touch with it, it itself is never expressed, indicated or manifested by inference or by any other process, but is always self-manifested and self-revealed. All objects become directly revealed to us as soon as they come in touch with it.

>>19158570
>>19158286

>Consciousness is one. It is neither identical with its objects nor on the same plane with them as a constituent element in a collocation of them and consciousness. The objects of consciousness or all that is manifested in consciousness come in touch with consciousness and themselves appear as consciousness. This appearance is such that, when they come in touch with consciousness, they themselves flash forth as consciousness, though that operation is nothing but a false appearance of the non-conscious objects and mental states in the light of consciousness, as being identical with it. But the intrinsic difference between consciousness and its objects is that the former is universal and constant, while the latter are particular and alternating. The awarenesses of a book, a table, etc. appear to be different not because these are different flashings of knowledge, but because of the changing association of consciousness with these objects. The objects do not come into being with the flashings of their awareness, but they have their separate existence and spheres of operation.

> Consciousness is one and unchanging; it is only when the objects get associated with it that they appear in consciousness and as identical with it in such a way that the flashing of an object in consciousness appears as the flashing of the consciousness itself. It is through an illusion that the object of consciousness and consciousness appear to be welded together into such an integrated whole, that their mutual difference escapes our notice, and that the object of consciousness, which is only like an extraneous colour applied to consciousness, does not appear different or extraneous to it, but as a specific mode of the consciousness itself. Thus what appear as but different awarenesses, as book-cognition, table-cognition, are not in reality different awarenesses, but one unchangeable consciousness successively associated with ever-changing objects which falsely appear to be integrated with it and give rise to the appearance that qualitatively different kinds of consciousness are flashing forth from moment to moment.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/a-history-of-indian-philosophy-volume-2/d/doc209866.html

Also, see these papers which explain it quite well:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Intentionality-and-Presence%3A-On-the-Intrinsic-of-a-Fasching/0e54daf69f40fe2d4318e04b777c264693c72a16

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Prak%C4%81%C5%9Ba.-A-few-reflections-on-the-Advaitic-of-as-of-Fasching/b0d194d3546abd490c22c32f3131aa27589c7645

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Consciousness%2C-self-consciousness%2C-and-meditation-Fasching/e0cc76d8c200d9dca2ea6a5719861f5672b7c7b2

>>19152871
Don't really give two shits what the (((best minds))) have to say about anything lol

>>19158339
Christianity self BTFO itself during the reformation

>>19158570
>>19158581
Here I have the much better definition of consciousness

>Consciousness is much more than the thorn, it is the dagger in the flesh.

Emil Cioran, The Trouble with Being Born

>>19159013
No, that’s a bad one which confuses mind and consciousness yet again, the mind is what feels pain and anguish, consciousness is different from them.

>>19152871
David Chalmers is literally a dualist.