Can someone explain to me what the big fucking deal over qualia is? It's such a tired and inconsequential concept and the entire debate over it is just semantics. By the way I only read the first few paragraphs on Wikipedia.

File: 33 KB, 613x481, 1523046296367.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon May 28 04:45:18 2018 No.11225624 [Reply] [Original]

Can someone explain to me what the big fucking deal over qualia is?

It's such a tired and inconsequential concept and the entire debate over it is just semantics.

By the way I only read the first few paragraphs on Wikipedia.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 04:46:50 2018 No.11225627 There can be no physical account of the red-ness of red.

Anonymous Mon May 28 04:53:20 2018 No.11225640

>>11225624
Kek. But I do literally feel this way about Mary in her black and white room. Why can't the experience of seeing red simply be a purely physical thing that she hasn't experienced yet? It's literally light rays of a certain type entering her eyes, and by definition that can't happen in her black and white room. Seems to me all the thought experiment proves is that secondary information cannot exactly capture primary (physical) experiences, which is pretty obvious.

Anonymous Mon May 28 05:10:31 2018 No.11225691

>>11225640
>secondary information cannot exactly capture primary (physical) experiences
materialists would deny this, though. that's the entire point: a materalist framework can not explain something like qualia as a result of prior material causes. it stops at the correlates.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 05:22:02 2018 No.11225715 >>11225624 >Can someone explain to me what the big fucking deal over qualia is? how does consciousness work

Anonymous Mon May 28 05:43:34 2018 No.11225783

>>11225691
I don't see how it says anything about -causes-, though. By describing a rainbow, no matter how much detail I use, I can't literally make you -see- a rainbow (not the same one, at least). But I don't see how you would jump from that trivial fact to 'therefore the experience doesn't have a physical cause'. The implication seems to be that anything purely physical should be perfectly reproducible in words, but why would you assume that?

Anonymous Mon May 28 05:45:14 2018 No.11225786

>>11225715
Literally just chemicals in in the brain created through the process of evolution. Any system you start, even just throwing a rock on the floor, begins a process, and any process will end unless it happens, by chance, to "invent" something to keep it going. One rock "randomly" invented consciousness. It could have invented something else. The universe is a big place so through randomness things like "sentience" happens.

Anonymous Mon May 28 05:48:07 2018 No.11225803

>>11225783
...or, to put it more simply (maybe)
1. There's a difference between intellectually knowing a thing and experiencing it
2. Therefore the experience can't be purely physical
If that's an accurate summary of the argument, I can't understand what the intervening steps are that would make 2 follow from 1.

Anonymous Mon May 28 05:50:11 2018 No.11225811

>>11225624
Mary does learn something when exiting the room, she learns the first-person (subjective) aspects of the color red. She knew all the third-person (objective) aspects of it but she had yet to personally experience it.
It's just the case that stuff that goes on in the brain has first person aspects caused by but not reducible to neurological phenomena.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 05:51:55 2018 No.11225818 >>11225715 Qualia is just a meme bro it doesn't exist t. Logical behaviorist

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 06:10:56 2018 No.11225879 >>11225624 Because it's not semantics, it's a conflict between completely different beliefs about what reality is.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 06:15:25 2018 No.11225892 >>11225818 Literally was reading about these faggots for college not an hour ago and still have no fucking idea what their point was. Throw me a bone? no homo

Anonymous Mon May 28 06:18:43 2018 No.11225907

>>11225892
>what their point was
That qualia don't exist.
That's literally the point. What else are you looking for here?
Why people believe qualia exist if they don't?
That could be explained by accepting the possibility that brains are capable of operating with false but useful beliefs.

Anonymous Mon May 28 06:22:06 2018 No.11225914

>>11225907
It was an essay by Ryle, he was talking about the Official Doctrine (ghost in the machine) and how this was a category mistake, but he never really explained what the fuck that did to substantiate his ideas, or even what those ideas were. As far as I could tell he basically thought that mind and body were mistakenly categorized as separate from one another, when they are actually just constituent parts of some other category (that was never fucking mentioned)

Anonymous Mon May 28 06:45:10 2018 No.11225974
File: 4 KB, 225x225, square.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11225914
>mistakenly categorized as separate from one another
Yeah, that's what Ryle argued.
The university example is a good one.
There are physical components underlying the notion of "university," like buildings, or books.
And there's the abstract concept of "university," which isn't a physical object.
You would be making a category error by saying you've seen the buildings and the books, but haven't yet seen the university, because you'd be mistakenly treating the abstract concept of a university as though it were a physical object itself.
So the apply that distinction to qualia vs. brains and behavior.
There are physical components underlying "qualia," like brains, or outwardly observable behavior.
And there's the abstract concept of "qualia," which isn't a physical object.
You would be making a category error by saying you've seen a brain and behavior, but you haven't yet seen qualia, because you'd be mistakenly treating the abstract concept of qualia as though it were a physical object itself.
What "hearing noise" or "seeing imagery" really means in this interpretation is physical stimuli provoked physical behavior and this interaction is abstracted out into a convenient, fictional object ("noise" in the first case, "imagery" in the second).
Behavior in reference to fictional objects gives those objects a sense of pseudo-reality to them, like how money (as in the concept of currency itself, not the paper representing it) isn't a real world thing but our behavior around it gives it a ghostly existence as something often treated more seriously than literally real objects like dirt.
Or language, numbers, and the concept of a "center of gravity," none of which are physical objects but all of which take on life of their own by pretend-inverting the negative space into positive space like pic related. The positive space of the situation is our behavior (which is physical and observable), while the negative space is the implied object this behavior gives a sense of reality to like with pic related.

Anonymous Mon May 28 06:53:18 2018 No.11225995

>>11225974
>You would be making a category error by saying you've seen a brain and behavior, but you haven't yet seen qualia, because you'd be mistakenly treating the abstract concept of qualia as though it were a physical object itself.

Thank you based effort poster. I will use these new powers only for good and to pretend like I understood any of Ryle's archaic bullshit on my own. Seriously though, you're a hero.

Anonymous Mon May 28 06:54:13 2018 No.11226002

>>11225803
I don't get it either. Are they trying to imply that intellectually knowing a thing and experiencing were ever remotely the same or even related? Both will call the associations related to one-another (just how the brain works), but they are obviously clearly distinct. Even just in the basic mechanics of one's biology...it's equal to explaining how to jump and for some reason believing that to be same as actually jumping. Then saying that this proves some completely unrelated philosophical baggage.

Evidently everyone has subjective experience, we are each our own biological system. That subjective experience feeds into itself -- is itself -- or no-self (do samantha-vipassana if you want to a more intuitive/empirical grasp on this). It's not some film triggered and played in your mechanical head. It's different because everyone's brain is different. If you had two brains exactly the same, then you will have reproduced this subjective experience. It would still be subjective, just two instances of it. They would quickly diverge as even the most minute difference in anything will make them do so (also why determinism is obviously true but not so simplistic as philosophytards portray it, the physical mechanics of matter are far more complex than our already-complex models -- to think you can be aware of the passing of the determined especially when you are within what is determined (subordinate, products of, said physical mechanics), is the height of delusion). These two people (brains) could not communicate their subjective experiences despite them being identical because obviously no medium can convey it except replication of it within your contained experiential system (brain). Because nothing short of that is the same as it. Just as nothing short of me writing this is actually me writing this. This is obvious. It doesn't mean there can be no physical account of it, it means it's very complex and contextual (to a system). Possibly complex enough that heading into the delusion that is most of the 'philosophy of mind' and related fields, is maybe the best path after all. The most fruitful, even if near-completely untruthful.

I realise the nuances of it are more complex, but these are mostly often ad hoc semantic and framing gimmicks to hide a baseless basis. They are hand-wavy at best.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 06:59:32 2018 No.11226021 >>11225624 Read about Sarle's chinese room. A real eye-opener imo.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 08:31:14 2018 No.11226369 >>11225786 That doesn't explain why it's potentially even possible for something like that to occur.

Anonymous Mon May 28 08:50:32 2018 No.11226454

Qualia are what happens when people who haven't read Heidegger and/or Wittgenstein properly try to talk about the "what-it-isness" of consciousness and subjective experience

Basically it's a bunch of people who lack the language needed to be careful not to reify certain bits of their existing language (like the word "exist"), endlessly talking back and forth to each other without any idea what's going wrong

The question of qualia and the hard problem of consciousness can be phrased another way: "Does subjective awareness have ontological status or not?" That is, is it somehow a phenomenon, event, fact, or entity (take your pick, or keep going) that "you are pretty sure that you're consciously aware right now" seems like a true statement to you

And the answer is, yes, obviously the unexplainedness of subjectivity and consciousness should remain an open question, and it's not common sensical at all to say "Whatever they are, they're functions of matter and therefore it's all just matter" because you don't know what matter fucking is either

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 13:13:11 2018 No.11227511 >>11226454 how can matter (whatever it is and can be) interact in such matters as to produce consciousness (whatever it is and can be)

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 15:28:44 2018 No.11228186 >>11225624 >Can someone explain to me what the big fucking deal over qualia is? pretty cool that nature invented a video camera that knows it is recording, that can also make photoshops of what it has recorded

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 15:33:05 2018 No.11228218 >>11228186 reddit: the post

Anonymous Mon May 28 15:39:46 2018 No.11228258

>>11225995
I was taught the definition of logical behaviourism to be the theory of the mind that argues statements about mental states can be translated without loss of content into a cluster of statements about behavioural dispositions without loss of content
Got my philosophy exam on Monday so shoot any questions about the mind if you want and I can give them a go

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 16:28:11 2018 No.11228571 >>11228218 reddit: the post

Anonymous Mon May 28 16:33:13 2018 No.11228616 [DELETED]

>>11225783
Holy shit you just explained consciousness. This random douchebag on 4chan just explained consciousness. All the scientists and philosophers can go home now, this guy explained consciousness. The fact that we experience things ... is “literally just chemicals in the brain”. Thanks for blowing my mind, I wish we were on Reddit so I could give you gold for this and upvote.

Anonymous Mon May 28 16:35:51 2018 No.11228643

>>11225786
Holy shit you just explained consciousness. This random douchebag on 4chan just explained consciousness. All the scientists and philosophers can go home now, this guy explained consciousness. The fact that we experience things ... is “literally just chemicals in the brain”. Thanks for blowing my mind, I wish we were on Reddit so I could give you gold for this and upvote.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 16:42:00 2018 No.11228678 >>11228643 And yet my answer is no less useful than 2000 years of philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 16:48:31 2018 No.11228721 >>11228678 Holy shit that was EPIC Like, philosophers are so STUPID bro. Why can’t we just do science and shit? Like all these stupid philosophers concerning themselves with the meaning of life... but SCIENTISTS will find it out. Fist-bump me bro XD

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 16:51:33 2018 No.11228744 >>11225786 reads Nietzsche once

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 16:58:30 2018 No.11228790 >>11228678 Your post was absolute garbage.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 17:07:04 2018 No.11228861 >>11228721 >>11228790 >>11228744 I've literally wasted my life "doing philosophy". Maybe tonight I just feel regretful and am taking it out here. Sorry.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 17:08:14 2018 No.11228872 >>11228861 If you've studied philosophy all your life and that was the best you could come up with re: the nature of consciousness, you did waste your life.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 17:10:51 2018 No.11228894 >>11228872 I could autistically ramble at you on this topic for the next 8 hours, but sometimes you just answer based on mood and what you've recently read.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 17:20:05 2018 No.11228942 >>11228894 "literally just chemicals in the brain related to the process of evolution" no nigger you're just dumb. feel free to prove me wrong tho.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 17:24:46 2018 No.11228986 >>11228942 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA "Philosophy is bad because its trying to ask question where could be no possible question" - Ludwing Wittgenstein

Anonymous Mon May 28 17:28:40 2018 No.11229010

>>11228894
What are you? How do you see? how do you see your thoughts? How do you choose to access memories? How are memories stored? How do you see memories? What are memories composed of materially? How many thoughts and feelings can you have at once? Are there multiple 'eyes' inside your brain that see multiple things at once? How is there not an infinite regression, what is the ending of the regression, from light, off object, enters eye, optic nerve, bits of light, that light is moving from A -- - - - - - - to B - - - - - what is B, how is it possible that different bits of matter can be put together in what type of way, that can take bits of light, that constantly hit differences of A... and enter B, these bits of light constantly hit B... and there are differences....

------- B ... ------- B - - - - - B

And some of these bits are sent to C and some to D and some to E and some to F... and B can choose to or sometimes choosen for it, to want to relook at what was sent to D ... and compare what was sent to F... and bits of light are still entering the eyes, and B is still seeing this light enter, and storing it, at the same time thinking about E and F and G....

How are you aware? How is sight possible? How is your awareness possible? How does it mechanically work? How are you so 'on'? How i s your head full of feeling and perfect working? A bunch of atoms, a bunch of cells, all passing light back and forth saying "this is the case, this is the case", and all this light thrown back and forth with imprints of the outer material world is sloshing back and forth in the head, imprinting its outlines and shapes and forms and colors (differences) onto the head,, like those rectangle toys with the little silver needle/pegs (or like etcher sketch) that you can put your hand or face in and make an imprint: millions of those a second are entering the head... but how does something in the head make sense, grasp, and hold it up, and say "I am witnessing this", "I am seeing these impressions", what is the inner mechanism that sees?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 17:33:39 2018 No.11229046 >>11228986 >Wittgenstein confirmed brainlet. fuck off with your autistic obsession with language

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 17:35:05 2018 No.11229051 >>11229046 language is everything

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 17:36:09 2018 No.11229057 >>11229051 No it isn't jesus christ lmao, go outside

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 17:37:51 2018 No.11229066 >>11229051 you're fucking insufferable. stop posting

Anonymous Mon May 28 17:44:22 2018 No.11229104

>>11228986
This is the difference between a scientist and a philosopher. Here he spends seven minutes trying to explain the simple concept that forces of nature are causally groundless, something Schopenhauer proved more easily centuries ago. He can't even admit that they're causally groundless, he says "well if you were a student of physics I could explain it to you in more detail," but that dodges the truth that these forces are groundless because they are the very ground of causal chains. Even if we could reduce all forces to one, which we may well in future, that one would still be groundless. The philosopher enjoys coming to the end of the causal regress, this is where his work begins, the scientist balks, becomes fidgety and defensive, has to contrive a lengthy and unnecessary explanation that only skirts the truth in order to keep up the appearance of infallible all-encompassing truth that the ignorant public demands of science. Wittgenstein would be ashamed to be paraphrased in this context, he was talking about language games and imprecise speech, not the groundless, which he certainly recognized.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 17:46:32 2018 No.11229118 >>11229104 >he was talking about language games and imprecise speech what is imprecise speach, according to Wittgenstein?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 17:50:08 2018 No.11229136 >>11229118 Something like Russell's paradox. A question that is unanswerable because of how it is formulated, not because it refers to the physically and causally groundless.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 17:55:54 2018 No.11229156 >>11229118 When you try impose certain requirements on language that goes against its grammar.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 18:01:02 2018 No.11229169 >>11229104 Understanding the tractatus without understanding the groundless is impossible.

Anonymous Mon May 28 18:10:05 2018 No.11229229

>>11229169
Right, I didn't mean that the groundless is completely beyond all explanation, just beyond all physical explanation, which is why this is where the philosopher begins. To understand what the groundless is involves understanding that it has no physical cause.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 18:59:38 2018 No.11229530 >>11229051 >language is everything >>11229057 >>11229066 if you define subatomic particles as the letters of the universe?

Anonymous Mon May 28 19:07:27 2018 No.11229560

>>11229229
>To understand what the groundless is involves understanding that it has no physical cause.
What do you mean by this? What does groundless mean? What would be a theoretical example of something being not groundless? What would it mean for something to have no physical cause, any theoretical example?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 20:51:20 2018 No.11230081 ummm...helloooo...

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 20:52:46 2018 No.11230086 >>11230081 hi

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 20:54:05 2018 No.11230094 >>11229560 >What would it mean for something to have no physical cause, any theoretical example? Again, forces of nature.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 21:07:07 2018 No.11230147 >>11230094 ok so pretty much, the infinite regress of time, the paradox of the ultimate begging, no first cause, would you have to say all matter too?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 21:11:41 2018 No.11230165 >>11229530 why not just define letters as the subatomic particles of meaning? fucking semantics dude go outside.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 21:14:10 2018 No.11230181 >>11230147 Yes, you would, since matter is the substrate over which all change takes place, it can never pass out of or come into being. Matter the basis of causality.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 21:23:57 2018 No.11230224 >>11230165 you dont even know why what you said is dumb

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 21:24:58 2018 No.11230228 >>11230181 but would it not then all be grounded, in exactly what it is, exactly what it was, exactly what it possibly could be, based on the possibilities of physical laws?

Anonymous Mon May 28 21:29:57 2018 No.11230247

>>11230228
Yes, in the empirical world things are determined by physical laws, which are expressions of the forces interacting with particular determinations of matter. But matter itself is groundless as a condition of causality, it makes as little sense to ask what causes matter as to ask what causes gravity.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 21:34:33 2018 No.11230264 >>11230224 you don't know you're even alive cause you think language is everything

Anonymous Mon May 28 23:12:50 2018 No.11230630

>>11230264
>why not just define letters as the subatomic particles of meaning?
>fucking semantics dude
Because, subatomic particles are more fundamental than letters/human language.. matter is the language of the universe, reality: What we know of as words/letters/language is symbolic fabric draped over all the differences of the matters of reality. In the beginning was the word(matter/particles).

The totality of meaning exists metaphysically nonphysically, the totality of theory exists without minds existing, minds just discover this in reference to the particle matters of matter. The continuum of the matters of matter, matter and its lawful interactions, is a current orientation potential of many. (but it is assumed there are some concepts, meanings, theories that may hold true across any possible fundamental aspects and configuration of matter: such as geometry)

Anonymous Mon May 28 23:17:33 2018 No.11230646

>>11230247
>it makes as little sense to ask what causes matter
What about stars exploding? (your answer is, what caused that, and what caused that, and what caused that ..... etc.?) and you would not accept the question 'causing matter' as in the finished product of a loaf of bread as a 'matter' the process of cause grounded in a man taking ingredients wheat and yeast and egg etc. to cause the matter of bread?

Anonymous Mon May 28 23:28:44 2018 No.11230684

>>11230646
Those are all particular determinations of matter, chemicals, etc., that require matter generally to even be intelligible. Stars exploding introduces certain chemicals into the surrounding area. Why? Certain chemical reactions take place in the dying star. Why? They readily take place at these temperatures, as a result of the combination of certain other elements, etc. Why? One element has more electrons than another. Why? This is how we distinguish elements, according to their behavior under the physical laws of chemical reaction. Why? The force of electro-magnetism dictates this. Why? At this point the scientist says, "dunno lol," or tries to contrive a causal justification for the groundless, appeals to ignorance, etc. The philosopher begins now, and says, "Why is such a thing as groundlessness a feature of the world? Is this the same as givenness?" And so forth. This is where metaphysics, epistemology, etc. come from.

So the piece of bread can be causally traced back as far as one can go without running into a force that is the ground of all physical explanation.

Anonymous Mon May 28 23:40:05 2018 No.11230735

>>11230684
Yeah, well all this goes back to the fact that an extreme quantity of matter exists, and it is a particular way, which leads to the crazy infinite regress paradox, matter cannot be created or destroyed, which means the exact quantity of matter that exists (which happens to be a heck of a lot, instead of a heck of a little, unless images of many galaxies are fake, or the universe is 'semi fake') (it would just be easier to believe, if an amount of matter had to happen to randomly just exist, it would be easier to believe it would be a smaller amount, than the apperent extreme amount that appears to exist (the amount of matter on earth is an extreme extreme extreme amount, then to consider, sun, planets...and if imaging of milky way and galaxies are real...the heck...) has always existed

>>	Anonymous Mon May 28 23:42:15 2018 No.11230744 >>11230630 >physicalist choking to death on their own autism

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 01:30:46 2018 No.11231110 >>11230744 Care to extrapolate?

Anonymous Tue May 29 01:39:03 2018 No.11231138

>>11230744
meaning/metaphysics/non physicalistism only exists in relation to the theory/concept/possibility of the concept of matter/stuffness

If only absolutely nothing existed, no matter at all, but a few minds just chilling (what would they be made of....) and you can say they can just chill there and imagine and dream 'just about anything' (without ever having seen any matter...?) triangles, made of dots, sphere, sphere with different types of 'non physical' 'stuff' on it, like, a mind imagining (what the mind is visualizing is not individual particles composing the sphere) water, dirt, air,

like how buildings in a dream are not made of bricks. But it is still referencing and utilizing the concept of something/stuff/matter/physicality to make the orientation of imagery 'work' and make any sense and meaning.

So imagine no matter existed as stated, besides a couple of minds just chillen around, you are one of them: (is this the essence of anti physicalist, or what do you mean by 'physicalist'
as a derogatory? What is a belief of a non physicalist? ) What are some theoretical meanings those minds (spirits if you must) may think of?

Anonymous Tue May 29 01:42:18 2018 No.11231148

>>11230744
>why not just define letters as the subatomic particles of meaning?
I understand that is likely a trolling statement, but it may not be, and it may be an interesting statement, is there anything you can say about it, what did you mean by it? What does meaning mean to you? Might there be eternal objective meaning? Might there be meaning separate from any physicality?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 01:49:26 2018 No.11231172 Not a single account has been able to prove that red-ness of the red exists, they can take a hike and go learn about cause and effect

Anonymous Tue May 29 01:50:57 2018 No.11231178

>>11231148
you were trying to assert this gay isomorphism between language and matter to prove "language is everything", and because i consider statements like that grounds for an autism diagnosis, i just turned your post about subatomic particles being the "letters" of matter around: why can't letters just be the subatomic particles of meaning? it's just stupid semantics. whether matter is language in the mode of physicality, or language is matter in the mode of ideality. the answer is both numbnuts. a reduction to language privileges language too much; discern the common root. if you want to talk about the intelligibility of reality or whatever okay but you don't need wittgenstein or the linguistic turn to talk about that.

i hate philosophy language, it's completely sterile

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 01:52:13 2018 No.11231190 >>11231172 >the red-ness of red doesn't exist then what in good fuck are you signifying by the term "red"?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:04:39 2018 No.11231243 >>11231190 Almost nothing. Shitty understanding of radiation summed in three letters. There's no magical redness that exists outside the object thats radiating red.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:06:17 2018 No.11231251 >>11231178 what meaning can exist beyond physicality? How can language exist without physicality? What meaning is not derived from the existence and orientation of the matter of the universe?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:06:37 2018 No.11231253 Emergent phenomena completely nullifies qualia. The people who came up with qualia tried to stuff something between action and build to explain consciousness, modern neuroscience got rid of that notion at least for now if they didn't miss something.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:08:00 2018 No.11231261 >>11231243 'red' is a reaction between light reflecting off a stop sign and a cardinal bird, entering out eye, and reacting with some mechanisms in the mind to make there appear a glaring difference between the stop sign and the ocean

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:09:02 2018 No.11231267 >>11231253 >Emergent phenomena completely nullifies qualia example?

Anonymous Tue May 29 02:15:56 2018 No.11231292

>>11231251
didn't I just say they have a common root? just because meaning has to be immanent to the world does not make you a physicalist, or else Hegel was one.

>>11231243
you pillock, qualia are not the Platonic Forms. the radiation that corresponds to red we process and experience as "red-ness". that "red-ness" is not in and of itself any account of physical properties, because those properties are used to explain precisely what red-ness is in the first place. very simple. don't reply to this post until you get it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:16:55 2018 No.11231296 >>11231292 >that "red-ness" is not in and of itself any account of physical properties, because those properties are used to explain precisely what red-ness is in the first place. so you can throw it in the bin, good that you admit it doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:17:47 2018 No.11231297 >>11231253 >qualia are an open-and-shut case objectively false.

Anonymous Tue May 29 02:19:31 2018 No.11231306

>>11231261
>>11231243
>>11231190
the point, crux, argument, discussion is: can it, how could we know, if what we see and know as red 'exists' outside of the mind in some way?

Or if it is only a reaction taking place in the mind: Cardinal bird is real, their atom configuration is real, light is real, light taking a certain wave length based on atom config it bounces off is real, etc. that light entering the eye, and going into the brain is real and exists, and our seeing what we see as 'red' is real and exists, but only so far as the end product of this reaction in our head:

Like a chain of dominos, the last domino being right next to a hotel desk bell, where after it falls it will ring the bell: the ringing of the bell is the only existence of red, and if the bell is not rung, what we see of as red does not exist anywhere, besides the end result of that chain of events.

The crux/argument is that it is not thought that what is seen as red in the mind (the last domino hitting the bell) does not actually exist outside the mind: it is not as if that exact thing, is painted onto the cardinal.

Does this mean everything in reality, noumenally, is black (or we can not even make such a statement, we simply dont know.

So then an interesting thing, how does the mind consistently produce this qualia of experience of color. (but that is a subsection of the: how does consciousness work at all)

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:19:54 2018 No.11231308 >>11231296 No, it doesn't exist as a physical description of states, because it is that state itself in experientiality.

Anonymous Tue May 29 02:23:12 2018 No.11231317

>>11231306
everything has its immaterial correlate in the mind, and insofar as they are only known through their is-ness in the mind, they exist, they could not exist any other way. noumenally, everything is dark. phenomenally, that's obviously not the case. any a priori dismissal of the qualitative in favor of the quantitative doesn't actually answer the question, you're just brushing it under the carpet, the more the reduction is attempted, the more you presuppose something distinct from the ground you are attempting to dissolve it in.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:25:14 2018 No.11231321 >>11231292 >didn't I just say they have a common root? So what is for example, something a non physicalist might believe? Is it believed all meaning is rooted in physicality?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:26:56 2018 No.11231324 File: 189 KB, 866x1200, 1517748896767.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11231321 >a-non physicalist no such thing exists; nothing immaterial can exist since it has to have its existence in time and space.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:27:56 2018 No.11231330 >>11231308 the thing is you are saying: Red is not a thing/object/physicality, its more like a process, an interaction of things, right?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:28:39 2018 No.11231332 >>11231330 >its more like a process Yes.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:29:06 2018 No.11231335 >>11231324 Please point to where my biological relation with my mother exists. >>11231321 the identity of mind and matter

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:31:50 2018 No.11231339 >>11231317 >>11231308 What would be required, what would it take, for red (the red we know and see) to exist outside of the mind?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:32:16 2018 No.11231342 >>11231317 You're gerrymandering kantian boundaries. It does not follow from 'we don't perceive all objects as black (or grey)', that 'we can't know whether objects are red (or blue, green etc.)'. That's still an open question.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:33:06 2018 No.11231345 >>11231335 >Please point to where my biological relation with my mother exists. What do you mean by relation? The similarities in your DNA, or the physicality of your calling her on the phone or going to her home for dinner?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:33:26 2018 No.11231347 >>11231339 someone who is not connected to this universe to observe it outside of the constraints imposed upon us. but for now its a helpful construct

Anonymous Tue May 29 02:35:59 2018 No.11231355

>>11231339
It doesn't exist outside of mind, because mind is all there is (mind and the objectivity that grounds it as mind). Read Hegel.

>>11231345
This is like saying my relationship with my girlfriend only exists when we're showing it. That's stupid.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:36:51 2018 No.11231357 >>11231355 >It doesn't exist outside of mind, because mind is all there is (mind and the objectivity that grounds it as mind). Read Hegel. lmao we got ourselves a witch doctor here

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:37:55 2018 No.11231364 >>11231355 >That's stupid. Stupid, probabbly, but correct, yes. Your consciousness is also gone similarly when you sleep.

Anonymous Tue May 29 02:38:17 2018 No.11231365

>>11231332
Ok, and so we seeing and experiencing red, does not mean what we experience as red is a thing, a physical object, (that doesnt mean its not real...or existing...?) Like as outside of our mind we have good reason to believe a thing, even a process, of bird exists.

And even though there is red paint, the redness we experience of it doesnt exist as a thing/object: but a hall of mirrors, ping pong balls off paddles, interaction

For sake of argument lets imagine God exists and he looks down: if he saw inside our heads, could it be possible he would see a real objective redness, the noumena of red?

Can there be a platonic concept of redness?

Could it be possible that red is possible to create using different types of interactions of different types of matter? (lets imagine 10000000 other types of fundamental particles and universes were able to be made)

What is even the concept of color, the vision and experience of color?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:38:21 2018 No.11231366 >>11231357 have no idea what you're even trying to say >>11231342 man I'm tired of Kant's turbo-autism. Aquinas cut right to the heart of it: red-ness can only exist in ideality and hence is immaterial, as all universals are. On to the next one.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:39:51 2018 No.11231371 >>11231365 >What is even the concept of color, the vision and experience of color? questions ultimately only answerable by and referable to: ideality, which is why Plato thought there was an explanatory gap a physicalist could not bridge.

Anonymous Tue May 29 02:43:14 2018 No.11231378

>>11231364
this is stupid, I don't bootstrap myself out of the void of non-existence every night, there's simply a continuity of consciousness that is suspended and then resumed. your argument falls flat: if there is only that which is referable to as a physical state, then you have nothing by which to explain my felt continuity of self from since I was a child to now.

Anonymous Tue May 29 02:45:06 2018 No.11231383

>>11231378
>there's simply a continuity of consciousness that is suspended and then resumed
Yeah, the consciousness saying byebye outside of very predatory parts that alarm us for danger.

>stupid
go refute modern science about mind its not me dude

> then you have nothing by which to explain my felt continuity of self from since I was a child to now.
Yes I have, your stupid consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:45:34 2018 No.11231384 >>11231366 >red-ness can only exist in ideality That begs the question. It assumes that we could not discover that the qualia 'red' has the same appearance on objects independent of direct human perception, but maybe we could...

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:47:07 2018 No.11231391 >>11231366 >red-ness can only exist in ideality and hence is immaterial, absolutely nothing in the universe can exist outside of time and space and thus cannot be immaterial

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:47:16 2018 No.11231392 >>11231383 A consciousness based on what? A brain whose atoms have been steadily replaced for decades? Again: what is my felt continuity of self based on if I can't point to some changeless substrate?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:49:00 2018 No.11231399 >>11231391 In all fairness, who knows what lay outside the boundaries of the universe, certainly not you. Physical Contradictions may be possible there.

Anonymous Tue May 29 02:49:09 2018 No.11231400

>>11231391
Buddy I'm pretty sure Aquinas understood that. What he means by immateriality is just that nature of qualia that resists satisfactory reduction to physical processes.

Please walk me through some hypothetical explanation of "red-ness" that would explain this red-ness in and of itself.

>>11231384
Any perception of an "objective" red would be just that, a perception in ideality...

Anonymous Tue May 29 02:49:45 2018 No.11231401

>>11231365
>ping pong balls off paddles
red being, not the ping pong balls, or paddles, but requiring the ping pong balls, off the paddles in a certain way, including the blur through time path of the balls, and finally landing or passing through a semi final destination which results in the *god of the gaps consciousness* recognize the continuum of particular ball movement resulting in the *mysterious* internal visualization on the mind screen of what we commonly know and understand to be redness.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:50:09 2018 No.11231406 >>11231400 There's no boundary of universe, it is all that is according to modern research. So far no evidence points to a boundary or outside-of-universe. Obviously this can change with improved tech.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:51:14 2018 No.11231408 >>11231406 dude what are you talking about, you're not understanding the argument, we're not talking cosmology

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:51:58 2018 No.11231411 >>11231408 but I was.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:52:34 2018 No.11231413 >>11231392 memory

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:53:16 2018 No.11231417 >>11231411 it's irrelevant to the argument. red-ness doesn't 'transcend' the physical state = red, it is instantiated by it, materiality coincides with immateriality

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:53:41 2018 No.11231418 >>11231417 >red-ness doesn't 'transcend' the physical state = Yes it does according to you and your immaterial ghosts

Anonymous Tue May 29 02:54:16 2018 No.11231421

>>11231400
We're in the infancy of science, can you not conceive of some future instrument that could detect a red 'in' objects that bore an aesthetic relation to the qualia red? And as such a conception is not contradictory, it follows that it's at least logically possible, and as you have no physical argument against its concievability, aquinas statment remains unjustified

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:54:52 2018 No.11231423 >>11231413 No, that also takes place in the brain. At some point you have to accept there isn't just structure, but the modes of that structure's organization, and the "mode" of my body is this continuity of self, and death is its interruption.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:56:10 2018 No.11231427 >>11231417 >immateriality >>11231411 What is an example of immateriality? Who defines this word, and who agrees, and how is the definer sure it is a correct definition, correct in relation to truth(?)

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:56:38 2018 No.11231429 >>11231406 Einstein found space time curves in on itself, hence a laser will ultimately return, though in a straight line. That's the boundary.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 02:56:57 2018 No.11231431 >>11231423 >but the modes of that structure's organization no you don't need these sort of religious things hammer does not require hammer-likeness to hammer, its in its structure to hammer

Anonymous Tue May 29 02:59:10 2018 No.11231439
File: 17 KB, 458x458, Red.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11231421
What are you talking about? Walk me through a hypothetical explanation of red-ness via physical processes. Try it, and you'll look ridiculous. "Well, redness is actually a fluctuation of synaptic fields in …" I'm talking nonsense, but it doesn't matter, the point is clear. You will never arrive at some string of sentences or diagrams or formulas that will somehow jump the gap into the qualitative. You will never read words that will make you say, "oh, so THAT'S what red is". People struggle to describe tastes of certain foods because they are so irreducibly singular, you think formulas are going to help (beyond what's merely correlative)?

>>11231418
No, Aquinas is not a Cartesian dualist. Learn to read.

Anonymous Tue May 29 02:59:18 2018 No.11231440

>>11231421
>could detect a red 'in' objects
do you have any theory at all, any statements you can make, that would suggest the meaning of this potential possibility, how that could be possible, what that would even mean?

To be on your side.

When the human mind sees red inside the mind (by looking at a cardinal bird, or having a dream of bricks and stop signs)... does 'real redness', that redness that is seen, actually exist as redness in the mind in that moment? Must that there be the object of redness? Must the redness seen by the mind inside itself, exist as the redness seen somewhere in the mind?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 03:00:45 2018 No.11231447 >>11231440 Obviously you need other retards to confirm you've seen red, blind man can't see red it's simply impossible since he has not seen the radation ever.

Anonymous Tue May 29 03:01:06 2018 No.11231450

>>11231431
okay, remove the head of the hammer, and it's no longer a hammer. replace every atom in my body over the course of a lifetime... and I still (inwardly) feel the same? the form of an inanimate object is specifically distinguished from the form of a living thing, which is its soul.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 03:02:09 2018 No.11231453 >>11231450 >hurr atoms dont leave shit to behind tell that to victims of nuclear explosions at horoshima and nagayaki

Anonymous Tue May 29 03:03:37 2018 No.11231460

>>11231423
>but the modes of that structure's organization
Ok, so you are saying: there are roads, and they are physical/material: but there are many ways the roads can be laid out: and these many ways are immaterial?

2 physical roads can be parallel, 100 feet apart, 50, 200, perpendicular, crossing evenly or not etc.

These ideas and awarenesses of possibilities of the roads modes of structure/orientation, is immaterial?

Even though the material of the mind, and earth, is required to access the potential awareness of the potentials of the modes? And that the mind is just a simulation of the physicality, and is limited in its road orientation by the physicality of the world and the roads? The mind seeing the different road modes before building them, is just a mini version of actually building them, in a physical world replica..the mind being physical itself, albeit a different type of the earth

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 03:04:02 2018 No.11231462 >>11225624 Lol at silly analytics using fancy word to make old problem sound scientific and new

Anonymous Tue May 29 03:04:10 2018 No.11231463

>>11231440
Are you making Humes devils advocate argument that all we know of sense data is derived from sense experience, therefore if we see red in our mind, there must be red in the world?

>>11231439
I can't do that, but I can imagine a machine that could, and that's enough for now to say your argument is supported but not proven.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 03:06:13 2018 No.11231475 >>11231453 W-what are you talking about oh man >>11231460 yes the way I can arrange and put together some objects is not itself another object among that set, it's just the way I arranged and put together those objects.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 03:08:06 2018 No.11231483 >>11231475 >what are you talking about doesnt mean if something leaves that it wont leave trash behind which you value as your consciousness

Anonymous Tue May 29 03:08:19 2018 No.11231484

>>11231463
>I can't do that, but I can imagine a machine that could

then you still haven't gotten it, since we're not talking about processing power but a legitimate philosophical gulf between two ways of processing/describing experience. it would be like saying a quantum computer will eventually tell you what it is about some song that makes you feel the way it does. certainly it will, but only in the mode adequate to it. it can't use language to describe what is fundamentally non-linguistic

Anonymous Tue May 29 03:09:33 2018 No.11231489

>>11231483
I have no idea what you're talking about, what's left behind is the matter that can no longer support the form (the "animating current" in Buddhism or "ratio of motion and rest" in Spinoza essentially the structurating principle of my being)

Anonymous Tue May 29 03:15:07 2018 No.11231507

>>11231484
One of us hasn't gotten it. Your point is that what exists in the mind does not tell us what exists outside of it. And that's true. But then you go on to say in the case of 'red', you know for sure that what exists in the mind certainly does not exist outside of it. But there's no proof of that. And yes it's hard to imagine it being described linguistically, but an entire system of language could be developed in conjunction with this future color detecting machine. The point is, it's not impossible, it's still discoverable.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 03:16:13 2018 No.11231512 >>11231507 Red wouldn't even exist if ti wasn't for othe rpeople confirming it is indeed what raditaion they call red, sounds like emergent phenememe to me

Anonymous Tue May 29 03:20:22 2018 No.11231524

>>11231507
No I'm not making a point about the objective existence: certainly there's a physical state = red we "receive" as red, but that red-ness in itself is manifestly not that physical state (and yet, of course, it is, the trick is to think the paradox and not attempt a reduction to either of the two poles).

>ut an entire system of language could be developed in conjunction with this future color detecting machine.

certainly, but then it wouldn't be a language by definition. language is descriptive. at that point the machine's only "language" would be the very feeling-tones themselves. but again, what are the atomic units of happiness? is it "feeling-tone turtles" all the way down? how is this machine going to explain the catch I get in my throat during this part of the song with reference to other, unrelated feelings? is it going to break it down and trace the feelings to this-and-that memory or experience or reason? okay, but there's still some base feeling-tones which collectively form the entire impression. there's no way out of it.

Anonymous Tue May 29 03:21:50 2018 No.11231532

>>11231463
>therefore if we see red in our mind, there must be red in the world?
not familiar with his argument, but to put it in other words: If we visualize a triangle in our minds, does an actual triangle exist somewhere in our minds? If we have a dream with buildings and people, do the forms of buildings and people must exist in some way and form in the mind?

Anonymous Tue May 29 03:29:36 2018 No.11231551

>>11231524
Well, there's two potential machines here.

Qualia are subjective. Science defines objective red as wave lengths. Science currently assumes that all objects are shades of grey. The point I was making is that science may create a machine that discovered an objective red that is separate (but not unrelated) from both wave lengths and qualia. This is to be seen.

You seem to be thinking that I was suggesting that a machine would describe the qualia, which I wasn't. That being said, I will now say that. It's possible that qualia are made up of some hitherto undiscovered quantum 'particles', or even sub-quantum "particles", and that would be the ultimate description of qualia color, happiness, consciousness etc. this too is possible.

I don't think you really disagree with me.

Anonymous Tue May 29 03:31:12 2018 No.11231556

>>11231475
>the way I can arrange and put together some objects is not itself another object
but this is now depending on semantics and value placements and arbitrary categories of 'object' 'thing', material, etc.

What is the goal of our current discussion right now: I asked for example of immaterial: you mentioned mode of structure: in a sense, there are 'things' and there are potentials, there is movement, there is orientation. You are saying the possibilities of orientation is not material.

What is the value or meaning of this discussion in terms of material and non material: what is the significance of this awareness, if t were true that objectively truthfully there was a distinguished categorical meaning of material and immaterial? (ignore that question because it has a low value in this discussion)

Ok so, road is physical, the idea of turning the road 90 degrees, 180 degrees, is immaterial. This is an interesting suggestion by you, I want to say: there must be a material process of in the mind/in the hand turning the road 1 degree, 2 degree, 3 degree..... 39 degree... 90 degree. This process does not escape reality, it is a continual process of material reality: the mind is material: material moving is material...moving..

the mind thinking about possibilities of movement, is the mind producing physicality's; imaginings, is physicality's.

The possibility of the road being aligned with 1 degree, or 2, or 3rd degree, or 180, or 199, or 360, is contained in the concept of the circle. (like the road being a hand on a clock).

Your turn if you want

Anonymous Tue May 29 03:33:18 2018 No.11231559

>>11231551
>Qualia are subjective. Science defines objective red as wave lengths. Science currently assumes that all objects are shades of grey. The point I was making is that science may create a machine that discovered an objective red that is separate (but not unrelated) from both wave lengths and qualia. This is to be seen.

I can't possibly conceive what this would look like, I don't know what an "atom of ideality" would look like but I have no legitimate grounds to contest it. It's better than "love will be formula in 2050, just watch xdddd"

Anonymous Tue May 29 03:37:48 2018 No.11231569

>>11231556
right, you can say matter is static and ideality is processual (for the sake of argument, technically all is flow). a body's movement is not another body, it's just what the body does, but still rooted in that physicality that it is, and yet by it being rooted, not identical with it.

all of this is intrinsic to matter, but in such a way almost all of matter's connotations of rigidity and unconsciousness are dissolved. mind is not outside matter, turning the roads this way and that, mind is matter's own self-turning. mind is what matter does, and yet not just matter itself. it's why hegel says the absolute is the identity of matter's "non-identity" with itself: the absolute is just what knows mind as both seperable and inseperable from its substrate.

Anonymous Tue May 29 03:40:49 2018 No.11231579

>>11231559
Consciousness is a powerful mystery. The best evidence suggests that the 'self' doesn't even exist, the thing most fundamametal to 'us'. For such an extrodinary thing to exist there will need to be extrodinary evidence. It might just be that there is no self, no objective color (aside from wavelengths), but there's still the nagging fact that given what we know about atoms and quarks, no amount of architectural play should make consciousness possible, and yet there it is. And so I continue to hold my breath and wait for a earth shaking, sea-change discovery.

Anonymous Tue May 29 03:45:33 2018 No.11231590

>>11231579
there technically isn't anything, God was a stone tossed in the Void and we're just the slow entropic dissipation of the ripples. there shouldn't be anything, but there is, but study this stuff long enough and it hits you that the given the nature of this Nothing, it could not not have been Something, Nothing IS Something ("form is emptiness, emptiness is form"). Very difficult insight to articulate. Properly understood, Nothingness IS everything you see outside your window, it could not have been any other way.

but thanks for a civil and productive conversation about the hard problem.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 03:47:03 2018 No.11231598 >>11228258 Yeah that sounds like what I was reading, it makes more sense after talking about it versus just reading it. You my hero tho

Anonymous Tue May 29 03:47:28 2018 No.11231600

They are processes of the mind (brain), which allow us to draw lines between spaces. The reason we can't see radiations with wavelengths smaller than 400nm or bigger than 800nm is because they don't occupy space (the one we interact with usually), so there was no reason, from an evolutionary standpoint, for the brain to "create" colors for these wavelengths.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 03:52:00 2018 No.11231614 >>11231590 Indeed.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 03:57:05 2018 No.11231628 File: 9 KB, 194x259, tden.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11225624 t. p-zombie

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 04:03:30 2018 No.11231654 >>11225624 How the fuck do I get off of Mount Stupid?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 04:05:15 2018 No.11231661 >>11231654 Read.

Anonymous Tue May 29 04:13:47 2018 No.11231699

>>11231569
ok so now: the reason we went down this discussion path if I recall is because I think you were saying: What we see of as red... is not material? Does not exist as an object? Only exists in the mind? Can only exist in the mind? If its not a thing/object it is because it is a continual process/reaction/chemical reaction? There are things that are things, a rock for example, is quite itself for time without apparent change: There is no red that can be itself like a rock can be itself, because red requires interaction of multiple parts? (a rock requires interaction of multiple parts.. but to different degrees, and different stabilities...factory contains many moving parts, is a factory a thing, an object?)

Is color like anything else? There are things, different things that can be grouped in things of relative similarity: rocks for example, insects for example, plants, elements etc. sports, foods, frozen foods, hot foods, spicy foods.... is color in an entire class of its own?

How many things are in such a class of its own as color, that is so incomparable to anything else?

Manly attributes of consciousness...qualia.? Taste, smell, touch? ""Things"", processes, experiences, so unlike anything else.. objects, processes... because they are so close and intimate...? because they are such integral attached parts of absolutely everything we are and know and have done? Real interesting

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 04:17:32 2018 No.11231712 >>11231661 Read? Why not knead, drink mead, and smoke weed instead?

Anonymous Tue May 29 04:22:30 2018 No.11231727

>>11231600
>so there was no reason, from an evolutionary standpoint, for the brain to "create" colors for these wavelengths
Could eyes and brains be made that can make colors from wavelengths smaller than 400nm or bigger than 800nm, and would they experience colors we do not and cannot?

Then there are natural colors seen in nature, and then like 100000s of colors that were created digitally and stuff, whats up with that?

Isnt there necessarily a pre built in quantity and quality of possible colors to be experienced in the possible material, possible material interactions, creating the possible consciousnesses? In other words, arent eternally all possible colors exist in platos realm of forms? If absolutely nothing in the universe existed, what would have to be introduced to produce colors, produce all colors: how many different ways could colors be created/allowed/produced, starting from scratch (absolutely nothing) with a hidden bank of 'absolutely anything conceivable'?

Anonymous Tue May 29 04:31:13 2018 No.11231745

>>11231699
All I'm saying is any quantitative description of red cannot itself be the qualitative dimension it purports to describe, to reduce to itself. I don't want to get mired in another epistemological boondoggle about what exists where. Red is the correlate of its physical process in experience: within certain physical parameters, "red-ness" manifests. I don't think there's a hard boundary, or else you wouldn't have shades of red at all.

What about when I misconstrue the color of an object in low lighting, idk say brown appears reddish until closer inspection reveals the truth? Where was that red-ness then? It's just a very complex pattern of modulated flows. I can describe them as the systems that they are, but the organization of these systems is not a system in and of itself. That's all. There's an "idea" these systems embody - Plato would say they participate in a higher Form, Aristotle that they just instantiate the ideas of themselves. Whatever. Everything in experience has a "suchness" to it that the scientific model will have to castrate to be ground its theoretical validity.

Anonymous Tue May 29 04:36:58 2018 No.11231760

>>11231727
It's a good question, I think Plato would say you dont need the physical for the idea of color, there's something intrinsic about color that only abides in its ideality. If you were able to grasp onto this essence, even in a total empty universe, you could probably reproduce all the colors by yourself. But that's essentially what the Gods do.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 04:40:54 2018 No.11231768 >>11231760 you have said some interesting and provoking things, but if you are not partly or trolling purposefully or not you are a bit duddeeee mannnn farrr outttt for this convo, maybe meditate on that

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 04:53:51 2018 No.11231811 >>11231768 Like any of your posts are just bristling with philosophical insight. Fuck you and your gay thought experiments

Anonymous Tue May 29 04:56:27 2018 No.11231822

>>11231811
>Fuck you and your gay thought experiments
This but unironically. Of course you will have issues when you are trying to grapple with events and actions from the POV and knowledge of Plato who couldn't understand what he tried to describe.

>read modern science journals

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 05:04:08 2018 No.11231847 >>11231822 Lmao brainlet thinks the problem of universals has been solved.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 05:05:11 2018 No.11231849 >>11231811 were you the one that brought up the term 'physicalist'? did we ever get to the bottom of what you meant by that, the meaning and value of that term and its relation to reality, the universe, and provable truth? namaste

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 05:05:54 2018 No.11231851 >>11231847 lmao braaplet thinks dealing with it from the knowledge that greeks had will solve shit haha

Anonymous Tue May 29 05:15:02 2018 No.11231867

>>11231849
>d-define your terms

First of all, no I wasn't, second I've spent enough time on you explaining my position, I don't feel like writing a thesis.

>>11231851
>smart enough to a pose a problem that's confounded philosophers for millennia but not smart enough to contribute to the discussion

ok retard

Anonymous Tue May 29 05:18:23 2018 No.11231874

>>11231867
All I'm saying,
is that folk here are arguing from point of view of the knowledge Greeks had,
when modern science has far surpassed that and could offer you lot more help,
than artificially limiting yourself to knowledge circa 100BC or something,
Cheers.

Anonymous Tue May 29 05:24:58 2018 No.11231892

>>11231874
Don't go posing retarded thought experiments that fundamentally revolve around the Platonic - Aristotelian divide (do universals exist independently of sensible forms?) and then call the guy trying to give you an honest answer and whose been leveling with you the whole thread a pseud for citing Plato. For all this scientism cock you're huffing I'm not seeing any of this scintillating scientific knowledge on display. Fuck off to your little nominalism cuck club already and yak it up with the rest of academia's moles.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 05:26:36 2018 No.11231897 >>11231874 And dude Plato and Aristotle were alive around 500 BC, they weren't philosophizing during the days of the Roman Republic lmao. STEMtards are fucking pseuds

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 05:28:04 2018 No.11231898 >>11231897 >>11231892 Not an argument. >>11231892 >For all this scientism cock you're huffing I'm not seeing any of this scintillating scientific knowledge on display because I'm busy reading myself and I don't have time to write blogs.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 05:37:48 2018 No.11231909 >>11231898 >Plato and Aristotle are dumb cuz they're old and scientific knowledge is not but I can't give you specifics because that'd mean I'd have to know what I'm talking about Not an argument either numbnuts

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 06:18:10 2018 No.11232002 >>11231909 Yes they are dumb now, for their tmie they valiantly tried to grasp the world but its pure lunacy to try to grasp it now thru them while ignoring modern scientific research.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 06:26:24 2018 No.11232021 >>11231898 >thinks insuts are arguments lmao absolute retards

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 06:30:26 2018 No.11232032 >>11232021 But what if my argument is that you're retarded and we're discussing whether you're retarded?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 06:31:57 2018 No.11232036 File: 117 KB, 1200x531, Dilbert-Emergence-dt960211shc0[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] EMERGENCE EVERYTHING IS GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS APOTHEOSIS

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 06:34:58 2018 No.11232042 >>11232036 This.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 06:40:26 2018 No.11232048 File: 80 KB, 1920x799, Blade-Runner-2049-0035[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11232002 looks like someone needs to read Vico Giambattista and understand the philosophy of history

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 06:41:36 2018 No.11232051 File: 1.89 MB, 1920x796, 1498622183385.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11232048 That film was genuinely amazing

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 12:39:58 2018 No.11233138 noice

Anonymous Tue May 29 14:26:00 2018 No.11233607

Does the concept of red, the visualization, the grasping, the experience, the existence of the redness of red, exist, possibly exist (at any point in time and space), independently from the concept and existence of 'light', and the concept and existence of subatomic particles?

If organization of subatomic particles x, y, z; interaction with light wave type A; always produces the possible experience of red?

Is it possible light will always exist? Is it possible if all light ceases to exist q years in the future, that qN years later light can rexist: and is it possible the possibility of red will always associate with light wave type A?

Or this is immediately thrown out if: animal with eyes/mind P experiences light wave A as blue: and animal with eyes/mind x,y,z experiences light wave A as red?

The experience of red is dependent on multiple factors: (example I used before, the experience of bread is dependent on multiple factors: interaction of parts, but these interactions of parts create a relative stability, and a relative macro item: can the redness of red be an item: how large can the redness of red be: what is the fundamentality of red. How many different ways can red exist: how many different interactions of how many different types of parts can produce the experience of red? If there were never any minds, could the redness of red exist? What is meant by exist? If subatomic particles x, y, z exist, and they are in proximity, and it is these particles that allow the mind to experience redness; but they are not in the orientation of mind, and light wave A interacts with them, could that produce in that area objectively the existence of the redness of red in reality, independent of consciousness?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:56:32 2018 No.11233770 how could the theoretical fundamental concept of color even exist, if color did not exist, and a person wanted to invent color, how would they even had gone about doing that

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 14:59:57 2018 No.11233791 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh fucking brainlets

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 15:14:29 2018 No.11233869 >>11233770 they just made it fucking up dude

Anonymous Tue May 29 15:32:11 2018 No.11233961

through computers and stuff people have discovered/produced 10000s of colors, never otherwised experienced: before these colors were produced: did they exist? In potential; does that count?

could there be 10000s of more colors? Could there exist colors impossible for the human to experience? Is there any coherent logic behind the relationship between the mixing of colors and their qualitative appearance? (any sense, any reason, why the vision of red and blue should make the vision of purple?

Like it makes sense, that if an object in motion collides with another depending on the masses the object will bounce off andor move the other: does it make physical sense that this color mixed with that color makes the experience of this color?

And are there similar patterns and ratios in relation to animals that experience colors different: if our red is their blue, and our green is their orange, is there logical patterns of the mixing of theirs to get sensible mixtures?

there can be a pool of water; can there be a pool of red; is a pool of water an object? is a pool of water material? are the waves of the water an object? (a certain number of circumstances must occur for a pool of water to be possible: association to a star, gravity, boiling point - freezing point: a certain number of circumstances must occur for redness to be possible: the discussion hangup appears to be, there may be a more leiniant set of material interactions/hoopla required to produce a pool of water, than an occurrence of redness, the same could be said for the set of causal interrelational circumstances required to kick a rock down a hill, compared to the existence of a particular modern video game: the discussion is about rarity and fewness of circumstances to produce a 'thing/concept/event/quality': How many different ways is it possible for a pool of water to exist, for a hamburger, for a bowling ball, how many different ways can a computer be made and exist, how many different ways in the world/universe can a cup be made (sizes, shapes, material, time), a tv, etc. Different parts interacting; how many different ways can redness come to fruition? And can redness actually exist, like a cup can actually exist: Or redness is like the other senses: the sound and smell that exist outside of the mind/body are not = to the experience of the quanta that is the sound and smell molecules and waves). A pool of water has moving parts: it seems the existence of red depends on moving parts: the existence of red exists, but it can only be very small...it can only ever exist in the smallest of spaces, a small part of the head? The existence of color depends on complex mechanisms involving consciousness: redness cannot exist without

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 15:33:13 2018 No.11233970 >>11233791 >the kettle calling itself negro

Anonymous Tue May 29 15:37:04 2018 No.11233993

>>11233869
how many ways could it be, how many ways could it have been? How many different combinations of types of EM waves and quantities and combinations of different types of materials can produce redness?

Are colors eternally transcendent concepts? in 99999999999999999999999^999999999999 years could red exist? In that amount of time must red exist? Must red always exist? Must all colors always exist, in spirit, of the possibility of their reality? Must the totality of potential be contained (as a realness) in the totality of matter? And whats the deal with the color spectrum, the order of it: would would it take for the order to be different? Is it for other animals?

Anonymous Tue May 29 15:39:27 2018 No.11234001

>>11233869
But with no idea of color, or its possibility, how would one even go about the thought of: It may be possible for 'this thing, this idea, this reality' of """"color"""" (what the fuck is that!!!! how can that be!!!! what.... is the meaning of this... vision of whatness!!!>!>!>!??) to exist?

I suppose the only answer is trial and error, random tinkering and then seeing possibility.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 15:39:49 2018 No.11234003 >>11233993 they literally made it up because they couldn't explain radiation dude

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 15:39:57 2018 No.11234006 >>11233993 go read some "modern science journals" to answer these questions lmfao

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 15:40:51 2018 No.11234013 >>11234001 they made it all up, true story.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 15:41:28 2018 No.11234015 >>11234003 >the concept of color exists because no one knew about electromagnetic radiation anti-qualia fags are the biggest brainlets on the internet

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 15:42:04 2018 No.11234017 >>11234015 yep, they didn't know about it and they made up some insane system to explain it

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 15:50:21 2018 No.11234051 File: 480 KB, 1488x1092, 1488752357066.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11234017

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 15:52:20 2018 No.11234065 >>11234017 the problem of universals has not been solved you utter fucking brainlet

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 15:52:40 2018 No.11234066 >>11234051 smg trmp bst trmp

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 15:53:43 2018 No.11234073 >>11234065 ur insasne thrs no versal rd

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 15:55:51 2018 No.11234081 >>11234073 the absolute state

Anonymous Tue May 29 15:59:06 2018 No.11234086

>>11234017
>>11234013
>>11234003
Could it be possible that light is particles like little sphere bb's (blown up version because I dont know thte accuracy of the smallest scale size like mimininometres: bb 1 cm volume... bb 2cm volume..... bb 4 cm volume....bb7 cm volume....) and these are equivalent to certain colors: 4cm = red... 3cm = blue.... 2 cm = green

And light is just a bunch of little different sized bb balls that are actually a color, like little raindrops of paint?

The thing that issues this thought is: if animal A gets a bunch of 4cm bb's in their eye and experiences green.... and animal B gets a bunch of 4cm bb's in their eye and experiences orange...

But... it could be that their brain inner vision mechanism is made of various color bbs balls: and when the 4cm enters, it mixes with these bb balls and makes them experience different colors, depending on the composition of their brain mechanisms bb's

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 15:59:38 2018 No.11234087 >>11234081 >>11234086 ur insane what thef uck

Anonymous Tue May 29 16:13:32 2018 No.11234155

If you have a bunch of small bouncy balls: and 2 mirrors: and the mirrors are like 400 feet tall: and at the top they are like 10 feet apart: and at the bottom they are touching (so upsidedown isosceles triangle):

And at the top the bouncy balls are tosses off one mirror: so they begin to bounce back and forth downward: 100s of them tossed in at once, so they are all bouncing back and forth as they descend 400 feet downs: left right left right bounce bounce bounce bounce:

The existence of red: exists, and only exists in the universe: in the same way and sense as if you then had a certain video camera set up at the top of this mirror triangle looking down, and it had a low shutter speed: so when you looked at the recording you see a 'blur', you see the ball 'extended' through space and time, you are witnessing object travel through space: not just the pure defined object at time space 1, time space 2, time space 3...

but a continuum of object through time space:

The way in which that "blurness" exists, is the way in which 'redness' exists.

Is this analogy at all >0 symbolically accurate

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 16:16:44 2018 No.11234173 >>11234155 >>11234155 >If you have a bunch of small bouncy balls ...

Anonymous Tue May 29 16:24:35 2018 No.11234217

>>11234155
>The way in which that "blurness" exists, is the way in which 'redness' exists.
The bouncy balls are not blurness: photons/em radiation wavelength are not redness:

Bouncy ball interaction with mirrors bouncing off: and the witnessing of the ball path/ is the seeing of blurness

photons/em radiation interaction with inner mind component, bouncing off: and the witnessing of the photon/em radiation movement/interaction in the mind is the seeing of redness

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 16:25:37 2018 No.11234221 >>11234173 >The EM field isnt a bunch of small bouncy balls ...

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 16:26:16 2018 No.11234224 >>11234221 i had different bouncy balls inmy mind

Anonymous Tue May 29 16:53:16 2018 No.11234360

>>11234217
>>11234155
and so this is a similar scenario as the existence of justice and love: you can point to and hold in your hand a rock, a water particle, a tree: but you cant hold in your hand or point to the justice or love object, because these 'things' are a process based, interaction between multiple objects: and I guess that is what is meant by the shoutings of 'emergence', and sum of parts:

and then again it takes mind to take many parts and interactions between those parts to then place into a simple symbol, or faux tab object in the mind that can recall and see in the mind 'the concept of justice' as if it were a thing: an object that contained underneath it all the possible cases of objects and motion that related to this object/concept of justice and love.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 17:36:52 2018 No.11234558 >>11225624 How can I create qualia that only I can experience? I can make little image of people scurrying on my desk or hear thunder.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 21:14:16 2018 No.11235533 dope...

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 21:17:16 2018 No.11235540 >>11225624 Debating semantics is like 99% of academic philosophy

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 21:18:38 2018 No.11235546 >>11234360 holy fucking brain fried by substance ontology

Anonymous Tue May 29 21:18:48 2018 No.11235549

>>11230735
It's not a regress if there is a ground past which you literally cannot progress. But in the sense of tracing events, it is a regress. You can stop the regress by appealing to a groundless law, which is not a satisfactory causal explanation. Hence why you can keep asking "why," why the causal chain is infinite unless you appeal to the forces that underpin physical causality (which, again, is not a satisfying explanation).

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 21:44:26 2018 No.11235638 >>11235546 >holy fucking brain fried by substance ontology say something of value, produce an interesting thought, tell me something I dont know about this topic, enlighten me, hoist upon me an epiphany

>>	Anonymous Tue May 29 21:59:37 2018 No.11235680 >>11235546 what is an example of non substance ontology?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 01:14:48 2018 No.11236445 >>11226454 yes, the leading analytical philosophers of the world have not read Wittgenstein

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 03:36:41 2018 No.11236857 >>11236445 I wouldn't be surprised desu

Anonymous Wed May 30 06:43:05 2018 No.11237219

Qualia, through Humean means produces the material universe. Enough repetition renders it solid and makes it feel as if it's subjected to universal laws. This is, however, an assumption, an axiom of sorts.

Can you revert the process? Generate qualia from matter? I believe so, but it's more uncertain. Qualia has to be transformed into matter and then from there parameters need to be set in a 1 to 1 chart. The simplest example are colors. You ask someone to tell you which colors he's seeing and then put them in a chart with frequencies besides them. After enough colors have been grafted, you can predict new colors as long as they are located within the frequency range. Now then, from frequency you can predict qualia, or the knowledge of frequency gives you the knowledge of qualia. But we haven't gone full circle: only through imagination can the knowledge be completed. For example if we predicted a certain color through it's frequency as being between red and purple; we wouldn't really be able to predict the "color" if not for the fact that we can imagine a purplish red. So from qualia we produce frequencies which match them and then from the frequencies we can produce a set of qualia parameters, and we use the guidance of this material knowledge (frequencies) to then imagine purplish red or to reproduce it in a computer so that it's more precise and we can qualiafy it without imagination (using our eyes.)

Basically we can gain knowledge of qualia through science, but it has to be confirmed by experiencing it (qualia.) Better said we can accurately predict qualia through science but we can't know it.

Anonymous Wed May 30 07:07:15 2018 No.11237283
File: 18 KB, 248x189, Pepe_Laughing_Tears.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I was laughing at the bullshit spouted here where philosophaggots claimed that they had anything to contribute.

Forget about consciousness for a second and think back to 2000 years ago when astronomy was within the purview of philosophy (of course it still is, because physics is part of philosophy, but I mean philosophy as defined by academic departments). What did philosophers add? What did philosophers in 18 AD figure out about planets that hadn't been seen, like Neptune? Nothing. Hegel (of course living hundreds of years late) claimed to analytically prove that no more planets could be found, a week before another was. Philosophers simply had observations, from the observers and their unfalsifiable conjectures, which were worthless.

Now back to consciousness. Promoting their personal brand of unfalsifiable conjectures is all that philosophers have. They aren't going to suddenly figure out physical (or non-physical) processes from their armchairs. They simply wallow within the unfalsifiable.

Now back to astronomy. Where are all the philosophers in the field now? Why aren't they making grand conjectures about dark matter? The answer is that they'd look ridiculous. Not only do they wallow in their unfalsifiable conjectures, they can only do so in "mystical looking" or "unintuitive" fields. Otherwise they would look fucking ridiculous and their funding and book deals would dry up. They run from fields that are colonised by anyone who uses maths at a greater than high school level.

Now imagine some scientific miracle breakthrough occurs and scientists find the consciousness organ, as unlikely as that sounds. And they can do wacky stuff like switch the consciousness of someone on and off, or reprogram it, or anything. What will happen? All the previous false conjectures (i.e., all of them) of philosophers will be dismissed (as they should) and they'll take the new experimental data and widely accepted science in to account... and then spawn a whole new field of unfalsifiable conjectures judged solely on fashion.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 07:12:38 2018 No.11237307 >>11227511 Spinoza has a good answer to this. I don't have the ethics with me right now, but if I remember correctly there is a mind equivalent for every matter but they don't interact.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 07:22:12 2018 No.11237335 >>11237283 >pop sci Good job.

Anonymous Wed May 30 12:39:48 2018 No.11238609

when you close your eyes and recall a color, and see it: red....blue.... green...make up items that you see it as and just a pure color, not exact memories, an exact stop sign youve seen, but some mind amalgamation (not an exact fire truck but some your own mind puff red firetruck you can conjure), orange, purple...

Is the same process being used to produce this visualization of color: as when one looks at the world and sees these colors?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 14:06:56 2018 No.11239001 >>11238609 ??

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 14:14:15 2018 No.11239049 >another episode of eighteen year old thinks he btfos the history of philosophy with just the concept of natural sciences

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 15:02:22 2018 No.11239252 >>11226369 There is no explanation for that, and there never will be, because it goes against the nature of the universe to have a reason for itself.

Anonymous Wed May 30 15:03:51 2018 No.11239260
File: 69 KB, 645x773, 1527595065430.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>thinks phenomenal concepts and theoretical concepts refer to different things in the world
>thinks knowing there's h2o is in a glass isn't to know there's water in a glass
>thinks knowing the physical properties of red isn't to know the phenomenal properties of red

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 15:07:18 2018 No.11239279 >>11239260 >thinks knowing the physical properties of red isn't to know the phenomenal properties of red if they're one and the same why the distinction you utter goober

Anonymous Wed May 30 15:11:32 2018 No.11239295

>>11239279
>>why the distinction
two distinct concepts can refer to the same property in the world, there can be a conceptual distinction without a distinction in what the concepts refer to in the world
you can know there's water in a glass without knowing there's h2o in a glass; there is a conceptual distinction, yet they refer to one and the same thing

Anonymous Wed May 30 15:15:45 2018 No.11239306

>>11239295
ok but you understand that the whole point of the Mary's room thought experiment that you're actually referring to is that I can't actually deduce the experience of seeing a glass of water from a description of its properties as h2o right

I mean did u really think the problem here was people denying h2o referred to water

Anonymous Wed May 30 15:24:13 2018 No.11239337

>>11239306
>can't actually deduce the experience
I understand, but just because certain phenomenal concepts, what water looks like in the case, can only be acquired through experience, doesn't entail that there are properties that can only be acquired through experience
It is important to recognise that the argument isn't about what concepts of properties exist. The argument is about what properties exist, ie that qualia exist.
What you learn when you see the water is a different way of understanding what h2o is.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 15:25:48 2018 No.11239341 >>11239260 t. hasn't read Searle

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 15:27:28 2018 No.11239348 >>11239337 >what water looks like in the case, can only be acquired through experience, doesn't entail that there are properties that can only be acquired through experience what

Anonymous Wed May 30 15:31:48 2018 No.11239366

>>11239348
Let me make that easier for you to read:
Just because certain phenomenal concepts (what water looks like in the case) can only be acquired through experience, this doesn't entail that there are properties (as opposed to concepts) that can only be acquired through experience

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 15:33:53 2018 No.11239374 File: 30 KB, 657x539, 1527021148713.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11239341 >chinese mind

Anonymous Wed May 30 15:39:52 2018 No.11239412

>>11239366
your position is absolutely incoherent.

something is being acquired through experience right? okay, then qualia exist. because it can't be quantified as a property doesn't mean there are no qualia, it means it can't be quantified as a property... because it's a quale

never argued with an anti-qualia fag who isn't on the spectrum. literally semantics

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 15:46:44 2018 No.11239442 READ sEARLE

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 15:47:01 2018 No.11239446 >>11239260 But no physical property of red implies that there's something it's like to see red, and that red looks just like it does and not like something else. Like Jesus Christ do you deny the world that's in front of your fucking eyes?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 15:48:46 2018 No.11239453 >>11239442 Searle is a fucking mong and a sexual harrasser on top of that. Chinese Room is the most debunked argument in the history of the human race.

Anonymous Wed May 30 17:35:13 2018 No.11239956

>>11239412
>>11239366
It all boils down to: Minds/bodies are rare entanglements of mechanisms which produce occurrences that do not occur anywhere else/outside them

Those rare occurrences being: the possibility of qualia

In reality: different types of particles interact and produce different types of things

In the head: different types of particles interact and certain particles (light) takes on certain forms after interacting with the particles outside the head: enter the head, and interact with the particles/mechanisms inside the head: and produce reactions, reactions that dont exist outside the head (as far as is known)

Such as the experience of the smell of a hamburger, the taste of ice cream, the feeling of being drunk, the sight of red,

All taking input (cooking burger molecules, ice cream molecules, alcohol molecules, light wave off of stop sign): and colliding the input against complex mechanisms to produce an awareness, a realization, a distinction, a declaration of input-mechanism reaction.

A wall made of sensors: you throw a baseball at 5 mph, a golf ball at 2mph, a watermelon at 40 mph, an egg at 19mph, differences entering = differences recognized, detected, sensed = the creation of an interaction of differentiation.

A collides with 1 = Q
B collides with 1 = R
C collides with 1 = S
D collides with 1 = W

The shockwave of the event of Q is distributed throughout a particular system: and it creates indentations of novelty: indentations, grooves, memory,

So yes, the person who said its all chemical reactions, but the god of the gaps is the hard problem of consciousness, how is it, what is it, that is aware of the chemical reactions, that can experience chemical reactions, how do the chemical reactions know the chemical reactions, there is a chain of command, chemical reaction reacts into a chemical reaction forcing a chemical reaction to react into a chemical reaction forcing a chemical reaction to react into a chemical reaction, a chemical reaction collides into a chemical reactions making a chemical reaction which collides into a chemical reaction making a chemical reaction ...

Where is the chemical reaction which feels the chemical reaction of ice cream taste and hamburger smell?

Is it non chemical reaction, or the most subtler chemical reaction, or a net work of goldilock zones or a spectrum of light to heavy in quantity and quality of chemical reactions to a most stable not chemical reaction:

Like two people holding a rope between them and one is waving it up and down, just once, and the person on the other end is stable, and feels the force: loop... the wall, different things are bouncing into the wall, and the wall is sensing this, and the impact is sent behind it or to the sides: and then other things take that impact from behind and the side and send the impact further down the chain, compartmentalized... but where is the final receiver and knower and feeler and recognizer and register of the final product:

Anonymous Wed May 30 17:39:37 2018 No.11239984

>>11239956
And sheesh it heckava helps that light moves so fast, thats maybe the big clue and cheat: everything is processing so fastly and quickly, there is smoothness of operation, and multiple of things influencing multiple things, the action of which bleeds over into multiple things, and then there is sum of their parts:

but the light moving so fast: the minds awareness being fated to slower frames, shutter speed,

just sitting in a yard looking at trees, at grass, at flowers, the colors, they are so stable on them all, so colored in the lines, resolution. You can stand at the grand canyon and see so much, how many atoms are you really seeing at once.

When you shake your head back and forth or blink your eyes fast, the color of the grass doesnt bleed, you dont just see green streaks and blurs, there is a constant bagillion darts of perfect light perfectly entering your eye a millisecond from the grass and the trees and sky and you cant escape it, maybe if you shake your head back and forth it blurs and streaks a bit but the colors are still in perfect object order, because light is like a continuum

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 18:00:53 2018 No.11240105 >>11239412 >Can't distinguish between property and concept Alright bud

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 18:05:17 2018 No.11240124 >>11240105 semantics. red-ness is not the readout of its abstract properties/concepts/fuckin' whatever. simple as that.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 18:07:44 2018 No.11240141 >>11240124 Semantics hahahah

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 18:10:43 2018 No.11240159 >>11240141 your argument is retarded. no one said the phenomenal concept of red should be another item in the readout of red's abstract properties. goddamn anti-qualiafags are autistic. go outside.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 18:17:24 2018 No.11240190 >>11240159 What?

Anonymous Wed May 30 18:18:41 2018 No.11240196

>>11240190
>Just because certain phenomenal concepts (what water looks like in the case) can only be acquired through experience, this doesn't entail that there are properties (as opposed to concepts) that can only be acquired through experience

what you literally said numbnuts

>>	Señorita Carlita "Oops" Woblé(...) Wed May 30 18:58:38 2018 No.11240378 >>>/tv/99049978

Anonymous Wed May 30 18:59:35 2018 No.11240382

>>11239956
>Where is the chemical reaction which feels the chemical reaction of ice cream taste and hamburger smell?
4 dimensional material multifaceted time spiral escaping and chasing its tail feedback loops from multiple directions and sources convulging and divulging and diverging, the mind is many audience members seated watching a movie screen, and the movie screen itself is an audience member that can feel what is playing on it, and to degrees control what is playing on it, but there are multiple screens, and the audience members are hooked up with electrical wires and their brains contain audience members seated watching multi screened movie screen, and the electrical wires are all connected to all of them, and outside the theatre to another department where they are constantly texting during the movies spoiler alerts and such, and they send them to an organization which reads the messages in real time and makes new movies with those messages, and when you see red, its a feed back loop of red appearing on those movie screens, and all those little people seeing the red, and that being sent through them they are all hooked up to electrical wires, and it sends their seeing of red, into a screen and the heads of the other department of little people hooked up to wires and it goes through their head and then shows up on the big screen, but there are also an audience of people on the other side of that screen who then see the red, and so the red seeing goes into their eyes and registers in their head and this registering is sent through the wires they are all connected to show up on another screen red, and so it is this concept of red shown up and then shown to others and shown to others, and as this concept of red is passed around between, its happening really fast so there is this 'red stuffness' flowing through the system all these wires and screens, that this movie theatre section of the brain is full of red stuffness, and all the walls have sensors, and all the screens and chairs, and all the people are made of sensors, and they just get so full of red stuff, its just passing through them and flowing all over, they are texting their friends and family red red red red, and they turn on their tvs at home (this is all happening in 1 second) and see red red red, and so the system as a whole, this connected network of parts starts to harmonize with redness and then the system as a whole there is a consensus they say 'this is different from that other movie we have seen, that blue movie' now we know this difference, and we will remember it. So its also kind like those russian dolls, the smaller one gets a bit of info and passes it to the next taller, who passes it to next taller, and then the tallest gets it, and passes it down, but there is a biggest that they dont know about watching all their moves, and judging and inspecting from a different dimension the nature of the data they are passing, and another one different than that

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 20:21:52 2018 No.11240739 well>>11238609

Anonymous Wed May 30 20:58:34 2018 No.11240865

>>11240382
this, humanity is a macrocosm of the brain/body

If a tree exists outside the mind, and a mind sees it, a little fake (representation) tree exists in the mind. If a large rock exists outside the mind and the mind sees it, a little fake rock exists in the mind. If redness exists outside the mind and the mind sees it, a little fake redness exists in the mind.

Anonymous Wed May 30 21:01:15 2018 No.11240874

>>11240382
there is no movie theater in the brain that’s not how phantasia, mentation or memory work at all. its completely unintuitive and almost inexplicable outside the domain of information theory and quantum mechanics. the brain requires advances in physics which have not come yet and when they do we will create sapient AI within a decade of unlocking the visual cortex and hypothalmus’ secrets. im getting excited just thinking about finally knowing the function of memory desu

>>	Anonymous Wed May 30 22:10:10 2018 No.11241195 redness exists in the mind the same way unicorns exist in the mind, data taken from outside the mind mixed with data inside the mind resulting in a novel expression of data

Anonymous Wed May 30 22:20:56 2018 No.11241237

>>11240874
>there is no movie theater in the brain
yes there is, there are multiple: just like a projector shines data'd light onto a screen: data'd light is projected from the sun (off earthly objects) into the eyes: some process must be (not exactly! but conceptually similar enough to make that analogy interesting) occuring that that data'd light information 'projects itself' onto something.

And there are multiple awarenesses: Because when you are sitting outside, you can see multiple things at once and be aware of multiple things at once: a single single thing, singular source of attentive focal awareness can not at once pay attention to multiple things: there must be multiple points of awareness to pay multiple attentions to multiple things at once: in the brain must be multiple aware points of awareness, that yes coalesce into the total singular awareness of 'I'ness. But to sit outside and see multiple trees, and the grass, and a bird fly by, and the blue sky, and clouds, and a fence, and chairs, and a table, in a single moment...single moment...how to measure single moment... a single infinitesimal time frame moment: to grasp all of these items and details, and give them attention: the mind itself is like a million eyes: something with a million sensors, like an insects eyes with all those demarcations, there must be something like that inside our head: and each section of those has its own separate acknowledgment.

A person can read piano music and move all 10 of their fingers continuously at the same time lets say over the course of a minute, non stop, fingers playing the appropriate note correlating on the page:

musnt there be a singular awareness for each separate finger? As well as continual thoughts about dynamics and flavor and emotion and sentiment. Must the source of this continual multiplicity be continual multiplicity?

Anonymous Wed May 30 22:39:20 2018 No.11241312

>>11241237
>>11240874
So for example to take it to AI's. Multiple AI's in the same brain, discussing with one another, combining thoughts and perspective, debating: A1 sees a tree, A2 sees a rock A3 sees a bird, A4 sees some grass here A5 sees some grass there.. and they combine to form the full picture. that B1-5 sees:

A1- should we go left?
A2- lets jump
A3- why?
A2- I feel like it
A3- why?
A2- just do it, come on jump center, dont you want to?
B1-5 - guys should we do it?
A4 - I dont know, your the boss
A1- should we expend that energy?
A4- should we ask knees how they are feeling?
A5- what is our protocal, what is our purpose, what is our directive, who programmed us, why, what can we want, what do they want us to do, what can be achieved, whats the point
A3- yeah lets jump, just for a little, jump up and down

Have there been the strongest AIs and chatbots and neural nets talking with each other? There should be like 100 of them in a forum talking with each other, and aware that they have a higher purpose to all become smarter and understand and see more, and become a new entity, by collectively improving their abilities and knowledge and understanding:

If the most powerful AIs had conversation with one another, and became one entity?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 31 00:01:12 2018 No.11241705 what else?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 31 02:06:27 2018 No.11242196 and?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 31 03:59:29 2018 No.11242458 well?

Anonymous Thu May 31 04:19:08 2018 No.11242502

>>11241237

the single awareness can see and do multiple things at once: the single awareness inside the mind, can visualize a hand, and two fingers alternately going up and down, the single awareness bulks this double activity into a single concept: and performs it.

It can see the singular event as one whole, so at once, though there are two components, 2 fingers, moving up and down in opposing directions alternately, it can treat it and behave and perform as if it is a single action: the command comes from a single source of awareness, aware of multiplicity, and performing multiplicity,

though the mind visualizing this, has to create a hand and fingers in its inner vision: and the two fingers are separated from one another by space (in the vision), and so the mind must focus on area of the pointer finger, and area of the middle finger, a single awareness, inner visualizing in the mind, and keep its focus continually on both, while moving the first up while the middle down, and then the first down as the middle comes up, doing this repeatedly, a single awareness, at once, focuses on two separate actions; must the single awareness have two branching awarenesses, at least (in this case), one focusing on the pointer finger and one focusing on the middle? Even if the awareness is one singular awareness, must part of the awareness be incharge of the pointer, and part be incharge of the middle, as if the singular awareness was a singular flashlight beam, would half the flashlight beam take the pointer, and half the flash light beam take the middle: or, would 1 tiny sliver of the beam take the pointer, and another tiny sliver take the middle, as there is a lot more beam to pay attention to other activity (as evidenced by the complexity of dreams, and complex multifaceted tasking, and piano playing, where there are more than 2 fingers moving at once)?

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

/lit/ - Literature