>Consciousness Explained >doesn't even explain consciousness >isn't even conscious >doesn't even explain why it doesn't explain >isn't even conscious of it >explains away what's to be explained Why do these hacks keep getting away with it?

File: 132 KB, 959x1024, consciousness-explained.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 08:35:31 2018 No.11459728 [Reply] [Original]

>Consciousness Explained
>doesn't even explain consciousness
>isn't even conscious
>doesn't even explain why it doesn't explain
>isn't even conscious of it
>explains away what's to be explained

Why do these hacks keep getting away with it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 08:37:04 2018 No.11459737 Why do you refuse to understand Dennett's point? People who believe in consciousness are the childish people who stamp their feet and say BUT MY FEELINGS!!

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 08:42:59 2018 No.11459754

>>11459737
>People who believe in consciousness
>BUT MY FEELINGS!!

Um, exactly, there are feelings. What exactly is there to deny unless you actively deny the existence of feelings?

This isn't even a trivial point, you're going to have to explain how this is possible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 08:50:25 2018 No.11459769 File: 472 KB, 1692x1324, Screen Shot 2018-07-14 at 8.47.55 AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11459754 Feelings are not -real-. They only appear to be real. See the pic for the dialect that we will inevitably end up in.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 08:53:03 2018 No.11459775 >>11459754 >feelings are consciousness Go read Hegel you fucktard

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 08:57:10 2018 No.11459787 >>11459769 Pseud as fuck holy shit. >>11459728 >Why do these hacks keep getting away with it? My theory is that most books which aren't genre fiction aren't read by ~80% of people who claim to have read it.

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 09:01:44 2018 No.11459805

>>11459787
It is literally David Chalmers' words. Are you calling the philosopher who coined the very concept that you're trying to argue for a pseud? Fuck off pseud.
>Even without a consensus solution to the meta-problem, thinking hard about the meta-problem may well make illusionism more appealing to more people. Speaking for myself: I have said before (e.g. Chalmers 1996, p. 189) that if I were a materialist, I would be an illusionist.3 I think that if anything, illusionism has been underexplored in recent years. I take the view seriously, and I have more sympathy with it than with most materialist views.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 09:28:45 2018 No.11459874 Well? I'm waiting for people-who-are-fooled-by-the-illusion to give a better answer than "but.. i feel it! :-("

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 09:34:11 2018 No.11459893 >>11459728 Man life is weird

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 10:04:34 2018 No.11459942 >>11459728 dennett is odd in that, unlike many public intellectuals of the hyper-"rationalist" bent, he's actually read wittgenstein which is why it's so perplexing that he still spouts such shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 10:12:36 2018 No.11459963 >Dennet confirmed P zombie >proceeds to convince the rest of the world they are too Why hasn't the public execution taking place yet /lit/? When do we cull the debased cult of scientism?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 10:24:47 2018 No.11459995 ppl who believe in consciousness are unironically p zombies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 10:50:17 2018 No.11460074 dennett: consciousness isn't real, there's no "you" stop being a pussy and accept it also dennett: milquetoast individualist liberal the fuck

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 10:55:00 2018 No.11460094 >>11459963 It's already too late anon, Dennet is just the latest manifestation of the same, desperate yawn for physical certainty that started with the industrial revolution

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:04:12 2018 No.11460124 >>11460074 How are the two things opposed?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:05:54 2018 No.11460128 File: 110 KB, 657x539, 1513920682421.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11460094 >desperate yawn for physical certainty

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:08:01 2018 No.11460131 >>11460128 There's no evidence to suggest the external world exists independently of the internal world.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:10:48 2018 No.11460140 >>11460131 If the external world doesn't exist, then there cannot be an internal world, to begin with. But of course, it's the external world that is real with an internal world as an illusion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:12:20 2018 No.11460146 >>11460140 >If the external world doesn't exist, then there cannot be an internal world There's literally no evidence to suggest this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:12:54 2018 No.11460150 >>11460146 Were you conscious before your birth?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:13:48 2018 No.11460154 >>11460150 I know this might sound crazy to our materialist conditioning, but the answer is most likely yes, yes I was.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:14:48 2018 No.11460158 >>11460150 Any definitive answer to this is meaningless and unprovable. I’m not in this conversation by the way and am not sure with which one of you I agree with.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:16:25 2018 No.11460162 >>11460154 >>11460158 That is the precise point of materialism as a project is trying to defeat. People who believe in consciousness frame themselves as realists but as you press them, you ultimately find out that they are antirealists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:18:16 2018 No.11460167 >>11460162 How do you "believe" in consciousness? You ARE consciousness!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:20:21 2018 No.11460176 >>11460167 No, I am an illusion produced by my own material body. The fact that you insist that I am my own consciousness is a proof of my illusionism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:21:40 2018 No.11460180 >>11460176 >The fact that you insist that I am my own consciousness is a proof of my illusionism. Literally how does that follow?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:23:29 2018 No.11460183 >>11460180 If consciousness is an illusion, then of course that you will believe it and deny that it is an illusion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:26:48 2018 No.11460194 >>11460183 Why would me denying that consciousness is an illusion affirm that it is an illusion?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:29:13 2018 No.11460205 File: 3.20 MB, 420x300, 1486085732248.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11460140 >If the external world doesn't exist, then there cannot be an internal world

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:31:52 2018 No.11460210

Hey everyone, can anyone give me a good concise summary of Dennett’s argument why consciousness/qualia is an illlusion? I understand that he’s not saying experience itself doesn’t exist (which many people immediately misinterpret him as saying), but if he’s not denying experience itself exists, what IS he denying? Try as I might to read as many articles and summaries and excerpts online, I can’t find his clear position on it, and I’m much too lazy to fully read the book which has such stupid-seeming conclusions.

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:35:52 2018 No.11460217

>>11460194
We're on the 2nd line of the dialect that I posted earlier.

My position is that consciousness is false. Therefore, any position to maintain that consciousness is real is to have a false belief. The false belief is an illusion where you think that something is real when it really isn't. The fact that you are hoodwinked into believing into consciousness is an affirmation of my belief of the falseness of consciousness.

Now I ask you, why do you think that consciousness is inherently true when you cannot prove it?

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:43:35 2018 No.11460237

>>11460217
>My position is that consciousness is false. Therefore, any position to maintain that consciousness is real is to have a false belief.
.. which require consciousness to be true for you to adequately judge that consciousness is false.
>The false belief is an illusion where you think that something is real when it really isn't.
You thinking that consciousness isn't true fits this perfectly.
>The fact that you are hoodwinked into believing into consciousness is an affirmation of my belief of the falseness of consciousness.
It's an affirmation that you actually believe consciousness is true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:44:13 2018 No.11460239 So i'm being tricked by there being no me to even be tricked to begin with, also sometimes things aren't always as they first seem so this could be a dreamless sleep with the delusion of being awake?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:44:46 2018 No.11460242 >>11460210 He's denying that there is some kind of immaterial essence of experience. The experience itself is a material process.

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 11:52:16 2018 No.11460262

>>11460237
>.. which require consciousness to be true for you to adequately judge that consciousness is false.
Preassuming that consciousness must be real to make any judgment to begin with.
>You thinking that consciousness isn't true fits this perfectly.
Yes, so it's an illusion either way.
>It's an affirmation that you actually believe consciousness is true.
How so? My assumption is that consciousness is not real and that consciousness is an illusion. Having a false belief only means that it seems to be real, not that it's real.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 12:03:37 2018 No.11460298 >>11460242 "Immaterial" and "material" don't even mean anything, as Berkeley showed, and an essence is a definition, a "process" still has essential features.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 12:12:20 2018 No.11460320 >>11460298 I'm just answering his question. Also, berkley idealism is maximum autism. Do you genuinely believe in it? No, the process only appears to have an essence, and the essence is not real.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 12:16:15 2018 No.11460326 >>11459728 >>11459769 >trying to deny the only thing that is impossible to deny this level of plebdom should not even exist

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 12:17:16 2018 No.11460334 >>11460217 This is one of the dumbest posts by somebody who thinks they are smart that I’ve read in a while. I’ll stick to sci.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 12:23:54 2018 No.11460362 >>11459874 Who or what is being deluded?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 12:26:03 2018 No.11460372 >>11460334 no an argument

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 12:28:48 2018 No.11460384

>>11460183
>If consciousness is an illusion

Ok, let me put it this way. How would you even distinguish between consciousness "being an illusion" or "not being an illusion"? It's not like conscious experience is a sign of something beyond it, the existence or non-existence of which would determine its illusionary nature. The whole point is that there isn't even a model (outside of some of the things Wittgenstein discussed) of what it would mean to distinguish this, and it is the very point of qualia that there is no such distinction to be made.

An illusion of a rock is an impression of a rock with no 'real rock' behind it as a cause. An exclusionary consciousness is, what, exactly? The fact that we can't (yet) model it in terms of physics (or even metaphysics) is what makes it mysterious and interesting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 12:30:33 2018 No.11460391 File: 158 KB, 800x1200, francesco-queirol-disillusion-marble-sculpture-netting-4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11460150 The purported relevance of birth to Materialist arguments is unfounded since it is the one event no one remembers.

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 12:38:07 2018 No.11460429

>>11460176
How does your perception as governed by a variable structure produced by matter not simply constitute consciousness? I, an action-machine, at least in some way act via stimulation located in an apperceptive structure. There is your consciousness. Notions of ex post facto-derived intent are meaningless to discuss analytically when describing the apperceptive-mechanical reaction. Even if "conscious choice" exists via a classically liberal definition, it would be impossible to analyze as an event because thought is articulated via an internal monologue dialogizing with the potential description your language structures attempt to apply to the simulated signifier created by your image structures.

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 12:40:33 2018 No.11460439

>>11460262
You can't rightly claim or know anything without consciousness, an illusion cannot know it is an illusion. You cannot truly prove anything other than the fact that you are conscious. It doesn't matter how you want label it or claim what causes it. It exists and can only know it exist because it is the only thing you experience directly.

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 12:41:11 2018 No.11460445

>Dennett: So you see, consciousness is of course merely an illusion.
>Socrates: I see. But, simplify this for me, I do not understand. What do you mean by “illusion”?
>Dennett: Of course, good Socrates, an illusion is an appearance that is contrary to reality.
>Socrates: That is well, but I still desire clarification about “appearance.”
>Dennett: Appearance is how an object is perceived by an observer.
>Socrates: I understand. So, consciousness is an appearance perceived by an observer contrary to reality.
>Dennett: No, Socrates, that is not right. There is no observer to consciousness, as this would be another consciousness.
>Socrates: Then you contradict yourself, Dennett. For if consciousness be an illusion, there would yet be another consciousness observing this illusion, and how could this second awareness be unreal?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 12:42:56 2018 No.11460450 >>11460445 DENNETT ABSOLUTELY BTFO ETERNALLY

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 12:56:30 2018 No.11460497 >>11460074 Because he only takes the stance to justify his utmost faith in scientism and atheism.

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 12:58:59 2018 No.11460502

>>11460372
That you do not subscribe to immediately obvious stance (that consciousness is real) does not strengthen your point in any way. There are a lot of interesting arguments, but none of them are “dude that’s exactly what consciousness would make you think idiot, that’s why it’s not real” like in this post >>11460183. You’re literally too dumb for the dumbest of the ‘smart’ boards

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 12:59:48 2018 No.11460507 >>11460445 based socratic ghost

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 13:00:29 2018 No.11460510 >>11459769 illusionist >people don't feel >you feel >but the feel ain't real realist >people feel >I feel >feel be real >you feel me? illusionist >ha you proved me right cos you said you feel AND I SAID "you feel" too hahaha

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 13:05:29 2018 No.11460532 >>11460176 But consciousness is necessary for an illusion to be observed

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 13:06:53 2018 No.11460541 Gravity's Rainbow

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 13:10:39 2018 No.11460559 >>11459805 he's calling you a pseud, midwit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 13:18:45 2018 No.11460588 >>11460510 Nice rhymes, bro

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 13:20:05 2018 No.11460596 >>11460502 Even TV is smarter than this board

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 13:46:50 2018 No.11460720 >>11460429 Your "I" indicate you're assuming your own consciousness. You're using an illusion for evidence of an illusion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 13:50:10 2018 No.11460731 Consciousness can’t be explained

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 13:53:30 2018 No.11460748 >>11460720 No. "I" is a rhetorical tool to refer to the most intimate "dasein". But substitute with any complex action-machine that can articulate via codex it's reaction to a stimulus.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 14:00:51 2018 No.11460776 >>11459769 Jesus...how old are you?

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 14:05:05 2018 No.11460787

>>11460242
Thanks, but this doesn’t explain anything at all, and I can’t fathom the arguments for it. The question is, “How does something seemingly immaterial (consciousness) come from and/or interact with matter?” Dennett’s answer then seems to be, “It’s not immaterial at all, it’s a completely material process.” Then the response would be, “Then how does matter come to show these seemingly immaterial properties?” Dennett’s response would then seem to be, “It’s not really immaterial, that’s just an illusion.” Then the response would be, “Well, the very immediate existence of a consciousness to be fooled by this still suggests something which can’t be explained simply by the laws of matter as we know it,” and so on.

If this is really his argument, wow; this guy really is a retard. I now get the joke that his book should be called “Consciousness Handwaved Away.”

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 14:10:27 2018 No.11460798 >>11460124 individuality is an illusion vs individuality is the basis of all ethics I checked, he has a very unconvincing rationalization for it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 14:11:29 2018 No.11460803 >>11460596 this is the dumbest board on 4chan ainec

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 14:14:35 2018 No.11460816 >>11460748 The real problem is that everything you’ve said could be said of a computer. This would work only if you were a panpsychist. Are you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 14:17:17 2018 No.11460829 >>11459805 There are probably other professional philosophers that would say the same thing about this Chalmers fag

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 14:18:59 2018 No.11460839 File: 120 KB, 623x623, 1530893801802.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11460140 >internal world as an illusion

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 14:32:36 2018 No.11460890

The issue seems to be a lot of people imbue consciousness with a quasi spiritual quality, like a soul. Something that exists inside a human being that is independent from the human being's physical machinery, and is therefore immutable. But the fact is, the self, "you," "me," or consciousness all depend on the hardware running it, so if for example a human being suffered serious brain damage, its personality may change, or it may become a vegetable. Or for example, if a human being and his mother were both out in the middle of the ocean, said human being might drown his mother out of shear desperation to stay afloat and not drown himself, contrary to his absolute belief that he would never under any circumstances harm or kill his own mother. So where or how does the machinery generate this thing we call the self, or you, or me, or consciousness? Is it just an illusion created by the machinery so that it can function in a unified manner, like the operating system of a computer?

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 14:47:56 2018 No.11460949

>>11460890
First of all, that’s not what an OS is.
Second, if you want selfhood as opposed to consciousness you’re talking about something very different from this thread’s content. If that’s what you want, go read that one Kierkegaard passage. You know the one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 14:52:30 2018 No.11460974 >>11460748 In relation to what is this "dasein" intimate?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 14:55:24 2018 No.11460993 >>11459737 So if I am not really conscious why am I not unconscious?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 15:14:26 2018 No.11461089 >>11460949 >First of all, that’s not what an OS is. Then what is an OS?

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 15:28:38 2018 No.11461154

>>11460532
Responding to this line of thought:
You presume that you must have a consciousness to have experience. That is the fundamental flaw of your argument. You guys are saying that you must have an observer to -observe- the experience even if it's illusionary in nature. But, I am trying to say that the observer itself is the illusion. The irony is that you claim that Dennett is "handwaving" the hard problem of consciousness away while you reject the best possible explanation for it! The hard problem is about the observer itself, and I've been trying to explain what it is. The concept of an observer is so viscerally real that many posters are trying to say that I'm crazy to deny it and so on. That I'm the crazy one for not believing in the existence of something that is immaterial. In fact, none of these posters have addressed the binding problem or considered the fact that the phenomenal experience are directly tied to one's physical states. I find dualist and dualist-like explanations to be very unconvincing in general.
>>11460439
>an illusion cannot know it is an illusion
I don't *know* that it's an illusion! I am also being fooled after all. Making a claim does not shape the reality itself. So, it's more like: Bob believes he is being fooled and the reality remains the same regardless of Bob's belief.

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 15:40:41 2018 No.11461204
File: 208 KB, 960x960, tumblr_p99pp7WbNa1suuc8do1_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11461154

From the extraverted vantage point the absurdity of Phenomena could make one think that one is likewise absurd. But this is only inference making up for cowardice and ignorance.

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 15:51:46 2018 No.11461244

>>11461089
Task scheduling and stuff, not “an illusion created by the machinery so that it can function in a unified manner.”
>>11461154
>The observer itself is the illusion
Then it’s either being observed by another consciousness as stated earlier—or it’s some sort of self-observing illusion. An illusion that fools itself, pulling itself up by its own bootstraps. Illusion wouldn’t even be the word for it, since there’s no external observer, it would instead be a self-existent idea, an ego created by itself, a necessary self, an I AM, and ultimately a consciousness anyway.
You’ll try to get out of this by saying that I’ve got it all wrong, that it’s an illusion with no real observer (just as Dennett did in the Socratic dialogue above). But it’s dishonest to call such a thing an illusion, and it’s exactly dishonest wordgames like this that the illusionist position depends on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 15:57:29 2018 No.11461269 >>11460131 There's no evidence to suggest that what you call the 'external' world should or can be understood in terms of space (external/internal).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 16:00:12 2018 No.11461282 >>11459737 >BUT MY FEELINGS!! To feel is to be conscious of

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 16:07:30 2018 No.11461312 >>11461154 >You presume that you must have a consciousness to have experience Consciousness is a word being built around being able to experience

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 16:09:06 2018 No.11461321 >>11461244 I don't feel like getting dragged into another consciousness debate thread on /lit/ but I just wanna say you're exactly right and all dennettposters should hang

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 16:10:58 2018 No.11461329 >>11461321 stay strong, based one

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 16:23:15 2018 No.11461387 >>11460445 not enough "you surprising fellow" or "By the dog!"

Anonymous Sat Jul 14 16:45:39 2018 No.11461494

>>11461329
the more these clowns affirm the illusory nature of consciousness they either 1) completely ignore who is being fooled in the first place or 2) just set up an account of consciousness as that which makes possible this misrecognition in the first place, the mechanism of which is the object of any inquiry into the essence of consciousness and always remains conveniently unexplained

of course there's something to say about our not assuming the solid reality of everything we experience but if you're denying the existence of the observer you're either brokebrain retarded or English is like your 5th language because you have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say

keep fighting the good fight ive had my fill of arguing with p-zombies. the """belief""" in the existence of consciousness is not predicated on feeling, and the fact that anyone thinks this just means they have no idea what is even being communicated

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 16:54:48 2018 No.11461539 >>11459728 I have this book on my shelf, is it worth a read?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 17:55:25 2018 No.11461886 >>11459728 Consciousness is real in the sense that countries are real. Also, consciousness does not exist in the sense that countries don't really exist outside the context of international society, and even that it's merely an attraction.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 18:00:05 2018 No.11461914 >>11461886 I'll kick you to death for being so fucking stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 14 18:46:11 2018 No.11462157 File: 120 KB, 999x1351, 044BC58A-284C-465A-9F64-FFEE9D294B48.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11460445 Start with the Greeks desu famalam

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 00:12:56 2018 No.11463454

But that's not true -- lots of philosophers claim they're p-zombies. So why not believe them? Maybe p-zombies arent just a thought experiment. Maybe there literally are p-zombies, but we only notice in certain fringe situations, like reflectively asking people about it. What if some philosophers are so appalled at or confused by the idea of qualia, which ordinary people find not only perfectly reasonable, but difficult to conceive of even denying, because they don't have qualia, i.e. because they're p-zombies?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 00:16:21 2018 No.11463460 >>11459737 doesn't CAPTCHA filter out the pzombies anymore?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 02:01:43 2018 No.11463772 So this thread is full of people who claim to not have consciousness but merely act like they do, and they're trying to convince those who do have consciousness that they actually don't. Filthy p-zombies.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 02:17:54 2018 No.11463826 >>11460445 Brilliant, now for drinking.

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 02:18:35 2018 No.11463830

>>11460890
>But the fact is, the self, "you," "me," or consciousness all depend on the hardware running it
[citation needed]

>so if for example a human being suffered serious brain damage, its personality may change, or it may become a vegetable.
You're assuming that "consciousness" is synonymous with "lived experience." It's not.

>Or for example, if a human being and his mother were both out in the middle of the ocean, said human being might drown his mother out of shear desperation to stay afloat and not drown himself, contrary to his absolute belief that he would never under any circumstances harm or kill his own mother.
I'm not sure how a conflict in values equates to there being no such thing as consciousness. If anything, it implies that there are actually levels of consciousness, which can be affected by the circumstances someone finds themself in.

>So where or how does the machinery generate this thing we call the self, or you, or me, or consciousness?
The self, you, me, etc. are illusions projected onto consciousness due to the process of psychological attachment; consciousness itself is free from such illusions.

>Is it just an illusion created by the machinery so that it can function in a unified manner, like the operating system of a computer?
Consciousness is more like the ground of being itself; it has no purpose or goal, any more than the sky has a purpose or goal. It just is. All the countless inner workings of consciousness are just the result of psychological conditioning.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 02:26:20 2018 No.11463859 >>11460131 isn't the thing that is most likely to exist the 'in-between' of the external/internal?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 02:27:30 2018 No.11463864 >>11461269 Sure, I would agree with this. The two form an inseparability.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 02:30:04 2018 No.11463872 >>11460787 but don't we have strong evidence that consciousness isn't immediate?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 02:59:03 2018 No.11463952 Dennett looks like an old pedophile.

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 03:45:52 2018 No.11464094

>>11460140
>If the external world doesn't exist, then there cannot be an internal world, to begin with.
Ignoring the obvious pseudery, that wasn't even the point that was made here: >>11460131
Anon said there's no evidence of the external existing *independently* of the internal and he's right. In fact quantum physics has proven that the external can be determined by perception. That an unknown thing's state can be undetermined until it becomes known.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 03:53:22 2018 No.11464109 >>11464094 If you have zero understanding of quantum mechanics, then maybe you should avoid bringing it up.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 03:56:55 2018 No.11464122 >>11464094 >In fact [some interpretations of] quantum physics [may suggest] that the external [is] determined by [particle interaction] fixed that up a bit for you

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 04:27:50 2018 No.11464200

>>11463454
>lots of philosophers claim they're p-zombies. So why not believe them?

Because that goes against the whole concept of what a P-Zombie is supposed to be. A P-Zombie is supposed to be theoretically identical to a person with consciousness physically, only they don't have consciousness, for whatever reason. Because of this, a P-zombie would act exactly like a conscious person to an outside observer, and would give no indication or sign whatsoever that would distinguish them from a conscious person.

For 'consciousness to be an illusion' is entirely different from what it would me for 'self to be an illusion'.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 05:43:53 2018 No.11464304 >>11463952 He also believes that consent is an illusion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 06:00:10 2018 No.11464336 >>11464109 >>11464122 t. religious materialists too obvious to see the truth

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 06:40:23 2018 No.11464468 Either consciousness doesn't exist or the material world doesn't exist. The latter makes more sense given that it solves the measurement problem in QM and accounts for all the data, including consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 06:49:29 2018 No.11464499 >>11460176 guess its time to kill yourself bro

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 06:53:13 2018 No.11464508
File: 15 KB, 207x243, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11460183
if external reality is an illusion, then of course that you will believe it and deny that it is an illusion.

if sawing a woman in half on a stage is an illusion, then of course that you will believe it and deny that it is an illusion.

if magic eye puzzles are an illusion, then of course that you will believe them and deny that they are an illusion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 06:54:03 2018 No.11464511 >>11460183 And if consciousness isn't an illusion, then you will deny it. Denial is in no way proof of illusionism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 06:56:45 2018 No.11464524 >>11462157 Honestly

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 07:02:09 2018 No.11464541 >>11460074 >consciousness isn't real, there's no "you" stop being a pussy and accept it people who say consciousness when they mean ego are retards

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 07:05:50 2018 No.11464551 >>11460445 printing this out and posting it to him 2bh

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 07:30:35 2018 No.11464624 >>11464551 be sure to share his response

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 07:55:25 2018 No.11464685 >>11464304 Daniel "qualia ain't in a human child, so my dick's gonna go inside" Dennett

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 08:29:54 2018 No.11464765 >>11460445 Based

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 08:57:53 2018 No.11464818

>>11460217
I once took a philosophy of technology class, and one day during a discussion regarding free will, this spastic trans girl says, "I'm a determinist, so I don't think free will exists." This basically shut down the discussion.

This is not only a philosophical problem but a general one too. For some reason people like to affix labels to themselves as if it actually means anything to call yourself a determinist, materialist, what have you, which leads to this exact kind of non-argument. It amounts to not having a free discussion, because usually both sides will repeat and argue around the same sets of propositions and counterarguments. Same shit is happening between "liberals" and "conservatives" nowadays.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 08:59:40 2018 No.11464826 File: 67 KB, 638x479, logical-fallacies-18-638.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11464468 2/10 At least you tried.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 09:21:36 2018 No.11464903 >>11464818 I don't see the same thing. I posted that and it seemed to have generated over 100 posts of discussion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 09:42:16 2018 No.11464974 >>11464903 It's not really a discussion if, again, you repeat the mantras of some empty position like illusionism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 09:46:14 2018 No.11464990 >>11460217 If you don't believe in consciousness then your definition of "real" is quite literally useless and can't readily be applied to anything.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 11:13:11 2018 No.11465250 >>11464826 10/10 rebuttal, i'm so burned

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 12:55:06 2018 No.11465585 Based shitposters against Dennett. I always love reading this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 13:51:52 2018 No.11465783 >>11464826 True, the third option is dualism. But I assumed nobody here would be retarded enough to advocate dualism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 13:53:59 2018 No.11465795 >dude consciousness is an illusion lmao >but then who’s being fooled? >an illusion lmao

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 13:54:18 2018 No.11465796 >>11464336 observation does not mean perception in physics, that is a deepak chopra level interpretation of qm

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 13:54:57 2018 No.11465799 >>11460217 What is your basis for believing in anything, given that your knowledge of scientific facts comes from your subjective experience of them?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 13:56:10 2018 No.11465801 >>11465796 Ah, so you've solved the measurement problem? When will you be collecting your Nobel prize?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:00:18 2018 No.11465817 >>11465801 you dont need to solve the measurement problem to have a rudimentary understanding of terminology

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:03:47 2018 No.11465834

I unironically take a Wittgenstienian approach to the philosophy of mind especially as it pertains to consciousness.
Language is not fit to describe what consciousness is and in the course of speaking about it, we introduce hidden assumptions by the very act of doing so.
So we end up not being able to see through the framework language imposes on our thoughts for talking about consciousness, and we believe that to arrive at a satisfactory answer we must yield a set of statements in a descriptive system that is inadequate to the task of producing the results we want.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:05:48 2018 No.11465839 >>11465834 >Language is not fit to describe what consciousness is and in the course of speaking about it, we introduce hidden assumptions by the very act of doing so. this is basically buddhist type thinking isnt it

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:06:15 2018 No.11465844

>>11465817
True, but we're in one of those threads where an undergraduate physics student comes in and points out that the measurement problem can be explained entirely in terms of physical matter. Which of course it can - if you subscribe to some contrived and unnecessary interpretation of QM, like Many Words or Bohm's nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:07:07 2018 No.11465848 >>11465844 the measurement problem has literally nothing to do with consciousness, it is entirely about measurement requiring physical interaction

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:07:16 2018 No.11465851

>>11459874
You seem to lack a basic understanding of epistemology.

Here's a basic epistemic principle, let's call it phenomenal conservatism, or just PC.
PC: If it seems to S that P, then, in the absence of defeaters, S thereby has at least some justification for believing that P.

It really seems like we conscious.
The neurological stuff that Dennett cites does not defeat this belief.

There you go.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:07:18 2018 No.11465852 >>11465834 Cop out.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:10:04 2018 No.11465862 >>11465848 Explain why von Neumann chains can't exist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:10:22 2018 No.11465864 >>11465852 If you're able to think without words then it's really not. If you cant, you best get learning how to do so.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:18:17 2018 No.11465891 >>11465862 not who you replied to, but I thought that interpretation was about collapsing waves in your brain to determine perception, not your brain's perception collapsing waves outside in the external world

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:24:08 2018 No.11465915 >>11465796 >observation does not mean perception in physics >acting like none of the founders of quantum physics believed this and that the philosophical implications of this weren't hand waved away after

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:28:38 2018 No.11465935 >>11465915 wouldn't that suggest that particles did not exist pre-consiousness? or is consciousness supposed to be built into substance a la panpsychism?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:31:17 2018 No.11465947 >>11465935 you cant seriously think he has a real answer to these questions, all hell do is vague handwaving and implications that youre dumb if you dont already get it

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:32:16 2018 No.11465956 >>11465935 It means materialism is false. Dualism, idealism, panpsychism are all in play. Idealism is the only one of those that makes sense.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:34:06 2018 No.11465964 >>11465834 Probably the best answer desu. Consciousness fags will never be satisfied with any possible answer. Consciousness is a loaded term that presumes something unanswerable, no different from God.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:35:23 2018 No.11465967 >>11465964 Consciousness literally proves god exists.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:36:03 2018 No.11465973 >>11465956 If panpsychism is explained, then it becomes monist materialism anyways.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:37:05 2018 No.11465976 >>11465967 No, that doesn't follow automatically.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:42:34 2018 No.11466004 >>11465973 We'll, pansychism and dualism both involve 'then the magic happens' with the combination problem and the interaction problem, respectively. That's why idealism is the only game in town.

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:59:31 2018 No.11466146
File: 51 KB, 745x691, Loci.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11459874
I haven't got to this book yet, but will. Most of this problem does seem to be semantic though doesn't it? What is the difference between real and not-real, and is it the same as that between an illusion and reality? Doesn't the necessity of the illusion to verify the legitimacy of the reality of some thing make us aware that our language is inadequate for making such categories? The terms flatten the actual interrelationship of the illusion and the real, and that belief either way has no major consequence for pragmatic research, having only effects on ethical and esoteric matters.

>>11460094
Colour.

>>11460150
>>11460158
Depends on the definition. The fetus will follow face shapes while still in the womb, going as far as to understand the difference between a face right-side-up and up-side-down.

---

>>11460298
>>11460320

---

>>11460445
Hmm. Doesn't this dialectic show that he's right to assume that consciousness is an illusion over top of an unconscious awareness of reality, awareness of the raw data that we are preconditioned to become conscious of in certain illusory ways that help us survive. There is no observer to perceive appearances until the object is made separate from the total data received and therefore the observer is always unreal and no second awareness is possible that we can be conscious of and give attributes to.
>>11465585
I just wish there was actual interest in the subject here rather than a defense of his apparent false reality. The devolution into semantic bickering never results in anything good for religious fellows. Strange to hear them prying open arguments that leave them scrabbling every time they make a concession to rationality and research.

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 14:59:51 2018 No.11466148

>>11466004
panpsychism side steps the interaction problem completely, all substance is conscious as an inherent property. measurement of consciousness becomes a matter of analyzing complexity (or perhaps intensity) rather than a specific is/isn't distinction. the much more convincing argument for the whole QM consciousness debacle is that even particles have the liminal awareness to make their own rudimentary "decisions" upon collapse. can you at least specify what sort of idealism you are referring to (who do you have more memes of, Kant or Hegel)?

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 15:11:49 2018 No.11466222

>>11466148
But, as I said, panpsychism has no answer for the combination problem.

When I say 'idealism', I'm referring to a kind of Berkeleyan idealism - best articulated by Bernardo Kastrup.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://ispcjournal.org/journals/2017-19/Kastrup_19.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjrnZ2756HcAhWRbsAKHa_CDA0QFjADegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0-7i1_ryuS1uFw_9q2rlPM

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 15:18:58 2018 No.11466266

I find that people who try to disprove consciousness entangle things commonly thought to be related to it, such as metaawareness or free will, as opposed to what it really is. All consciousness is is having the capacity to experience being oneself. A table has no such capacity; you do. Therefore, you're conscious.
You have no free will though.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 15:19:27 2018 No.11466271 >>11466222 pls explain your own words im curious

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 15:20:29 2018 No.11466280 >>11466222 what have you never read chalmers or something? he explicitly tackles the combination problem http://consc.net/papers/combination.pdf >Berkeleyan idealism dropped

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 15:21:39 2018 No.11466294

>>11459737

branding the people who believe in the reality of their status as conscious, self-aware biological machines as childish... that's beyond ignorant. it's unconsciousness. a second sleep.

the enlightened accept consciousness as granted. it is not childish to refute the disingenuous and affirm that I am indeed conscious. but after that basic point has been established, you progress to more worthwhile endeavors, like the evolution/expansion/transformation/principles of consciousness. what is the point of all the hubbub surrounding consciousness when you cannot even believe you posses it? it's an unconscious habit.

>BUT MY FEELINGS!!

You don't see how dismissive this is? Your own ego displaces your insight ergo you are victim to your own sophistry. you have to remember that a person wrote this book, and that people are the ones that read it. books don't read people and write themselves.

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 15:32:49 2018 No.11466373

>>11466271
Basically, we create the hard problem of consciousness and the measurement problem in QM by positing the existence of an entirely separate ontological class from mind, called matter.

Kastrup's idea is that, akin to alters (personalities) becoming disassociated from the larger psyche in people with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), we’re just dissociated alters within a universal mind-at-large.

On this view, wave function collapse occurs as a result of an interaction between an organism’s thoughts (as von Neumann believed) and the thoughts underlying the inanimate universe that surrounds it.

I've come to believe that the only escape from this conclusion is that consciousness is an illusion. But that seems silly.

>>11466280
I have not read that paper, but will.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 15:37:00 2018 No.11466387 >>11466373 >we’re just dissociated alters within a universal mind-at-large. so what does this do with the mechanistic understanding of reality, not QM but atoms, molecules, etc?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 15:45:31 2018 No.11466430 >>11466387 Atoms and molecules are in consciousness, but are not conscious - they have no subjective experience. Our minds are like whirlpools in a stream, or alters in someone with DID: distinct but part of the whole.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 15:50:01 2018 No.11466457 >>11466430 so consciousness is some particular pattern in the greater mindworld or whatever?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 15:56:16 2018 No.11466499 >>11466457 Basically, something about the human (and maybe other animals') brain localises and amplifies consciousness to produce self-awareness. We are the universe becoming aware of a small part of its own existence.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 16:09:40 2018 No.11466564 >>11466499 there is no evidence of this, nor could there ever be.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 16:14:22 2018 No.11466592 >>11466499 rips bong

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 16:17:23 2018 No.11466606 >>11466146 You misunderstand the dialogue completely. As soon as we “become conscious... in certain illusory ways” the dialectic’s critique applies, and there must be a real observer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 16:23:39 2018 No.11466635 >>11459737 >People who believe in consciousness are the childish people who stamp their feet and say BUT MY FEELINGS!! Are you implying consciousness is an illusion? Why? desu it seems like a cop-out to deny any possibility of metaphysics.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 16:34:05 2018 No.11466688 >>11466606 Yet, Dennett will still insist that your definition of "real observer" is not a genuine evidence as that it is an illusion anyway. Then you say that it can't be. Then he says that it must be. It goes on.

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 16:38:45 2018 No.11466714

>>11466635
I don't imply it. I outright state that consciousness is an illusion. I don't agree that consciousness being an illusion means that there must be a lack of metaphysics. It's the opposite- there is a lot of meaningful work to be done with the fundamental assumption that our consciousness is not real.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 16:40:13 2018 No.11466723 >>11466688 Then Dennett would be arguing for an infinite regress of illusory observances, which would be quite the thing to cram into a finite human brain. A supernatural accomplishment, in fact!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 16:42:13 2018 No.11466730 >>11466723 No? It's all not real anyway. There's nothing to "cram" into a brain. It's your position that it's real therefore we must have something that we cannot detect in our brain that is patently absurd.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 16:43:00 2018 No.11466736 >>11466714 is there a way of making this statement plain in layman's terms? I'm sitting here at my laptop "watching" my visual field, feeling my ass on the chair, etc. In what way are these 'illusions'? And, obviously, what is the thing being deluded?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 16:45:39 2018 No.11466745 >>11466736 it is a totally incoherent concept, it is literally the most wrong you can be about anything in all of reality

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 16:48:04 2018 No.11466753 >>11466745 I know, that's just a trap

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 16:48:18 2018 No.11466758 File: 58 KB, 618x412, simpsons-memes-no-its-the-children-who-are-wrong.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11466714

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 16:50:41 2018 No.11466772 >>11466745 This post is the most definite evidence in favor of Illusionism. It's a shame that you're the one who is deluded though.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 16:53:00 2018 No.11466784 >>11466772 this thread is for conscious people only, we do not accept illusions in here

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 16:53:23 2018 No.11466788

>>11466730
Apologies, I mischaracterized your argument.
Dennett wishes to call something an illusion without it being observed. This is contradictory to the nature of illusion. If this is just a shortcoming of language and the word “illusion,” I’d like to see an explanation of just what Dennett would mean by an unobserved illusion.

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:07:26 2018 No.11466859

>>11466788
Dennett is a weak illusionist. So, he would actually disagree with the existence of unobserved illusion. I agree with Keith Frankish and his hard Illusionism epistemology. I only have to explain why it seems to exist to us. I don't have the burden of positively proving something that I genuinely don't believe that is real.

There is no observer to begin with! There is only a seemingly observer. All perception is illusionary in its nature. Why is this case? I'm sure that you don't want yet other boring materialist recitation right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:09:03 2018 No.11466870 >>11459737 >believing in phenomena is reasonable >consciousness is not Lmao

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:10:41 2018 No.11466875 >>11465851 No. A belief is either true or false. You can be justified to have a false belief, but it is still not true.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:17:04 2018 No.11466899 >>11466758 There are many philosophers who believe in consciousness and reject qualia. Read Crane, 2000.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:18:34 2018 No.11466911 >>11466899 >there are many retards in every field of study No shit

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:20:39 2018 No.11466917 >>11466911 So, you think that you know more than people who have spent years studying that particular subject? At least read the paper before you dismiss the work lol.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:22:30 2018 No.11466926 >>11466859 >There is only a seemingly observer Seemingly to whom or what?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:30:18 2018 No.11466962 >>11466917 Yes, I know better than any mathematician who tells me 2 and 2 do not make four

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:32:07 2018 No.11466973 >>11466926 Nothing. It's all illusion. The fact that you insist that there must be an observer is an evidence for my position.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:34:24 2018 No.11466985 >>11466962 Imbecile.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:36:10 2018 No.11466989 >>11466564 It's the most parsimonious explanation, given the available data. Dualism and panpsychism are /x/-tier and materialism forces you to deny your own consciousness and mainstream QM.

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:39:34 2018 No.11467002

>>11466989
>/x/-tier
you make judgements based on your aesthetic sensibilities.
"the world is normal and sensible. look at my car, and my apartment. They are normal. Abnormal things do not exist because they would violate the perfect normalcy of everything and that would be p scary desu"

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:41:07 2018 No.11467010 >>11467002 They're x-tier because the interaction problem and the combination problem are insurmountable.

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:44:57 2018 No.11467028

>>11466973
You play wordgames—sweeping all your baggage under the words “illusion” or “seemingly” and then redefining them so the problem appears to disappear. You say there is seemingly an observer one moment, then that there does not seem to be an observer the next because it seems that way to nothing. You’re inconsistent and incoherent.
And then again you repeat that it’s all illusion—but what perceives the illusion? We’re back to square one, you’re dancing around. An unpercieved illusion is not an illusion.
And your final point is just retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:45:21 2018 No.11467031 >>11466989 Dualism is right though

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:45:52 2018 No.11467035

>>11466989
Denying your own consciousness is difficult, but clearly not impossible reading this thread. Mainstream QM says nothing about consciousness. Copenhagen interpretation has been long discredited and is a clearly incomplete picture. Physics does not have any clear insight into the nature of consciousness as of now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:51:22 2018 No.11467060 File: 52 KB, 932x944, zqd92a97ptt01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11467031

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:51:47 2018 No.11467063

>>11467010
>interaction
yes, there is interaction between pure consciousness and material reality. calling consciousness non-physical means something very specific: it's not any of the 4 fundamental forces, it is none of the particles in the standard model and it does not arise from interactions between any of these things.
However consciousness does exist and it does interact, if we came to understand its nature, we would just fold that aspect of reality into our definition of 'physical'.
>combination
in physical reality (as we know it currently) things cannot overlap in this way.
but since we know nothing about the realm of pure consciousness, there is no reason to assume this is also true there. Each of our cells could have its own little rudimentary awareness completely separate from ours, i.e. that does not "add up" to ours.

also, I take it you conceded to >>11466564 ?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:52:24 2018 No.11467070 >>11467028 The hypocrite that you are. You accuse me of playing the word game when you do the same thing to assert the existence of consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:54:15 2018 No.11467084 File: 111 KB, 618x625, 1531399275462.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11467060 Yeah I forgot that my brain was exactly identical to my mind. You're so fucking right.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:56:14 2018 No.11467093 >>11467070 Where? All I’ve done is hold you accountable for your own words and shown their inconsistency.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:57:30 2018 No.11467102 >>11465967 Go to bed, Peterson.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:57:35 2018 No.11467103 File: 213 KB, 661x471, fnhum-07-00533-g001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11467084 It must take a special kind of brain injury to think that your mind is independent of your brain.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:58:00 2018 No.11467107 If you don't think consciousness exists then you probably have a fucked up conception of what "exists" means.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 17:59:04 2018 No.11467109 >>11467103 Being a dualist doesn't mean that the mind is independent (at least not always and not with me). Without the brain there is no mind.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 18:02:23 2018 No.11467125 >>11467103 neither is it strictly identical, any more than digestion is the stomach

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 18:03:05 2018 No.11467126 File: 27 KB, 480x443, 1455692209020.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11459769 YOOOOOO THIS NIGGA ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM LMAOOOOOOOO

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 18:19:01 2018 No.11467174 File: 7 KB, 250x250, 1377040834118s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >"consciousness exists" means "consciousness exists in a mythical world independent of the brain"

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 18:31:40 2018 No.11467233 >>11467174 Ok, show me a bottle of consciousness then.

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 18:39:04 2018 No.11467266

>>11467103
the brain receives and processes the information, cognizes it.
Awareness of sensory inputs, the condition of being a subject who experiences the world in first-person? how the fuck can you possibly claim there is a physical basis for that? how many lightbulbs does it take to create subjectivity? Does it take less of them if you connect them in parallel?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 18:41:20 2018 No.11467278 File: 573 KB, 1118x1118, Ada_Lovelace_Chalon_portrait.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11461494 Pynchon zombies?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 18:56:35 2018 No.11467324 >>11460176 No, you are a faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 19:01:07 2018 No.11467339 File: 28 KB, 333x499, 41L90rlY56L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Git gud

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 20:05:04 2018 No.11467577

>>11467233
Consciousness is a phenomenon, not a concrete single thing.
It's like saying "show me an immune-defense system"
Or a program running in a computer, the program is not the computer parts, even though it exists thanks to them and stops existing if they do.

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 20:10:10 2018 No.11467603

From his review of incomplete nature. Has any one read both of these books?
>I myself have been trying in recent years to say quite a few of the things Deacon says more clearly here. So close and yet so far! I tried; he succeeded, a verdict I would apply to the other contenders in equal measure. Alicia Juarrero (1999) and Evan Thompson (2007) have both written excellent books on neighboring andoverlapping topics, but neither of them managed to win me over to the Romantic side (see, e.g., Dennett 2011), whereas Deacon, with his more ambitious exercise of reconstruction, has me re-examining my fundamental working assumptions

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 20:44:52 2018 No.11467749

>>11466499
Close. Consciousness is group phenomena, not an individual one. That "thing" doing your "thinking" is not your self, it is your ego. The ego blinds you to your self. When you die, your ego dies, but your self returns to the group that is the summation of all conscious beings that have ever lived and will ever live. Language is insufficient to explain. Either you understand or you do not. Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 20:55:35 2018 No.11467791 >>11464818 if you are a "trans girl" you probably have no concept of self beyond the mental equivalent of a sticker collection so what did you expect really lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 23:04:58 2018 No.11468286 >>11460787 Punchline is "counciousess explained away"

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 23:06:41 2018 No.11468297 >>11466714 What would be the sociological effects of consciousness being an illusion?

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 23:13:23 2018 No.11468317

>>11467577
Consciousness is not a phenomenon, it is the seat of all phenomenon. To think that it's the other way around is just an assumption; one that quickly falls apart once you realise who ridiculous it is to assume that the phenomenon that perceives all these other phenomenon is somehow separate from or contingent upon them.

Anonymous Sun Jul 15 23:31:54 2018 No.11468382

>>11466875
omg you cannot be this retarded.
Wow, you believe in bivalence :o
I'm shocked. Bivalence has little to do with what I'm talking about.
Also, go read Graham Priest and come back and talk to me about bivalence you autist.

We are certain of very little. Especially regarding the external world. If this is right (it is), then we should be really concerned with what constitutes justification. So the PC principle is about what gets us justification. That's to say that we are justified in believing we are conscious.

You are right, under most theories of justification we can have justified but false beliefs, however, with little way to evaluate the proposition with any degree of certainty, we have to rely on our seemings.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 23:34:32 2018 No.11468384 >>11468317 Fine, i am making an assumption.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 15 23:39:36 2018 No.11468405 >>11468317 Bergson said as much in 1911. Jesus fucking christ these morons are over a century behind the times.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 00:08:11 2018 No.11468515 File: 94 KB, 547x433, 1526918236946.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11468317 based and redpilled

Anonymous Mon Jul 16 00:16:46 2018 No.11468555
File: 1.43 MB, 291x229, D8ED4CB3-B521-443C-ACF0-508E0DA9313C.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11467103
According to reductionistic materialists, all you need to do is slap a bunch of molecules together and sentience somehow arises.

>umm lol no consciousness being somehow inherent to matter? that’s spooky panpsychism
>umm it just arises somehow when you put together a bunch of non-sentient atoms :^)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 00:19:00 2018 No.11468565 >>11468515 you cringe at calculus or basic computer programming as well?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 00:59:04 2018 No.11468687 >>11459775 This.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 01:06:13 2018 No.11468711 >>11468405 Tell me, how did bergson argue this? What justification, how does consciousness provide the grounds of all phenomenon? If it isn't a phemnonmen itself what does it arise from? Did bergson develop a theory for how it works?

Anonymous Mon Jul 16 02:12:46 2018 No.11468896

>>11467063
So what you're saying is that there's another "realm", or physical force, which we have no evidence of whatsoever, which combines, through some completely a unknown mechanism, in some arbitrary configuration, to produce our consciousness? This is literally animism. How can serious philosophers believe this?

Anonymous Mon Jul 16 03:10:17 2018 No.11469066

>>11468896
>So what you're saying is that there's another "realm", or physical force, which we have no evidence of whatsoever

Not him, but no, not at all. The claim, if I interpret him correctly, is that physics simply provides no model for the emergence of consciousness, and only describes descriptions of how phenomena independently observable by various apparatuses ought to behave, without making any 'metaphysical' predictions about how consciousness emerges from this, despite none of this 'escaping' or being seperate from the same cause and effect that governs reality and which physics does predict and account for.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 03:35:18 2018 No.11469152 >>11468896 >which we have no evidence of whatsoever The sheer act of being is all the evidence we need.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 07:21:46 2018 No.11469853 >>11468382 >Graham Priest What's this priest got to do with anything?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 08:28:35 2018 No.11469987 >>11460445 Only reason I'm still on this board is for posts like these

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 08:54:43 2018 No.11470060 What's so special about consciousness? Why not think about it as just another brain process.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 09:07:31 2018 No.11470089 >>11470060 but why

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 09:08:52 2018 No.11470093 >>11470060 Because it's the foundation of all thought and experience

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 09:20:42 2018 No.11470117 >>11459769 unironically yikes

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 11:44:11 2018 No.11470586 >>11459737 >Heh I just deny my subjective experience >Yep I really showed those people who claim to experience consciousness

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 13:35:42 2018 No.11471017 bump

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 16:28:24 2018 No.11471697 File: 490 KB, 449x401, Girls.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Daniel Dennett? More like Daniel doesn't do it!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 19:27:36 2018 No.11472554 >>11470586 Based.

Anonymous Mon Jul 16 20:08:13 2018 No.11472705
File: 14 KB, 311x311, bea5e4031faf78c268b55b360ac59bf9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11468896
>which we have no evidence of whatsoever
this is a weird statement.
We have a phenomenon: subjective experience.
There is no good reason to assume it arises from matter or energy. Maybe panpsychism is true and all matter is conscious, but that still doesn't explain HOW subjectivity could be created by matter.
Indeed, the very thought that we could study and research and determine the mechanisms that give rise to consciousness is absolute poppycock. Our conscious experience is an island. We can't even detect consciousness in other people!
So having eliminated matter and energy, we postulate that this phenomenon lies elsewhere, exists by some other means.
In a sense you're right, there is no evidence — other than subjectivity itself — but I didn't arrive at this position through evidence, but by process of elimination.
>which combines, through some completely a unknown mechanism
you misread me, I said consciousness ISN'T a combination of smaller parts. There's no reason to assume that it is.
>in some arbitrary configuration
If panpsychism is true, it's not just our arbitrary configuration, it's all possible configurations, and we just happen to be experiencing these full human bodies. Other consciousnesses might be experiencing smaller individual parts of our bodies, others yet might be experiencing inanimate objects, etc.
> This is literally animism.
We don't have a science of consciousness. (Neurology, for one, is the science of the brain, not to be conflated with consciousness) So Animism is as good as any other explanation. You can go ahead and call this theory any name you like.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 20:09:00 2018 No.11472708 y'all seriously still arguing about this unresolvable bullshit

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 16 23:52:00 2018 No.11473580 >>11472708 Yeah mate, wanna argue about it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 00:22:25 2018 No.11473684 >>11472705 this

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 00:40:35 2018 No.11473734 >>11472705 Thanks for stating it so succinctly.

Anonymous Tue Jul 17 00:49:27 2018 No.11473755

>>11472705
>We have a phenomenon: subjective experience.
Subjective experience is not the only explanation for human behavior, and the fact that vitalists always ignore this, and that they always put forward their ideology as something that people have already adamantly accepted in their hearts, shows how flaky vitalism really is.

>>	kinggucci69 !!36GpOxAcrVH Tue Jul 17 06:20:36 2018 No.11474395 >>11460445 basedo

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 06:30:49 2018 No.11474419 >>11459769 >Feelings are not -real-. They only appear to be real. You've got it wrong, they're the only thing that really appear to be. Everything else is just speculation based on them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 09:14:26 2018 No.11474769 >>11474419 They're just chemicals in the brain.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 09:32:22 2018 No.11474816 >>11474769 You can't prove that's all they are. I'd say they are also a mindset, which I don't think you can reduce to chemical arrangement so easily.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 09:55:27 2018 No.11474874 >>11474769 I know, isn't that beautiful?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 09:57:46 2018 No.11474879 >>11474874 no, because feeling beautiful is also a chemical reaction.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 10:02:09 2018 No.11474896 >giving a fuck about what an american wrote

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 10:09:46 2018 No.11474921 >>11474879 beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;)

Anonymous Tue Jul 17 10:15:23 2018 No.11474936

>>11474769
which we think we know because we observed it, but our perception could be lying to us, our rules of logic and biology could be wrong. We really have no certainty about anything in this universe. We can be sure of one thing which is the fact that human beings experience things. These things could be false and lies but our experiences are sure to exist as opposed to literally everything else.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 11:19:20 2018 No.11475141 >>11474936 Not him, but then any and all attempts to understand reality are useless. Either way, a materialist outlook of the mind/consciousness is legitimately the only game in town when comes to actually understanding them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 11:22:33 2018 No.11475151 >>11475141 Why would that be useless?

Anonymous Tue Jul 17 11:28:32 2018 No.11475186

>>11475151
Because if you assume that your senses and your mind are both deliberately lying to you, then you either concludes that you are yourself part of the illusion and then treat it as the actual reality, or then you succumb to solipsism and mastubates.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 11:30:28 2018 No.11475195 >>11475186 who said deliberately?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 11:55:22 2018 No.11475305 >>11475195 >but our perception could be lying to us It implies that our perception is conveying false information that it knows it is false, but honestly the point stands as long as there is a total disconnect between perception and reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 11:57:29 2018 No.11475314 File: 289 KB, 343x490, 0ruzag6zt3A88B7dVQuclyVhUmqC60OlQPWTuZDNHo-3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >this thread Just read Peirce, you epic dummos

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 11:59:07 2018 No.11475316 File: 852 KB, 584x585, 1484661588739.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11475305 lying may not be the best choice of wording(I didn't use it), but it gets the point across well enough, there's a discrepancy there, possibly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 12:02:42 2018 No.11475331 >>11475305 it's just dealing with the reality of the situation, that the existence of consciousness is the only thing we can be sure of, of course to function normally we need to believe in our senses, action/reaction, logic etc.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 12:29:06 2018 No.11475441 File: 481 KB, 850x1202, 1528995469971.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11474879 and that's just a little insane if you stop to think about it

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 12:35:06 2018 No.11475470 File: 9 KB, 187x269, husserl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11465834 >Language is not fit to describe what consciousness is Wrong.

Anonymous Tue Jul 17 12:39:03 2018 No.11475492

That we perceive consciousness as real is because evolution relies on dimensionless presupposition,don't get me wrong, sorting the order of cognitive power compliments unparalleled efficiency rooted in species specific information.
Information compliments the mechanics of evolution just as in any field of study paying attention compliments deep metaphorical substrate nested in information as an abundance of actions.
It is therefore not too far a leap to see that perception is at the heart of consciousness, even potential consciousness with artificial intelligence.
Understand that the unpredictable belongs to the blindness of reality corresponds to the mechanics of facts and consciousness belongs to intricate observations of the mind on itself producing something that corresponds to a new phenomena which we think is consciousness due to this intrinsic presupposition.
Our perceptual reality is the presupposition to exponential cognitive power brought about by this internal reflection, thus producing this phenomenon of consciousness, which further imparts reality to your own sensations.
TL;DR consciousness is not real, it only appears real.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 12:43:28 2018 No.11475515 >>11475470 You must have some strange misreading of Husserl..

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 12:55:38 2018 No.11475577 >>11475492 based and blackpilled.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 12:56:23 2018 No.11475582 >>11475492 >consciousness is not real >it really helps biological fit though :^)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 12:57:37 2018 No.11475590 >>11475582 digestion is a reference to a series of chemical reactions. digestion is not real. the series of chemical reactions that we call digestion is real.

Anonymous Tue Jul 17 13:17:53 2018 No.11475676

>>11475492
>It is therefore not too far a leap to see that perception is at the heart of consciousness, even potential consciousness with artificial intelligence.
huh?

>Our perceptual reality is the presupposition to exponential cognitive power brought about by this internal reflection,
Why?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 14:38:02 2018 No.11475987 >>11475590 Wrong. You're just moving the abstraction around. The idea of digestion and the idea of molecule reactions is the same essentially - a name given to perceived and shareable phenomena.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 14:46:45 2018 No.11476014 File: 30 KB, 600x400, laughing-laugh-mock-mocking-finger-point-pointing-600x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >anglo philosphy

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 15:09:33 2018 No.11476124 >>11476014 >anglo philosphy what a redundant term, as if there is any other philosophy outside "anglo philosophy"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 15:11:44 2018 No.11476133 >>11475590 >digestion is not real pretty sure your definition of "real" needs some work

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 16:57:53 2018 No.11476615 >>11474896 dennet is a canadian you dingus.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 17:11:49 2018 No.11476668 >>11459737 >people who believe in consciousness there are people who don't?

Anonymous Tue Jul 17 17:28:37 2018 No.11476732

>>11475492
>Our perceptual reality is the presupposition to exponential cognitive power brought about by this internal reflection, thus producing this phenomenon of consciousness, which further imparts reality to your own sensations.

well yeah it's that this happens in the first place and can register itself as this process - which you are doing - is the whole point numbnuts

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 17:36:45 2018 No.11476757 >>11476668 Consciousness isn't the only available explanation for human behavior.

Anonymous Tue Jul 17 18:23:07 2018 No.11476929

>>11459737
If there is no consciousness, there is no such thing as childishness nor is there any point in writing a philosophical book to explain why there isn't any such thing as consciousness, nor are we even having a conversation right now. Not to mention, your logic is of the variety which can only be held by someone with ZERO HUMAN INTERACTION. "People who believe in consciousness," you say. So, in other words, 99.9999% of human beings? Which means, this is a book, written by an eclectic, ego-driven pseud for a statistically irrelevant audience of eclectic egoist pseuds with the ultimate point of: if you don't agree with me, you're childish? A childish stance, if ever there was one. Pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 18:26:02 2018 No.11476947 >>11476929 >the definition of "consciousness" is "whatever will make me right"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 18:48:36 2018 No.11477037 >>11475987 essentialism doesn't make something real. it only makes something real in the platonic realm. of course, the platonic realm is not real.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 18:49:38 2018 No.11477040 >>11476133 your definition of real is antirealism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 19:05:08 2018 No.11477091 >>11459737 what a blunder of a post

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 19:12:27 2018 No.11477114 >>11477040 no it isnt

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 19:14:24 2018 No.11477120 >>11459737 peak retard

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 19:15:13 2018 No.11477124 File: 126 KB, 480x608, 1465595912602.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11474769

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 19:37:21 2018 No.11477209 >>11460445 Thank you based Socrates.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 19:40:43 2018 No.11477225 >>11477209 No wonder he died penniless and in prison

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 19:40:52 2018 No.11477226 >>11460445 >Dennett: We may continue this another time, Socrates. I must go.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 20:37:02 2018 No.11477442 File: 54 KB, 736x490, bc2e1ae2ebcd897be050e27dae890cae.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11477226 Lol what a BITCH

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 20:42:40 2018 No.11477468 >>11476947 Your post annihilated itself. I don't need to be right, in fact, the concept of "me" and "you" is altogether meaningless in a world where neither of us possesses consciousness, brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 20:44:24 2018 No.11477480 >>11477468 No, you're the chemical body fooling itself that it has a self. It goes on.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 20:47:56 2018 No.11477499 >>11477480 But why though?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 20:53:49 2018 No.11477527 >>11477499 Because there's no physical evidence of consciousness and materialistic neuroscience is building up a powerful claim for the explanation of our behavior.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 20:58:20 2018 No.11477564 >>11477527 Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Anonymous Tue Jul 17 21:13:07 2018 No.11477647

>>11477564
Why do some of the people who are in favor of consciousness claim that it never can be explained in physical terms? Isn't that what the "hard problem" is all about? Seems like in this case, the absence of evidence is just an absence of evidence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 21:14:25 2018 No.11477654 >>11477647 I never said that though, sorry

Anonymous Tue Jul 17 21:29:39 2018 No.11477724

>>11466499
Consciousness is simply awareness of affects in the body which simultaneously exist in thought. The idea of the idea of bodily affects produces the unique human brand of consciousness, probably a better word would be sentience. The body that undergoes these affects from other bodies are simply collections of individuals parts related in terms of motion and power. From this view a 'mind' could be composed from any individual parts (electrons, matches, cum etc) as long as they agreed in terms of motion and were sufficiently complex to generate ideas of ideas. Therefore moving to a macro scale it's entirely possible that parts of the universe and galactic bodies such as planets and galaxies possess a form of consciousness. This is of course a basic description of panpsychism and Spinozean thought. We aren't 'becoming' aware of anything in particular we are just bodies of sufficient complexities that our corresponding idea in the mode of thought generates an awareness of our awareness. Even a stone has a form of consciousness however since a rock is a simple object and cannot cause many affects it's corresponding mind is too simple to detect.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 21:35:10 2018 No.11477749 >>11477724 but why?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 21:36:38 2018 No.11477758 >>11477749 Which part do you mean?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 21:38:24 2018 No.11477766 >>11477758 all of it

Anonymous Tue Jul 17 21:44:05 2018 No.11477796

>>11477766
Nice dub trips. I'm just sorta expanding on what the other poster said about how we are tapping into a field of 'mind' and experiencing the universe which reminded me of Spinoza and his pansychism. Since mind or thought is an attribute of a mode of God of which there are infinite attributes there is no true distinction between thinking and extension. The process of physical being and thought is the same process viewed through two different attributes which are simply what the intellect perceives of monist substance. Therefore it can be said that the entire universe is pervaded by thought and ideas generated from God or nature or whatever, the only difference being it's intensity when it corresponds to a body of greater complexity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 21:47:26 2018 No.11477813 >>11477796 hey it's a great post, I'm just saying

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 21:49:19 2018 No.11477825 >>11477813 If you like what I'm putting down you should definitely take a crack at Spinoza's Ethics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 21:53:33 2018 No.11477842 >>11477825 I've heard of Spinoza, but i haven't gotten around to reading him yet lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 22:04:03 2018 No.11477888 File: 85 KB, 679x1024, shady dealer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11477842 >Got somethin' that might interest ya...fellas called Spinoza...pretty enlightening stuff ..

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 17 22:07:13 2018 No.11477907 File: 39 KB, 500x281, lk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11477888 shoot

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 01:02:59 2018 No.11478547 >>11477527 >we don't find consciousness in our models therefore consciousness doesn't exist Brainlet.

Anonymous Wed Jul 18 01:23:04 2018 No.11478594

>>11477647
The only "evidence" we need is the fact that right now, you are consciousness. You can try and deny and wriggle around it all you want, but the fact is, it exists. The fact that you find that somehow threatening speaks more to your own biases than to the actuality of reality.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 01:35:09 2018 No.11478633 >>11478594 >you are consciousness. Are you drunk

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 01:42:21 2018 No.11478650 >>11478633 Prove to me you're not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 01:43:54 2018 No.11478655 >>11478650 I've proven that I am by drinking 4 beers, in that state that I was and established as my self before, I was not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 01:55:06 2018 No.11478687 >>11476757 Who's claiming it is?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 01:55:44 2018 No.11478689 >>11478687 Everybody who isn't me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 01:56:36 2018 No.11478691 >>11478689 Alright, care to provide us with some other explanations?

Anonymous Wed Jul 18 01:58:22 2018 No.11478700

>>11477647
>claim that it never can be explained in physical terms?

I want to be clear about this. Saying "models of physics doesn't predict consciousness" is completely different from saying "consciousness has nothing to do with physics or mechanics".

Anonymous Wed Jul 18 02:30:15 2018 No.11478780

>>11477647
Because there's a gap.
It's the same thing with emotions. You can explain as much as you like which chemicals cause which emotional reactions, but you'll never be able to prove why or how I feel when I'm sad. The reason for this is because it is purely subjective and the actual feeling itself has no grounding in the outside world.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 02:32:39 2018 No.11478787 >>11478780 no

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 02:46:09 2018 No.11478821 >>11478780 >>11478787 Chemicals don't account for the qualia of feeling.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 02:49:02 2018 No.11478824 >>11478821 They don't have to, they just have to account for the behavior of qualia.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 02:51:34 2018 No.11478832 >>11478824 So you're just ignoring qualia? And people react differently to the same thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 02:54:09 2018 No.11478839 >>11478832 There's no reason to believe there is something deeper going on if it isn't required for an explanation of the behaviors being observed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 02:57:51 2018 No.11478845 >>11478839 Except behavior isn't the only thing that's being observed. Subjective qualia is there, and there's no proven physical explanation for it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 02:58:55 2018 No.11478850 >>11478845 Qualia isn't being observed. The only thing that is being observed is people saying certain things are happening.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 03:02:06 2018 No.11478856 >>11478850 That's the only physically provable thing, sure. You experience qualia though, as well as every other person. Unless you're some p zombie bugman that denies his subjective experience. If you are then there's no convincing you otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 03:04:23 2018 No.11478860 >>11478839 >There's no reason to believe There is because I'm physically feeling it, my existence is something I can only experience through these feelings and to deny them would be deny my own existence

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 03:04:59 2018 No.11478863 >>11478856 People can be confident that something is happening even though it's not. Illusions are a thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 03:09:11 2018 No.11478873 >>11478863 Except thoughts and feelings are some of the most real things you can experience, as they can change your behavior. The one thing I'm sure isn't an illusion are my thoughts, the Me in my mind.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 03:13:11 2018 No.11478887 >>11478873 Thoughts are demonstrably physical. They aren't what is being discussed here.

Anonymous Wed Jul 18 03:15:43 2018 No.11478892

>>11478887
Thoughts aren't even discernable through brain scans except incredibly simple ones, and feelings are partly chemicals in the brain. The voice I hear inside my head while I type this is something I'm observing, yet it cannot be explained by physical means.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 03:18:23 2018 No.11478900 >>11478892 It's obvious that it's just too complicated and buried under other signals. If they weren't physical, they couldn't be the precursors to physical actions taken by the body.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 03:24:38 2018 No.11478912 >>11478900 You're coming from a materialist perspective and you have no reason to believe it's solely correct.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 03:49:07 2018 No.11478960 >>11478912 It's impossible for evidence to arise to the contrary, because all evidence is by definition physical.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 04:39:21 2018 No.11479097 >>11475492 What a load of mumbo jumbo salad! Do you even know what your post even means? I sure don't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 07:53:55 2018 No.11479524 >>11459728 Consciousness is the least relevant over hyped subject in philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 07:56:08 2018 No.11479533 >>11479524 I think you mean the determinis/free will debate

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 18 07:58:27 2018 No.11479538 >>11478960 >all evidence is by definition physical You can stop posting now.

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