Consciousness is a human construct

[Anonymous No.16758351]

There's not a single component called "consciousness". Consciousness is the sum of all functioning parts. There's no soul, no "supernatural" link to other dimensions, what would be the point of that? Why would nature, which makes everything with ruthless efficiency, provide a "soul" so as to not make us anxious. Ridiculous.

We are a flaw in the system, a blip, an island of over complexity in the endless inmensity of space and time.

We are overly complex physicochemical machines.

[Anonymous No.16758367]

>>16758351
>We are a flaw in the system, a blip, an island of over complexity in the endless inmensity of space and time.
idk how this refutes the concept of a soul, if anything it'd strengthen it when you argue we are outliers of nature rather than existing perfectly attuned to our nature.

[Anonymous No.16758380]

>>16758367
Good point. But we are part of nature, peaks of overcomplexity are probably more common than we think. We simply have no way to know because the reach of our perception is limited.

[Anonymous No.16758396]

>>16758367
My point was, as far as we know, the soul doesn't have to exist. It's just fantasy.

[Anonymous No.16758413]

>>16758380
yet why do "peaks of overcomplexity" happen at all?
>>16758396
does it have to exist? not necessarily. would a soul existing answer many questions we do have about the universe as of now? absolutely.

[Anonymous No.16758419]

>>16758351
Most of what you've said is just a nice sounding fantasy for your preconceived aesthetic opinions, anon.

The soul exists, anyone with wisdom sees this, but of course lesser men (at least in what they know) think the soul must be some reductive singularity or composite emptiness. It is much more complex than that, as someone like Heidegger or Jung show.

[Anonymous No.16758422]

>>16758413
>why do "peaks of overcomplexity" happen at all?
why not? We do not yet understand how nature works completely

>would a soul existing answer many questions we do have about the universe as of now? absolutely.
fantasy does tend to answer everything if you want it to

[Anonymous No.16758425]

>>16758351
>Consciousness is a human construct
This made me laugh

[Anonymous No.16758432]

>>16758419
>soul exists
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.16758437]

>>16758351
Kek nice bugman thoughts

[Anonymous No.16758440]

>>16758425
>>16758437
cope
fear of death

[Anonymous No.16758443]

>>16758419
>It is much more complex than that
yeah, it's a sum of our parts, nothing else.

[OP No.16758457]

Why do I even bother making a thread. This board is riddled with subhumans. Humanity only knows as much or less as science does.

[Anonymous No.16758474]

>>16758432
>>16758443
Why do you think what the soul denotes must be limited to the modern misunderstanding of a literal belief in an eternally combined immaterial substance?

You're just echoing modern mistakes, you don't even know what the word soul means. The questions of consciousness, self-consciousness, being and beings and so on, are all entirely interrelated and have been being questioned since the Greeks and before.

But you think you both know what the soul is while poorly defining it and then can assume some vague purposefully nihilistic worldview in pretence only (for aesthetic reasons; which is fine for a creative or artistic inspiration, but taking aesthetic alone as philosophy is mistake), and while not even taking up any of these questions either.

What is deeper and more meaningful in life, where is freedom, if it does not come from the soul? Just one, poorly articulated example of a question which you should become all the more familiar with.

[Anonymous No.16758490]

>>16758457
>Humanity only knows as much or less as science does.
Anon, you're not the first teenager to be overconfident prior to reading the classics of literature and philosophy, so I advise you to start with the Greeks as they say; and be more modest before the great wonder of truth, and tradition, wherein are including the greats.

Just refer to the unusually helpful wikpedia page of Heideggerian terminology for this:

>With the present-at-hand one has (in contrast to "ready-to-hand") an attitude like that of a scientist or theorist, of merely looking at or observing something. In seeing an entity as present-at-hand, the beholder is concerned only with the bare facts of a thing or a concept, as they are present and in order to theorize about it. This way of seeing is disinterested in the concern it may hold for Dasein, its history or usefulness. This attitude is often described as existing in neutral space without any particular mood or subjectivity. However, for Heidegger, it is not completely disinterested or neutral. It has a mood, and is part of the metaphysics of presence that tends to level all things down. Through his writings, Heidegger sets out to accomplish the Destruktion (see above) of this metaphysics of presence.

>Present-at-hand is not the way things in the world are usually encountered, and it is only revealed as a deficient or secondary mode, e.g., when a hammer breaks it loses its usefulness and appears as merely there, present-at-hand. When a thing is revealed as present-at-hand, it stands apart from any useful set of equipment but soon loses this mode of being present-at-hand and becomes something, for example, that must be repaired or replaced.

Truth is far more ungrounded than modern scientism (an ideology, not science to be sure) would have you think, least of all can science approach any real truth. You think science has any place in the questions of existence? Lol, no, science by its nature cannot think, but it can study.

[Anonymous No.16758495]

There's not a single component called "my fat fucking cock". "My fat fucking cock" is the sum of all functioning parts. There's no soul, no "supernatural" link to other dimensions, what would be the point of that? Why would nature, which makes everything with ruthless efficiency, provide a "cock" as to not make us anxious. Ridiculous.

We are a flaw in the system, a blip, an island of over complexity in the endless inmensity of space and time.

We are overly complex physicochemical machines.

[Anonymous No.16758500]

Different areas of the brain detect different things.
Yet you see what something is as a whole instantly.
>Entanglement

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16758501]

>>16758351
Why do you hate the soul so much, anon?

[OP No.16758506]

>>16758474
>The questions of consciousness, self-consciousness, being and beings and so on, are all entirely interrelated and have been being questioned since the Greeks and before.
It's not the answer that's eluding us, is the way we're asking the question. The soul isn't immaterial, we simply wanna believe it is because that would make us special, and maybe immortal. We wanna have hope.

>for aesthetic reasons
Not sure how is that aesthetic. If anything it's awful. I just find hilarious that you can't even define a word you yourselves have made up (soul).

> freedom
Does not exist. We are all connected through interdependence and through causality.

>meaningful
Meaning is given by one's purpose, not through some inherent cause.

You do like your humanities, but you seem to be lacking in logic. Not surprising in this board.

[Anonymous No.16758511]

>>16758501
Just an edgy teen more likely than not who will eventually become redpilled on traditionalism in some form or another by /lit/.

It's quite dangerous that youthful indulgence does not stay its course into adulthood, and one becomes a smug atheist.

[OP No.16758514]

>>16758501
I do not hate it more than I hate Shrek. It's a nonsense word is all I'm saying.

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16758517]

>>16758514
Take the Jungpill, then. There's more to the soul than you may think.

[Anonymous No.16758518]

>>16758517
This, Jung is the gateway for decadent moderns to find truth.

[OP No.16758524]

>>16758490
>muh you're a teenager, therefore immature
I am not a teenager but I don't have to prove it to you. Further, it's pathetic that you would resort to ad hominem attacks due to a lacking in your rationality.
>muh read a book meme
How about tring to convince me with actual logic instead of relying on memes?

>can science approach any real truth?
It's the only method that can. Proven by our ability to predict and bend nature. What's your proof about your "non-scientific means"?

[OP No.16758527]

>>16758517
>>16758518
More like indoctrination

[OP No.16758531]

>>16758511
Traditionalism is retarded. I do find worth in some traditions, but not all of it is good. I will not submit to your populist crap.

Funny that the trip into adulthood often means brainfogging yourself into fantasy and retardation.

[Anonymous No.16758535]

>>16758351
>There's not a single component called "consciousness".
Consciousness is a condition of the soul in a living body, not some kind of specific organ.
>Consciousness is the sum of all functioning parts.
Consciousness is enabled by all functioning parts.
>There's no soul
Then nobody actually made this statement. The soul is the subject, not any kind of object.
>no "supernatural" link to other dimensions
The soul is nothing supernatural. It is merely the entity to which sentience and sapience pertain.
>Why would nature, which makes everything with ruthless efficiency, provide a "soul"
A body needs a soul like a vehicle needs a pilot. Autopilots don't make it in nature.
>We are a flaw in the system, a blip, an island of over complexity in the endless inmensity of space and time.
Flaw? We are the success.
>We are overly complex physicochemical machines.
That is what we have, not what we are. What we are is not what characterizes us.

[OP No.16758541]

>>16758535
>A body needs a soul like a vehicle needs a pilot.
You are the vehicle. This is a massive cope because you fear death and non-existence. If your soul is immortal and your body is just a vehicle, then you're saved for eternity. Oh sweet summer child.

[Anonymous No.16758546]

>>16758506
>It's not the answer that's eluding us, is the way we're asking the question.
This could mean absolutely anything in this context. Elaborate.

>The soul isn't immaterial, we simply wanna believe it is because that would make us special, and maybe immortal. We wanna have hope.
Why do you say it isn't immaterial? That's entirely unfounded, not to mention ignorant. Your psychological analysis is in any event pathetic and the vomiting of too repeatedly digested so-called "philosophical" cliches. "But bruh, it's like we as humans our nature to have hope when there is none bruhhhh this is so deep bruhh nihilism and shieeet", pls enough with this modern vapidity, and start with the philosophy.

>Not sure how is that aesthetic.
It's aesthetic because it's an entirely rationally disconnected fictional worldview which appeals to your emotions and that is why you choose to profess it. And considering your sem-poetic language used in the op, and picture, it's a natural assumption you derive an aesthetico-artistic appreciation from it.

>Does not exist. We are all connected through interdependence and through causality.
Again, small minded and entirely unproven. The idea of scientific predeterminism is also ultimately vapid and without any real meaning, proof or overall truth. What was it Nietzsche said again? "Free will appears unfettered, deliberate; it is boundlessly free, wandering, the spirit. But fate is a necessity; unless we believe that world history is a dream-error, the unspeakable sorrows of mankind fantasies, and that we ourselves are but the toys of our fantasies. Fate is the boundless force of opposition against free will. Free will without fate is just as unthinkable as spirit without reality, good without evil. Only antithesis creates the quality."

Total scientific Predeterminism of the spirit of man is entirely unthinkable to every part of him; wherein you should learn to judge your intuition more than you think, for currently you undervalue it.

>Meaning is given by one's purpose, not through some inherent cause.
Again, this is entirely empty without an extrapolation of what you mean in this context. And speaking of context, I have no idea how this fits into it because I have no idea what you're trying to say with this.

>logic
Logic, at least in its scientific definitions, is completely unable to be absolutely certain like a mathematical idea, and is the work of bugmen when taken as extremely into philosophy and religion and the likes as the case for modern scientism. You speak of logic, but what is logical about childishly babbling about a supposed "over-complexity" or "man being a un-meaningful spec" and so on? It is all your foolishness and a narcissistic LARP.

[Anonymous No.16758552]

>>16758351
okay, but you don't read

[Anonymous No.16758562]

>>16758524
>ad hominen
Anon, get over your faux-logic. Truth is not some abstract formula, it's an authentic relation and as no one can deny teenagers in philosophy make arrogant, immodest fools who torment as many as they can with their ideas as Plato said, especially their parents, yet it's good for the sake of learning how philosophy works, it's always good for them to realise that they don't know nearly as much as they suppose, and philosophy requires modesty before a question. Even such self-asserting and quick answering philosophers as Nietzsche are modest before the question by the fact that they understand it and know why they choose to answer it.

Your resentment to this supposed "ad hominin" (which it is not by the way, simply because of the related facticity in the statement), and inability to understand its use, makes all the more certain you are indeed a teenager.

>What's your proof about your "non-scientific means"?
You're using a scientific proof to prove science? Bravo. When you recognise the frailty of science as any sort of dominant guide in life, you shall arrive at philosophy and religion, and the art which is a product of it.

As for "predicting and bending nature", war and peace are two infinitely higher conceptions and recognitions of nature than scientific materialism, than the ability to look through a star or turn sand into glass-- But of course you again run into the limit of science, and your misperception of other things being science.

>>16758527
>(((deep)))
Maybe read a book.

[OP No.16758563]

>>16758546
Just gonna tell you what I actually meant when I said that freedom doesn't exist. It doesn't exist from an external frame or point of view, because what we call "free will" is actually a consequence of our genetical makeup and experiences (inffluenced by other people's genetical makeup), when extends to the begining of life on earth, and beyond, to the big bang. (Perhaps further if we misunderstand the big bang).
So, in short, you're correct in saying that free will is necesary, for it is a piece of causality, but free will is subjected to the causes and circumstances of its formation.

I'm not gonna try to convince you any more. You're riddled with nice sounding words but no actual evidence. As is everyone in this shitty board.

[Anonymous No.16758565]

>>16758531
>traditionalism is populism
Do you even know what elitism is? Traditionalism, if you so wish to look at it in units of individuals, is synonymous more than anything for the history of great men. I can guarantee you, Kant and Schiller you do not exceed in intelligence, wisdom or pure knowledge.

[Anonymous No.16758567]

the sum of all functioning parts cant be "human construct"
You mean consciousness is a physical phenomena.

Also this is some hard rick and morty level shit

[Anonymous No.16758571]

>>16758541
Not the anon you're replying to but
>implying the definition of soul needs to include "immortal"
You're being clearly disingenuous.

[Anonymous No.16758574]

>>16758474
cringe

[Anonymous No.16758579]

>>16758563
Of course, and I'm glad to see that you're not advocating absolute psychological predeterminism, but you're argument isn't against free will anymore-- It's just an inquiry and questioning about mans movement in this world. Plato already said par excellence man has free will when he defined the soul having movement from within, rather than from without such as by purely casual forces.

>I'm not gonna try to convince you any more. You're riddled with nice sounding words but no actual evidence. As is everyone in this shitty board.
You're over arrogant.

[Anonymous No.16758588]

>>16758351
>We are a flaw in the system, a blip, an island of over complexity in the endless inmensity of space and time.
This is all human knowledge, you know? Don't you see that you need consciousness to even start reasoning about something like eternal time or endless space without empirical data? Your idea of nature consists of what humans think about it, not how it really is. Complexity is a term that describes the relationship between the mind and objects it thinks about, there is no complexity in itself if there is nothing that is puzzled from observing it.

[Anonymous No.16758622]

>>16758490
Heidegger is a meme and your finger began moving to type those words before you were aware you wanted to write them.

Conciousness is either an accident, or it was formed as a mechanism for long term decision making, but day to day actions are decided outside your concious awareness. You only can have self reflection on a tiny fraction what your brain is doing because that is all you biologically have access too.

There is a pretty good thriller about this written by a philosophy PhD. Puts a lot of info into the format of an easy to read thriller.

[Anonymous No.16758637]

>>16758351
holy fucking shit the GITS movie was pretentious as fuck

[Anonymous No.16758648]

>>16758351
Anon, the problem with these discussions tends to be terminology. Both consciousness and soul are words that are burdened with many meanings throughout human history.

For example, I don't believe in a personal soul, but I still use it in talking, because what I believe in doesn't fully have a word, so I need to use soul. but when using this people conjure up their own ideas of the world, which is fine by me.

One advice for you is to think of what science or philosophy actually are, and realize they are just two of many tools humans use to understand this strange world we find ourselves in. Not one of these tools will give you the entire truth. They will each give you a part of it, and if you aren't able to see the big picture, you might think they are conflicting.

Have a wonderful day anon.

[Anonymous No.16758650]

>>16758622
>Heidegger is a meme and your finger began moving to type those words before you were aware you wanted to write them.
Any reason as to why you call him a meme?

>applying a purpose to our faculties through a deterministic conception of evolution
Literally you don't even believe in purposes for things in your worldview but you think evolution has purposes because science tells you it does.

>You only can have self reflection on a tiny fraction what your brain is doing because that is all you biologically have access too.
This is a meaningless statement that is attempting to be materialistically pessimistic but is really a corrupted subjectivity posing as science.

>There is a pretty good thriller about this written by a philosophy PhD. Puts a lot of info into the format of an easy to read thriller.
Noted, I'll check them out.

[Anonymous No.16758725]

>>16758474
Theres literally no evidence for the soul and many people live meaningful lives without a notion of the soul. Youre just a pseudo-intellectual twat.

[Anonymous No.16758738]

>>16758474
holy cringe

[Anonymous No.16758750]

Atheism and materialism are the only rational position.

[Anonymous No.16758811]

>>16758750
rationalism is a meme by humanists to feel self righteous

[Anonymous No.16758821]

>>16758725
that's because the soul doesn't need a notion of the soul to exist

[Anonymous No.16758841]

>>16758650
We speak of evolution "wanting things," because that's how it's easiest to explain in our language. It's not supposed to imply any sort of teleology, just a rhetorical shortcut.

The very fact that it is easiest to explain things in terms of individuals, "your brain," "evolution," etc., with wills, is itself inductive of how evolution shaped the human faculty for language.

"Scientism" is a bullshit term. There are people who misunderstand and misrepresent science. Science is often wrong too. But unlike metaphysics, it is self correcting. It has blown philosophy out of the water in terms of producing descriptions of "truth," whether you use the correspondence definition or the pragmatist.

In any case, appeals to scientism are deflections. Is it not true that I can destroy your sense of God during prayer with a magnetic field? Is it not true that a simple drug, nitrous oxide, can reliably produce sensations of revelation and "logical understanding," about total nonsense (William James even became a Hegelian and an idealisr while under the gas, his notes were meaningless later). If I lance most of your occipital lobe you will lose all sight. You won't even dream of vision like someone whose eyes are destroyed. However, you may be able to navigate a room and catch a ball fine, because most visual processing, processing that drives seemingly intentional action, happens outside conciousness. You fill in the gaps after the fact.

Heidegger is a meme because his Turn, and critique of the focus on the now, appears to have nothing to do with how conciousness works. It's becoming on a level with Decartes' pineal gland. We are always in the middle. The fact is you could decide to snap your fingers now to show free will, and that you exist in time, but your fingers would already be moving before you had any concious experience of decision.

Husserl was right of course, phenomology is the basis of all knowledge. All science is know through qualia, but the fact is that qualia is fully dependant on the workings of a but of jello-like material. You have to start drifting into solipsism to continue to defend conciousness as an active player with will. Hume understood this centuries ago.

That or you can race about the qualia of experiencing forms and mathematics and make some claims about a realm outside the material prison of Yaldaboath, but that's an unfalsifiable claim.

[Anonymous No.16759209]

>>16758517
Yes. It should be mandatory to read Jung at least once in your life.

[Anonymous No.16759258]

>>16758351
>your body is made of organs so there really is no such thing as a body
Nice sophistry d00d.