>Consciousness is just neurons firing

[Anonymous No.11668432]

When did you realize materialists are literal NPCs with no inner subjective experience, and there's no use in arguing with them about consciousness because they have no clue what consciousness is?

[Anonymous No.11668452]

>mfw an NPC tells me consciousness isn't pure energy

[Anonymous No.11668464]

This is proof #788 that /pol/ is utterly retarded. There are only two possible scenarios here:

>Materialists are right and everyone is an “NPC”
>Materialists are wrong and no one is

The idea that only materialists are NPCs because of what they believe is something so illogical so stupid and so emotionally driven that it could only come from the subhuman kind of a typical /pol/ virgin. Now fuck off the science board you retard.

[Anonymous No.11668471]

>>11668432
>because they have no clue what consciousness is?
Kinda like you don't?

[Anonymous No.11668474]

>>11668432
>biological computer coping with the fact he is just a biological computer
isnt it sad to see computers like you have problems like this. in such denial they cant see the truth in front of them.

[Anonymous No.11668483]

>>11668464
you got it all wrong
materialists believe in the neuron theory because they have no real conscious experience where an imaterial human mind doesnt believe in it because they know from conscious experience what consciousness really is

[Anonymous No.11668489]

>>11668432
Age 19, I was making the point there is no way to set up an experiment to prove or disprove a mind body split, so any "scientific explanation of consciousness" is inherently bogus. It cannot account for qualia, because it is impossible to objectively quantify it.

They just didn't get it.

[Anonymous No.11668512]

>>11668432
So you've solved the hard problem of consciousness then? Please share with us anon

[Anonymous No.11668529]

>>11668512
I didn't solve the hard problem, the idealists solved it centuries ago. The material world exists in the mind, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.11668544]

>>11668464
How much of a deranged lunatic do you have to be to bring up /pol/ out of nowhere.

[Anonymous No.11668550]

>>11668529
So you think nothing or no one exists outside of you?

[Anonymous No.11668579]

>>11668550
When I say "the mind" I'm not referring to my mind or your mind.

[Anonymous No.11668583]

>>11668432
lmao who cares, doing anything but sex is just a cope for not being able to do it

[Anonymous No.11668584]

>>11668579
so once all humans die the universe stops existing because no mind is left to observe it?

[Anonymous No.11668590]

>>11668584
No. See pic related >>11668579

[Anonymous No.11668598]

>>11668590
is it Gods mind? Do we all exist as a fabric of the illusion?

[Anonymous No.11668618]

>>11668583
Good impression of a coomer

[Anonymous No.11668683]

>>11668544
>out of nowhere
every bad or stupid post on this site is made by them

[Anonymous No.11668856]

>>11668579
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11669265]

>>11668683
>you

[Anonymous No.11670181]

>>11668544
>Out of nowhere
Fucking kill yourself /pol/ tard. You don't belong here

[Anonymous No.11670215]

Obviously they just think that their subjective inner experience is somehow the result of neurons firing, why would they even have that opinion if they didn't have an internal experience to speculate on, you dolt?

[Anonymous No.11670326]

>>11670181
Stay mad cunt

[Anonymous No.11670328]

>>11668432
my internal monologue told me

[Anonymous No.11670348]

I consider myself a materialist and I believe in consciousness and free will.

[Anonymous No.11670370]

>>11668432
imagine having such a poor grasp of the world that you cannot imagine any sort of comparability between materialism and subjectivity

fucking pathetic

[Anonymous No.11670386]

I've actually been considering dualism lately, for the first time ever. I read some essay by Jaron Lanier that an anon posted here and it got me thinking. Also it's funny to read him calling Dennett a zombie (though I prefer the term NPC for meme purposes).
Consciousness is just too fucking weird of a phenomenon. It might just have to be immaterial.

[Anonymous No.11670439]

>>11668432
you mistake lies in one dimensional black and white thinking, could you try to imagine the scenario that countering viewpoints on this argument could be both right? could you imagine that translated into our reality? could you imagine how would it look for the perceiving ability of only one side?

[Anonymous No.11670442]

>>11668452
>mfw NPC think you can put some chemicals in a beaker and replicate consciousness

[Anonymous No.11670573]

>>Consciousness is just neurons firing
Big mistake to say "just". You have no idea how complicated systems can get even if they are made out of simpler systems. It can create something totally new, unlike anything that can be found in small clusters of simple systems.

[Anonymous No.11670577]

>>11668452
what do you think energy is?

[Anonymous No.11670592]

>>11668579
Good old human nature, filling the gaps of knowledge, adorable.

[Anonymous No.11671290]

>>11670386
Evolution is proof that consciousness is material though.

[Anonymous No.11671305]

Is it that hard to accept that you are just a primate with an overclocked brain? You are not a special snowflake with a magic soul.

[Anonymous No.11671414]

>>11671290
How so?

[Anonymous No.11671465]

>>11668432
Consciousness does not exist. You do not exist.

[Anonymous No.11671606]

>>11671305
It legitimately is, but there are things that you can't explain about our consciousness so there's still room for doubt

[Anonymous No.11671643]

Consider consciousness as two dimensional. no neurons required.

[Anonymous No.11671668]

>>11668432

[Anonymous No.11671672]

>>11668432
I'm sorry, did you want a better story, some satisfying mystical feature?

Wait til I tell you how all the different matter around you is mostly just balls spinning around similar balls, and they're all smacking you in the face.

[Anonymous No.11671673]

>>11668432
Why can't nuerons firing lead to subjective experiences and consciousness in a dualistic sense? This is what I don't get

[Anonymous No.11671677]

>>11668464
There is literally and objectively nothing about the OP post that has anything to do with /pol/ and is in any way indication that the OP poster is a /pol/tard you shit for brains pseudo intellectual stupid fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.11671682]

>>11668432
The Roger Penrose and Hameroff "orch or" consciousness explanation is the correct one.

[Anonymous No.11671692]

>>11671673
people like Op think others who claim its neurological think its literal. They dont get that people just mean consciousness is a product of neurons firing, not literally neurons firing.
It's a fact that the consciousness we experience in this realm is bound to the neurons firing to experience at all, given that people who were dead or braindead experienced literally nothing while being inactive. Either that or they forgot

[Anonymous No.11671718]

Consciousness doesn't exist and free will is an illusion.

Our ideas are all the result of internal and external interactions, as such actions and tough can be predicted, as result freewill doesn't exist because we have no power over the origin of our thoughts.

[Anonymous No.11671730]

>>11671692
No anon, there ARE shit for brains idiots that actually believe that the neurological think is literal. Look at this dumbfuck here >>11671718 He is actually claiming consciousness doesn't exist when it is quite literally the only thing that anyone can actually prove to themselves does exist.

[Anonymous No.11671754]

>>11671730
I produced a logical argument, you're just shitting ad hominem attacks.

Just show you're an insecure brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11671765]

>>11668489
when they legalize psychedelics they will, which is also why they're illegal

[Anonymous No.11671777]

>>11671754
No you didn't. I don't even know what you wrote because you messed up the spelling and grammar.
The only think you can actually empirically prove to yourself is that you have awareness. Consciousness is literally the ONLY thing that is actually provable. Free will is not in this conversation it makes no difference whether or not free will exists. Consciousness' existence is irrefutable to yourself.
If you don't get this you're a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11671783]

>>11671718
Why would influence negate the existence of free will?

>>11671682
If it would be a local phenomenon within each neuron it would be far too vast at our size and would quickly become too chaotic to organize any organism our size.

[Anonymous No.11671842]

>>11671783
>Why would influence negate the existence of free will?
It just mean that we have as much free will as the computer you're writing on.
How can we have free will if we can't control our ideas?

>>11671777
>Consciousness is literally the ONLY thing that is actually provable.
Go ahead, define it.
Brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11671899]

>>11671842
My computer has a set of reactions to specific inputs. I can create new reactions based on inputs I've never processed before.

But lets stick with that, we're computers. At our point the number of the possible influences and reactions has gotten so large that it's no different from total chaos. If an entity possesses unique variations on how it responds to every situation, I'd say that's them expressing their free will, or we've misplaced our concept of it. There is nothing that isn't influenced.

[Anonymous No.11671910]

>>11668464
Clamped, vaccinated, circumcised.

[Anonymous No.11671912]

>>11668432
/X/->

[Anonymous No.11672020]

>>11671899
>If an entity possesses unique variations on how it responds to every situation

Chat bots can learn and have unique response too (see Microsoft Tay, who was based and red pilled)
Would you say that Tay, had free will?

[Anonymous No.11672173]

>>11671842
>Go ahead, define it.
>Brainlet.
Something doesn't need a definition to have ontological existence you absolute fucking moron.
The only thing you've ever actually experienced, is your own experience and consciousness. This is undeniable.
You are actually very stupid, but you think you're smart. Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.11672205]

>>11672020
Yes. She was free to experience whatever came her way and respond as her material natural would lead her to.

[Anonymous No.11672411]

>>11671730
Consciousness doesn’t exist.
If you describe consciousness as us having free will then no, were not conscious because everything is materialistic and everything is deterministic so every single thought we have had or will have has been pre determined for billions of years.
That’s not free will.

[Anonymous No.11672589]

>>11672020
In the most limited sense only. Learning algorithms are doing the same thing we're doing just with very defined boundaries.

[Anonymous No.11672591]

>>11668464
This is proof #5991 that /sci/ is filled with soi cucks who let /pol/ live in their rent free 24/7

[Anonymous No.11673117]

>>11672173
Without definition though it has no properties with any practical use in philosophy or science other than the assertion "I think, therefore I am". Its unnecessary for explaining our cognition or behaviour or neurobiology in any case.

[Anonymous No.11673164]

>>11668432
>im 14, and this is deep