/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12387702]

Considering the severity of the hard problem of consciousness, is the most rational action to reject physicalism in regards to the mind?

[Anonymous No.12387709]

>>12387702
No. Even if consciousness exists outside of the physical mind it's ability to interact with the world is entirely dependant on the physical structure and health of the brain.

[Anonymous No.12387716]

>>12387709
But if consciousness exists outside the physical mind, then physicalism is necessarily wrong, because it would mean everything isn't physical.

[Anonymous No.12387729]

>>12387716
It would imply a different physical substrate, not that it's not physical at all. After all it's a something interacting with something physical, it has physical characteristics.

[Anonymous No.12387747]

>>12387729
I mean it depends how you want to look at it. If some given phenomena has the necessary properties to interact with what we consider the physical world, but then also possesses properties distinct from the physical world, then I don't think it makes sense to call the phenomena as a whole physical.

[Anonymous No.12387782]

>>12387747
It's far more likely that it is physical and its complexity simply escapes us. NOTHING beyond physical reality has ever been proven to exist despite anecdotal accounts stretching back literally as far as written language

[Anonymous No.12387965]

Does consciousness even exist?

[Anonymous No.12388579]

>>12387782
>NOTHING beyond physical reality has ever been proven to exist
what "proving" that something "beyond physical" exists even entail?

[Anonymous No.12388655]

>>12387965
How many times I have to teach you the lesson old man.

[Anonymous No.12388690]

>>12387709
>assuming the world and brain are physical
Reject physicalism entirely. Embrace idealism.

[Anonymous No.12388752]

>>12387702
Not this faggot again.

[Anonymous No.12388822]

all forms of monism are equivalent

[Anonymous No.12389304]

>>12388579
Its impossible so retards will be saying this until the day we all die as a species

[Anonymous No.12390695]

>>12388655
based

[Anonymous No.12392670]

>>12387702
Yes. There's no room for the subjective and qualitative reality of consciousness in a physicalist worldview which hold's existence to be entirely objective and quantitative. The only way to avoid the hard problem of consciousness of physicalism and the mind-body problem of dualism is to embrace idealism.
>>12388690
this

[Anonymous No.12392693]

>>12387702
At some point the physical and non physical are one
I think our western focus on individuality (which has it's own merits in understanding life) is part of what has us categorizing and putting things into boxes.

But imo, yes, to understand this thing we call consciousness in a new way, we may have to step away from physicalism. Although they are integrated, it can help to study things while perceiving them individually, such as how many physicalists will study it as a purely mechanical set of things such as neurology or chemical reactions.

[Anonymous No.12392698]

>>12387709
>it's ability to interact with the world is entirely dependant on the physical structure and health of the brain.
I really would reserve making comments like this.
We don't know how much of the world is "sentient" and communicating, even without the brain.
There's been interesting studies and experiments on plants.

[Anonymous No.12392700]

>>12387782
Sure but perhaps there is a "physical medium" for these things that we are entirely unaware of in terms of observational documentation.

[Anonymous No.12392711]

The "hard problem of consciousness" isn't real, it just grabs a single phenomenom and arbitrarily declares that its existence is problematic. Might as well talk about the hard problem of oxydation or the hard problem of computing.

[Anonymous No.12392714]

>>12392670
I wouldn't call it either subjective or objective by default, but that it is creating it's own objectivity on the fly.

There is "room for these things" within "science", but science is pretty damn slow with proving what we seem to have some awareness of.
If you want to trailblaze this stuff, you have to be willing to go off the script and follow your intuition on the matter.
If it's real, it's all part of you somewhere somehow

[Anonymous No.12392729]

>>12392714
No there really isn't any room:
>It appears that even a complete specification of a creature in physical terms leaves unanswered the question of whether or not the creature is conscious. And it seems that we can easily conceive of creatures just like us physically and functionally that nonetheless lack consciousness. This indicates that a physical explanation of consciousness is fundamentally incomplete: it leaves out what it is like to be the subject, for the subject.
Source: https://iep.utm.edu/hard-con/

If consciousness really were just another physical phenomena like all the rest, then identifying such phenomena must identify what it is like to be the subject for the subject since they're the exact same thing. But this isn't true. So physicalism must be false.

[Anonymous No.12392753]

>>12392729
"Just another physical phenomena" this is the issue. You've separated these things. They are all one in the same at some point

[Anonymous No.12392762]

>>12387782
Literally all of mathematics
The fields of QFT are not physical either they are platonic
Whatever was before the big bang
etc.

[Anonymous No.12392771]

>>12392753
>You've separated these things
On the contrary, I'm pointing out the implications of holding consciousness to be identical to physical phenomena.

[Anonymous No.12393059]

>>12387702
Consciousness can be measured and affects the physical world. It's part of physics just one we have very little understanding of.

[Anonymous No.12393124]

>>12393059
How do you measure someone's conscious experience?

[Anonymous No.12393167]

>>12387702

[Anonymous No.12393171]

>>12392670
That's an interesting image and argument, but I disagree with premise 2. I personally like the argument that since our mind is a physical system, then all physical systems are a mind of some degree of complexity. The difference between your computer and your brain is that your brain is drastically much more complex than your computer, being that the human brain has been in progress for how many millions of years, while the computer has only existed for less than 100 years.

[Anonymous No.12393173]

>>12387709
>Considering a human wearing an exoskeleton, is the most rational action to see that the human can still exist without the exoskeleton?
>No. If the exoskeleton locks up, the human will be trapped and unable to move, therefore the human must be dependent on the exoskeleton.
You are literally a consciousness trapped in a brain just like a human trapped in an exoskeleton

[Anonymous No.12393251]

>>12388655
If consciousness exists, then it does not depend on the body. If a person loses consciousness (for example, from clamping the carotid artery for a few seconds(dangerous! don't do it!)), then after recovery he does not remember anything. Just absolute nothing during those seconds. How can you explain this? Or which author is considering this issue?

[Anonymous No.12393280]

>>12392711
>Might as well talk about the hard problem of oxydation or the hard problem of computing.
Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_computer_science

[Anonymous No.12393300]

>>12393251
nah consciousness exist during those seconds. I'll clamp my shit and report back in a second.

[Anonymous No.12393308]

>>12387702
Energists blow materialists our of the water anyways.

[Anonymous No.12393395]

>>12393171
Thank you. If you're going to disgree with premise 2 then you must confront the argument in pic related: >>12392729