Who had the best refutation for the mind-body problem? Is consciousness and the self an illusion and we're all just puppets tricked into thinking we're somebody when we're all nobody?
Ayn Rand. You use your senses to gain data and your mind to interpret it. It's a false dichotomy made to confuse people to prepare them for mysticism.
>>17411427Stfu tranny
>>17411463go away teenager
>>17411463fpbp
>>17411592>>17411630The most intellectual board, everybody. If you can't engage with the subject without typing it word for word in the search bar and adding the -reddit suffix, stick a thumb up your ass
>>17411463>>17411633>>17411641masturbatory self-glazer samefag
>>17411630Go away mystic
what's even the mind body problem retard it sounds like you're not even aware neuroscience is a thingholy shit go read a book
>>17411672Just admit you're an uncultured illiterate who only came to /his/ to take potshots at christtards instead of engaging with the humanities
>>17411427Basic neuroscience and computer science answers it. Your mind is a software running on the hardware of your brain. You're basically a very advanced thermostat that reacts to sensory information. The difference is that thermostats are finite state machines or maybe push down automata, while humans are full linear bounded automata (i.e. Turing machines).It is completely possible in principle to construct minds out of any material so long as there's enough material to process the information and have enough memory to store information. Artificial intelligence is already more intelligent than anyone on this board and will continue to become more intelligent. And yes, AI is just as conscious as you are.Yes your mind is an "illusion" in this sense.
>>17411646Too bad, son.
>>17411427the best refutation is science. your mind is the causal product of the initial conditions of our universe and through its capacity acknowledge and break the symmetries of nature has the highest form of free will among limited beings. this means that the mind and the body are 1 but what you are is the symmetries you have broken and the way you choose to break them from here.
>>17411694stop denying objective reality just because you wanna feel more le esoteric retard
>>17411427This board is full of hylics
>>17411941plz kys
>>17411952I don't even care about gnosticism
>>17411427Qualia aren't real. It's the greatest midwit filter of our times.
What's the problem?
>>17411427>>mind-body problemHuh? The mind is literally your brain. Everything that makes you, you, is controlled by your brain. Your brain changes or is damaged, then you change or are damaged. There is no "mind" without the brain.
>>17411427>You are just a bunch of electrical impulses that tricks itself into thinking it's a something, and consciousness and the self is merely an illusion, and that's okay because you are a MAGIC SKELETONI hope you guys know what you sound like
>>17411427Which one are you?
I think the relationship between the mind and body are difficult to understand because it's hard to contextualize just how much we process about the world involuntarily. We have so many "sensors", not just our eyes, nose, tongue and ears, but also touch receptors, both on our skin as well as underneath our skin, and it's physically impossible for us to just turn these off and so we're forced to sample literally trillions of sensory inputs every 100-200 miliseconds. We are not always aware of even 1% of these sensory inputs until they're relevant to us, but they're always there. The only thing we're conscious of are the world that needs constant response from us. Once you understand this, consciousness starts making more sense.
>>17411427>Is consciousness and the self an illusionWhy would it be? What is being refuted? If you want a plain answer, there is no reason to assume this in the first place. Even if we live in a deterministic universe, we still experience qualia. Unless I am speaking to an AI or a philosophical zombie, you have the evidence, and accepting the evidence is science not superstition. After all you need to experience qualia to observe the results of a laboratory experiment.This sounds very much like something pseud philosophers say purely to sound edgy "time is an illusion" "money is an illusion" "gender is a social construct" et cetera.. arguments popularized by youtubers like trans and atheist Abigail Thorn. It is an interesting thought experiment and I am open to it, however like the shadows on a cave wall allegory, it is not actually true.
>>17413177Which one of >>17413132 are you?
>>17411427The self is real
>>17411427Then who is Tricked?Dennet is the King of midwits and he himself admitted he just did it to stop people from falling into „woo „
>>17413703Filtered
>>17413177Checked and based
>>17413703No one is tricked. It's just basic recursion.
>>17411427laozi
>>17411701>Basic neuroscience and computer science answers it. You mean it made an intuition, and based on shoddy evidence (i.e. "lights go blink here!"), asserted that consciousness must be reducible to brain states alone.>Artificial intelligence is already more intelligent than anyone on this board and will continue to become more intelligent. And yes, AI is just as conscious as you are.If this was the case, it shouldn't be so easy to pick them out when you browse 99% of sites. Something as simple as introducing lateral thinking in an argument is enough to cause a LLM to haze.
>>17411427>Who had the best refutation for the mind-body problem?Buddhists. Seeing yourself as "distinct", that "you" will experience a void for all eternity upon death is a silly delusion of materialists that still fall for Cartesian dualism.
>>17414057Your next line will be „emergence“
>>17414505Here's the protip, pseud: claiming emergence isn't real doesnt mean it isn't real. You repeating pseud talking points from idealists who dislike basic things does not mean those basic things don't exist.Neither hydrogen nor oxygen have the properties of a water molecules, yet when they form a water molecule, the molecule does indeed have the electromagnetic properties of a water molecules. Thus these properties EMERGE from the bonding of oxygen and hydrogen. You pretending that emergence isn't real doesn't stop it from being real.Your mind is the information processing of your brain.
>>17413177P much this.Reductive eliminitivism is basically an Edgy shitpost, it Gets a lot of attention by making bold claims.But „Illusion“ here can either only mean something very different from the conventional use of the Word or its blatantly false
>>17414520>Here's the protip, pseud: claiming emergence isn't real doesnt mean it isn't real. No one has any reason to believe "emergence" is true because it obviously doesn't touch on the full breadth of the phenomenon of consciousness at all. Maybe to a p-zombie the concept of not having a physicalist explanation for everything is impossible to wrap their head around though.
>>17414543Lol there it is, the pseudo intellectual throws around the term P zombieI just gave a very easy to understand example of emergence. There's nothing about qualitative experiences that require a dualism. The fact that you WANT there to be no physical explanation does not mean that there isn't one. You're not a magical being that violates the laws of nature. Nature > Gods > Humans
>>17414520>water molecule emerges from Hydrogen and oxygen No it doesn’t.Not in the Sense philosophy of the mind Uses the Term.You can physically explain how the Atoms and their bonds Form the properties of a water molecule, you can get pretty close with post hartree-fock calculations.You can do no such thing for quales
>>17414559>Lol there it is, the pseudo intellectual throws around the term P zombieYes, you are one.>I just gave a very easy to understand example of emergence. And it doesn't apply here, retard. How does brute emergence of mind arise from non-mind? All of you emergentists fall under scrutiny when you have to come face to face with the eliminativists, funnily enough. >The fact that you WANT there to be no physical explanation does not mean that there isn't one. You're not a magical being that violates the laws of nature. Nature > Gods > HumansAnd yet, physicalism is obviously a falsehood.
>>17414560Except you can in fact do so for quales I that every single time you have a qualitative experience it corresponds directly to a physical or chemical reaction. We can literally turn on or off your quales by changing the nerves or physical and chemical reactions that happen in your brain or CNS or other sensory apparati. At best you can derive a pantheism from this. You can never derive dualism.Why do you guys have such a hateful seething to this. You're a natural body.
>>17414567>Yes, you are one.No, shit for brains, I have qualitative experiences. Telling you your religiously derived dualist pseudo intellectualism is nonsense is not "being a P zombie".>How does brute emergence of mind arise from non-mind? In the same way Turing machines derive from non Turing complete arrangements of material. A rock isn't a Turing machine, but you can arrange the atoms in a rock to become a Turing machine>physicalism is obviously a falsehood.No, it isn't. Give an actual argument as to why it's ObViOuSLY FaLSe that isn't just you seething
>>17414559I would argue on his behalf that the physical explanation fundamentally implies your being is far beyond this body no? Your free will and self is a causal product of the laws that gave birth to the observable universe and where those laws came from (even if it’s eternal) imply that, like a speed of causality, consciousness is fundamentalI realize I’ve never explained how a mind works on here before so I should.All you need is the coherence necessary to interact with the symmetries of existence, a way to break them, the ability to understand bounded systems and the ability to contemplate unbounded ones, a system to record symmetries broken, a system to simulate possible outcomes and an orientation (survival, gods will etc.). Our forms as humans contain all of these things (its principle ability being to perceive the unbounded god) due to the lowest unit of quanta in our universe having the tautological property of symmetry which is what makes god see us as children
>>17414570>literally equating the human analog brain to a turing machineThis is how you know you're talking to a high-school dropout.
>>17414644I have a masters retardThe brain is literally a Turing machine. In fact it's not even as powerful as one as Turing machines are infinite. The brain is a Linear bounded automata.
>>17414654Well that’s not strictly true as we don’t know if the human brain can solve the “halting problem” of eternal existence, the species hasn’t ended yet so the experiment is ongoing.
>>17414654>The brain is literally a Turing machine.It's "literally" not, and there's overwhelming proof of such.I already have the evidence on me of course, I'm just gatekeeping to see how you explain your retardation.
>>17414674>It's "literally" notAs I said, an actual Turing machine is more powerfulSynapses are literally discrete retard. They're not analogue. They fire under discrete events. You simply don't know what you're talking about at all, like all pseudo intellectual dualistic morons.
>>17414570>dualismLiterally only you brought up dualism.>we can shut off qualesSo? I’ve Never claimed quales are Not caused by anything.
>>17414679If qualia are forms of physical information processing, then the problem is solved. "But WHY is the redness red or blueness blue given such and such wavelengths" is just "thats how such and such information processing works" just like any other physical event. It would mean that your camera literally experiences the color red in the same way you do. Now you might not like this answer, but thats what the answer is. You're a collection of physical stimuli. You want a different answer than this because you want a soul
Qualia aren't realGreatest midwit filter of our times
>>17413101Oh I don't want to sound like thatGuess I believe in ghosts then
>>17414700because it's a theory laden term that comes with all kinds of baggage like being "private" and such?
>>17414678>As I said, an actual Turing machine is more powerfulThat's not even my main objection, retard. We can observe turing machine-like mechanisms *within* the brain, but the brain itself is not reducible to that.>Synapses are literally discrete retard. They're not analogue. They fire under discrete events. You simply don't know what you're talking about at all, like all pseudo intellectual dualistic morons.Really? This is the hill you're choosing to die on?
>>17414708Because the explanatory gap is utter cope. It's a handwave term that's defined with circular reasoning; accepting the "definition" of the explanatory gap requires one to accept that qualia exist in the first place.No other arguments for qualia are sound even from a first glance.
>>17411427there is no body-mind dualism, consciousness is downstream from physiology
>>17414742Physiology is downstream of matter. Matter is downstream of mind.Panpsychicism or idealism are true.
>>17414736So you don't think experiences exist? You're an actual zombie
>>17414756>you're a zombie!!!!!Oh no anon you got me.Yes, we're all zombies. Experiences exist but they aren't fundamentally irreducible to something like qualia. It's emergent behavior of physical systems.
This >>17414756 was meant to be a joke, btwbut it's literally shit like this you hear from from big name philosophers who get upset when people don't want to play their game
>>17414761For someone with a "masters", you sure conflate emergentism and eliminativism a lot. You realize Dennett rejects the former, right?
>>17414769It landed.>>17414779I'm not conflating anything. I'm not Dennett. Emergentism lets us suppose that experiences exist without needing to assert that they are irreducible.
>>17414723Name a single thing in the brain that's not definable on a linear bounded automaton
>>17414752>Matter is downstream of mind.Opposite.
Okay, but how do you refute the digestion-intestine problem?
>>17414792Nope, Kastrup will prove the Advaita to be true and trannies like you will ACK yourself.
>>17414796Kastrup is a crypto catholic and he pissed himself and ran from Maudlin
>>17413101>Electrical impulsesThat's not how signals are passed along nerves.>tricks itselfThere's no deception. The sense of self is there so that you can categorize things as internal vs external.>consciousness is an illusionNo?>magic skeletonA funny insult coming from someone who believes his body is haunted by a ghost.
>>17414808>Kastrup is a crypto catholicIrrelevant. If a single quantum field underlying all of existence could be found, there would be overwhelming philosophical implications. Not that it's been achieved, simply that Kastrup alongside many other theoretically physicists agree that it's theoretically possible.>and ran from MaudlinI don't keep up with debates because I'm not a zoomer, but the superdeterminst cabal alongside the likes of Sabine Hossenfelder are worthless for both science and philosophy.
Materialists are not (should not be?) committed to the position that all kinds of questions makes sense to answer by giving a "billiard balls of atoms bouncing" explanation.To me, this is just different levels of abstractionThis has always annoyed me. It just seems like such a confused objection. You know when people are asking about what arrangement of atoms that is the experience of 'smelling coffee' and suchThen stamping their feet, and demanding to get an answer: "Surely if materialism is true, there would be one, huh, HUH?" (I don't think I'm being unfair here, this is how the "problem" often is being presented)Here I think people are just asking the wrong question, if they want an answer in terms of atoms. They should ask questions in terms of atoms! Seems like such an easy "out", I don't get why people don't like it... Very unsatisfying? Genuinely don't think I'm weaseling away from anything here, just seems like a LOT of philosophers have bad views on language that causes them confusionLike if you asked me a question about the plot of Star Trek and demanded an answer in atoms? What the fuck, that's not gonna work. That's not how language work
>>17414838>If a single quantum field underlying all of existence could be found, there would be overwhelming philosophical implications.It would very strongly suggest a brahma-like impersonal God like entity, which I already suspect is real. But it wouldn't change anything about the nature of computation or emergence.
>>17414845Emergence is just a way to tap into this cosmic One Mind.
Emergence is a simple and explainable phenomenon
>>17414845>impersonalWhy so retarded in the final stretch?
>>17414845>God like> brahma-likeThe fuck are you talking about?
>>17414863Quantum fields don't have a personality
>>17414878lol you understand how limited a concept “quantum fields” is? If that’s your understanding of the ultimate reality I can understand better now.Tho what your proposing sounds more like azathoth than Brahma
Consciousness is the root of reality. Physics is just how it imagines the world to be.
whether you're a solipsist or not, dualism is retarded
>>17414886Quantum fields are a well defined structure that don't have a personality.
>>17414900Yes and so you think they are fundamental? You think there is some quantum foam incapable of generating true order but is in itself ordered towards that goal?
>>17414894Define dualism?
How does a Quantum fields think without a brain?
>>17414988Are you trying to make a point, or do you genuinely not know what people mean when they say 'dualism' ?
>gets a degree in comp sci>"consciousness is just like my computers!!!"
Very evil, demiurgic thread.
>>17415399>gets a degree in spirit evocation>"consciousness is just like my ghosts!!!"
>>17414861When you constantly skirt around the hard problem (i.e. how subjectivity arises from the object) like every behaviorist/emergentist/scientismist/psycholophaster/atheist/materialist does, yes it is.
>>17415436Why are you making fun of me when its obvious you don't know shit about consciousness?
>>17415444There is no hard problem. First, prove to me that there is.
>>17415489>There is no hard problem. You're right: I am conscious.
>>17414560>water molecule emerges from Hydrogen and oxygen >No it doesn’t.Show us how you can obtain the properties of water between -173 to 373 K, based on H and O alone then faggot
>>17415329I'm trying to see what THEY are meaning by dualism.
>>17414654>The brain is literally a Turing machine.Pseud. https://www.college-de-france.fr/media/stanislas-dehaene/UPL60518_Cours2006_Harvard3b_turing.pdfActually read the available literature you fucking arrogant pos. The brain which activates mostly on graded distinction levels is BY DEFINITION not discrete. Kys
>>17416038*graded activation levels
>>17414701>>17414814You're missing the forest for the trees
>>17415489Self Report.We could have Skipped all the discussion before if you has admitted from the start that you are a Dennetite.Eliminativism is wrong. I can prove it by opening my eyes, or touching something or by simply thinking.>i-its an illusion Moving the goalpost.Something is conscious, at this point you are reinventing the cartesian observer and calling it physicalism
>>17416156Anon claims to be an emergentist and not an eliminativist though. I don't buy it because most emergentists at least bother to clarify what type of emergentist they are the moment they claim consciousness is reducible.
>>17416196Emergentism is just a fancy Word for denial>consciousness EMERGES from the brain>thus everything is accounted for and I have nothing to explain That’s Like a biochemist saying „well Proteins EMERGE from base Pairs thus everything is explained and I don’t have to Come up with an actual mechanism of synthesis“
>>17411427Science will solve it eventually
>>17415838I think dualism is nonsense It's not like dualists got a theory or a model of how their stuff is supposed to work
>>17416061I just don't want to sound like Reddit, you successfully intimidated me
>>17416038>>17416041Literally the entirety of the standard model is computable on a Turing machine you moron. Gradients do not mean they aren't computable. It means that it would be represented as a weighted graph, which is computable.I swear you pseuds are genuinely infuriating
>>17416297There's not a single thing that you experience which is not directly tied to a physical reaction. Opening your eyes and experiencing light qualia is directly caused by the glial cells in your eyes being stimulated by wavelengths of light.You want there to be a ghost in the shell because you're religious.
>>17416940I'm disgusted by this type of thinking
>>17417224Science will never explain consciousness. Consciousness is special. Consciousness is magic.
>>17417367I am comforted by this type of thinking.
>>17416995The argument that is being put forth is that the mechanics of brain function differ fundamentally from the operation of a Turing machine, not that the brain can't be computated or likened to a computer. A representation doesn't imply that the system being represented operates in the same way. You're wrong, simple as that.
>>17417367It's obviously and intuitively the case. Ironically the hyper reductionist viewpoint is extremely abstract, and most materialists should touch grass.
>>17417465What does it feel like for your consciousness to be magic?I don't have that intuition.
>>17417535>I don't have that intuition.Well no wonder you're so miserable. I don't blame you though. You're NW Euro, right?
Souls don't exist
>>17417455The "argument" is that you dont like the idea that your qualitative experiences are entirely natural and part of nature and you desperately want to believe that you're a magic special being with a magic special dualistic substance which is the only explanation for red looking different from blue.>"the brain isn't a head reader reading symbols off a tape so it isn't a computer!"Completely missing the point.
>>17417544I'm from Argentina.But, seriously, you said you know your consciousness is magic by way of intuition. What does that feel like?
>>17413101Indeed, I look like that and I aay that
>>17417552>But, seriously, you said you know your consciousness is magic by way of intuition. What does that feel like?Confounding and stressful, but also intriguing and exciting.
>>17417557You don't have a soul
>>17417551>saying the brain does not neatly align with this hyper-abstract model of computation through objective evidence is magical thinking lol just give up little buddy. Lemme summarize the main arguments of the article I linked you:>Turing machines in the classical sense work on one discrete task at a time>brains work via graded activation levels i.e. non-discrete, instead works mostly parallel WITH NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS>mathematical operations in brains don't quite work the same as numeric computational algorithms; one can oftentimes "feel" or intuit whether a number is bigger or smaller than another one without needing to countThe thesis concludes that a brain is not *likely* a turing machine, though some mechanisms have been likened to it (such as a single processor in the brain, though it remains unknown what said processor is).
>>17411427Heidegger
>>17417577Buddy, there's not a single thing in the brain which doesn't follow the laws of physics which are entirely computable. Parallel computation is computable. So the brain being multiple Turing machines stuck together is itself computable. Different gradients are just different transformations. NONE of this violates the physical church Turing thesisYou're not a magical being immune from the laws of mathematics and nature. Stop seething about this
>>17413177Cucker Carlson the moment Trump stops paying him
>>17417587>doubling downYou have zero shame.
>>17417552>I'm from Argentina.no wonder dysgenic brown losers like you make this board insufferable.
>>17417010How. How is it caused you numbskull, what is the THING that is beeing caused.„Well clearly the Protein is beeing Expresses Problem solved“ but what Protein?Stop sidestepping the issue and then acting butthurt when your explanation doesn’t explain shit
>>17417551What is this weird strawman
>>17417557I was trying to ask you about the intuition itself, what the intuition that you are a soul feels like (or whatever your theory of mind is)
>>17417604mind = broken
>>17411427Mind body problem is made up, there is no mind, only body
>>17417604I lied, I'm Irish.
>>17417815>I was trying to ask you about the intuition itself, what the intuition that you are a soul feels likeThe intuition of a soul is the same as the one where you understand yourself as a subject in relation to the world of objects. Since consciousness can only explain itself through its phenomenal state (that we all possess) rather than the aggregates, it is "magical" in the sense that it defies explanation. Most materialist theories still attest that there is a "soul", just a finite one that dies when your body decomposes into worm food. Only eliminative materialism takes a radical approach by suggesting that not only is the self we portray ourselves in our consciousness is fake, but that the phenomenon of consciousness is fake too, so therefore a self is merely an illusion of an illusion trapped in an elaborate Cartesian theatre. >(or whatever your theory of mind is)Hylozoism
>>17418337Which is another Word for panpsychism Right?It seems to me that within These discussions, people will inevitably end at one of three points.>Eliminitive Reductionism>panpsychism>dualism
