One of the most evil books ever written. We need to ban neuroscience.
>>25194876we really are regressing, huhyou would have thrown rocks at darwin
>>25194912At least Darwin had the common decency to leave alone the realm of our own lived experiences as a last refuge for the human spirit. Now we well and truly can have nothing and be nothing.
>>25194954Whatever
doesn't this guy just dully re-iterate the philosophy of Descartes, but dresses it up in a load of sciencey language to make it sound like a 'discovery of science.' I read a very funny response to his work by a philosophy professor who just drags him through the mud for that.
>>25194876Mm'kay
>>25194963No.
I had Anil Seth with your Mom
>>25194977yes
>Anil SethThat's what Mike Tyson had in prison
>>25194988I'm only two thirds through but I could not think of a worse description than your post.
>>25194998I'm sorry my friend, you've been wasting your time, switch to something else.
>>25194876Qrd?
>>25195009We are ChatGPT. I'm only slightly memeing.
>>25194876Probably no less worse than that cretin Saplosky
>>25194980Lol
>>25194876>we need to le ban everything that makes me uncomfortable and hurt my fee fees Poor baby :(
So is anyone going to drop a tl;dr? It’s not like the prose is remarkable or some shit, so there is no reason to read it personally. Just tell us what it says.
>>25194954what's your problem anyway? I didn't read the book, but I don't need any science to enjoy my consciousness, be it an illusion or not.
>>25195050You exist within a hallucinatory Bayesian generative simulation of the real world which is only kept coherent by electromagnetic signals that your brain associates with certain stimuli from that actual real world. Your sense of self, emotions, thoughts even the feeling of being an "observer" inside your head are all illusory and generated by compounding mechanisms within your head. Emotions are essentially just the mind spinning a story about your current physiological condition. "You" are hardly even one coherent entity. Also functionalism is fake, there is no escape from the flesh. Also if your brain were somehow reconstituted from the same atoms a billion trillion years from now it would not be the same stream of consciousness. Have fun.
this is completely pointless. i should kill myself.
>>25195119people get depressed by that? I think it's interesting. We have no true idea of why we exist and what's the point of this world. Our consciousness needs to work in some way, and if that's the way it does, I'm fine with it and ride along with the illusion. I think some people are in their own head so much, that they don't realize, how vibrating and full and incredibly beautiful this world is, even if they can't see it.I drop some acid every few weeks to not forget it.
>>25195119Oh my science.
Bayesian as in Bayesian abductive inference. The world is an assumption built on previous assumptions.
Real causes are fundamentally unknowable.
>>25195142Shut the fuck up.
So how many of Quine's dogmas of empiricism does this pseud commit, i'm willing to be it's both
>>25195154>the assumption of an assumption of an assumption
>>25195142reddit is that way, retarded pseud faggot.
>>25195194>>25195163reddit is what way? what's even your point? our consciousness has to have some architecture and it's obvious that it's not like we as the observer instinctivly think it is. I don't see how this could ever be disenchanting or depressing.I'm not sure what exactly your problem with my post is, though. Maybe you can tell me.
>>25195197>and it's obvious that it's not like we as the observer instinctivly think it is.>.....IT JUST ISN'T, OKAY?!
>>25195214what do you even mean? I genuinely don't get it. Are you trying to say that it's not obvious that there are layers beyond our consciousness that we don't understand?If that's your point, I think you're hilariously narrow minded.
>>25195222>Are you trying to say that it's not obvious that there are layers beyond our consciousness that we don't understand?"Layers beyond our consciousness" = Basic bitch eliminativism
>>25195119yeah, life and shit. now put the fries in the bag, buddy.
>>25195119if you find this depressing you are actually a fucking moron.>wahhh consciousness is a physical phenomenon in the brain and not le epic mystical transcendent soul piloting a meat suit>you're telling me..... subjective experience has neural and physiological causes and is influenced by environmental cues..... it's LE OVER>now how am I supposed to feel special :(
>>25195951Just an awful post. Almost reported you for low quality. Hope a janny gets you.
>>25195963nice job proving you don't have the emotional maturity of a 10 year old. did you also shit your pants when you heard that love is just like, brain chemicals and sheet?
>>25195951>being a more complex version of ChatGPT is actually based and redpilled
>>25195119But this doesn't address the hard problem of consciousness. It's (arguably) just articulating the physical processes associated with consciousness. Yes, if I get hit on the head with a hammer, I die. If this gives you some sort of existential crisis then you're retarded. There is a baseless jump to the conclusion that experience must be 'illusory', it's just classic materialist dogmatism asserting what they want to be true.
>>25195983>NOOOOOO WHAT DO YOU MEAN I'M A BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM THAT FUNCTIONS LIKE OTHER BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS????? WHAT DO YOU MEAN DECISION MAKING ISN'T AN INEXPLICABLE PROCESS WITH NO NEUROLOGICAL CORRELATES???? MOMMY MAKE THE BAD MAN GO AWAY
>>25195119>>25195154No offense, but it sounds cringe as fuck. Like a teenager watching The Matrix for the first time.
>>25194876just a complete non-insight, neuroscience still fails to explain anything you could already deduce from your own experience
couldn’t*
>>25194998Then how does the first two thirds refute Descartes?
>>25195119I missed the part where that’s my problem.
>>25195119>Your sense of self, emotions, thoughts even the feeling of being an "observer" inside your head are all illusory and generated by compounding mechanisms within your head.How is it "my" head if that is all just an illusion and who does the illusion serve, if "my" observations are just illusions themselves?
>>25195214He addresses this exact thing in the book multiple times. I can't pull it up right now but he quotes a dialogue from some German or Austrian philosopher that goes something like this:>Why did people for so long think the Earth revolved around the sun?>Well, I suppose, it's because it looks as if it is going around us.>What would it have looked like if we were going around it?
>>25195978>did you also shit your pants when you heard that love is just like, brain chemicals and sheet?yes
Meh, this is all bullshit because I said so, quite frankly. I don't know what you all are, but I get to continue on after this is done. I pray that you make it however.
>>25195119this is probably the most try hard shit i've seen in a while, imagining the smug faggot redditor that wrote this wearing a smug face all the time makes me sick
>>25195119This doesn't feel like a novel take at all, that's more or less been my feeling since I was a teenager
>>25195119doesn't that last part go against materialism?in a materialistic universe I am just a set of signals so recreating those signals would also recreate me
Meanwhile, media has been dropping clues about the nature of reality and this being an illusion for some time. But is it really the end.
>>25196166Wasn't the guy who wrote that a dweeb afraid of women that also killed himself
>>25195009The author's name reads like somebody with a lisp trying to say "anal sex", and I, along with many others, find this quite hilarious indeed.
Why do materialists think that smugness is a substitute for evidence? Most of them seem to believe that if they pretend their beliefs are some super scary truth that they're cynically resigned to then you just have to accept their assertions without any real evidence. I could say "sorry but Cthulhu is real and he's going to eat your face in 20 minutes, have fun," but my trying to sound smug while saying it doesn't make it true.
>>25196379I am also unsure why he "intuits" functionalism not to be true, but the next couple chapters seem dedicated to AI so he's probably about to explain it.
>>25195991>baseless>every single sensational experience can be turned off or made to hallucinate with the right chemicals
>>25195032Why is it ok to hurt his feelings and not yours?
>>25195119Buddhists already figured this out about the self without any neuroscience, see 'the problem of the self'. Their solution is pragmatic, like William James' pragmatism: it is useful to still use the concept of 'self', so they'll use it anyway; even if attempts at a reductionist definition all point to its nonexistence as an actually existing 'thing'.
>>25196477Because he's a faggot.
>>25196479> Buddhists already figured this out about the self without any neuroscienceThey were refuted by the Advaitin Shankara (pbuh), only a constantly-present abiding awareness can satisfactorily account for our experience, the standard Buddhist no-self is just a hylic dogma and is contradicted by our immediate experience of alway-present self-evident awareness.The non-hylic schools of Buddhism like Nyingma Dzogchen and Ch’an also admit like Advaita that there is an unconditioned, non-arising, constantly-present luminous awareness but they rework it into a non-dual ontology of emptiness and luminosity. The Tibetan polymath Mipham, regarded as the premier logician of the Nyingma school, basically repeats verbatim Shankara’s criticisms of the standard Buddhist theory-of-mind and says that without a constantly-present self-knowing awareness any “atomistic” or “momentarist” epistemology becomes completely-incoherent and leads to vicious regresses that would make knowledge and experience as we know it impossible.
>>25195119>the world you experience is a pale shadow of the real worldWe needed 2500 years and billions in research funds to reiterate Plato.
>>25194876>>25195119Hylic bullshit for midwits
>>25195154sounds like a STEM-friendly interpretation of Baudrillard who is much better
>>25198376You sound spooked and raped
>>25194876retroactively refuted by Husserl
>>25196470Not the sensational experience of free will lol.
>>25194876>upset over a bookYour weakness is nauseating.
>>25195119More proof the Greeks were right - a soul trapped in an animal body
>>25195092>>25195119>>25195142>>25196189>consciousness is an illusionIt's safe to assume anyone who says this is an NPC, since NPCs objectively lack any qualia.
>>25196470>every single sensational experience can be turned off or made to hallucinate with the right chemicalsPic relatedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine
>>25199028we already have this if you sit at your PC all day and goon+consoom
>>25199047that is nowhere near an ideal state of pleasure
>>25195119K. Didn't give anything to actually prove this nor it's nihilistic, materially metaphysical presumptions.
>>25199028Logically you should always choose the machine, but I admit to feeling an intuitive bias against it because it is portrayed as aesthetically dystopian.
>>25199078>ermmmm logically-Just kill yourself if you hate life and interacting with the world that much.
>>25196505>crypto-buddhsim
>>25199078>logic is when you have no self-discipline
>>25199391If it were a matter of discipline then there would be a drawback to the machine, but from your own perspective, there isn't.
>>25195119So Boltzmann brain with extra steps? boring as fuck
>>25198920This is the opposite of dualistic views like that, it's materialism taken to the absolute extreme. The soul is an illusion not only in the metaphysical sense but also in the emotive sense. It kills the mysticality of your inner world.
>>25194954> last refuge for the human spiritYour human spirit is buckbroken by a book on research findings so how important was it really?
>>25199028>would you like a perfectly happy existence getting what you most desireOMG YES THANK YOU JESUS>actually it’s pills and brain gamesWTF THIS IS HELL NOOOO
>>25194990L M A O
>>25194876Apparently he's related to a poet/novelist i found out
>>25195119Metzinger seems more radical than him from further investigation
>>25194954your seething and raging about scary ideas won't change their validity in the slightest.
>>25195657>throws your mom's severed toes in the bag instead
>>25199364Anti-autistic discrimination. Die.
>>25199028Reddit aaahhh post that flagranty just rips off the matrix. Its extremely blatant that nihilists go out of their way to maintain their subhuman life denying philosophy
>>25195119Woah dude imagine if nothing is real
>>25200179How do you think sensory input is transduced into conscious output?
>that face you make when you are a soulless husk of flesh animated by neurotransmitters
>>25195119>We must be better men
>>25201054He's Indian
>>25201070He's half-Indian, half-English iirc.
>>25195119>You exist within a hallucinatory Bayesian generative simulation of the real worldSo, how is it different from Metzinger's Self-Model?>"You" are hardly even one coherent entity.This is generic. Bakker's Blind Brain Theory has much more spice.In Bakker's version at least, "you" are an artifact of neglect, i.e. agnosia leading to an erroneous sense of self-sufficiency, leading to false causation when brain tries to track itself.You *cannot* track the brain regions involved for locating objects in space and time, so you are always 'here' and 'now'.You *cannot* differentiate your own brain-states in time, so "you" are always "you".
>>25194954>muh jesusFuck off back to /pol/.
Es ist vorbei
>>25195991Materialism has been proven to be obviously true since the epicurians
>>25195119>happy>phone call>gramma ded>sad>your current physiological condition
>>25202523True how?
>>25202010Sneed
>>25195119Hey! triggering people with lines in a blue box on the chans is fun.
>>25201054>the light inside has broken but I still work
>>25201111All of this scurrying for Kant's breadcrumbs because stemcels refuse to read philosophy, funny
>>25194876this book certainly caused David Byrne’s autistic head to spin!
>>25202523Materialism is only obviously true once you reject all credible evidence of the immaterial as incredible and irrelevant
>>25194954Truth could be a tad uncomfortable, especially for a bronze-age-derived philosophies admirer but anger is not a good response.
His theory was apparently deeply inspired by the free energy principle. He's friends with Karl Friston.
Physiognomy check?
>>25203300Unholy Englishman + Indian woman combination.
>>25194876>ANAL SEETHE
>>25203044>scurrying for Kant's breadcrumbshttps://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/the-metacritique-of-reason/"In other words, both the Intentionalist and the Eliminativist agree on the centrality of neglect in at least this one regard. The transcendental (whatever it amounts to) is not something that metacognition can readily intuit—so much so that humans engaged in thousands of years of ‘philosophical reflection’ without the least notion that it even existed. The primary difference is that the Intentionalist thinks they *can overcome neglect via intuition and intellection*, that theoretical metacognition (philosophical reflection), once alerted to the existence of the transcendental, suddenly somehow possesses the resources to accurately describe its structure and function. The Eliminativist, on the other hand, asks, ‘What resources?’ Lay them out! Convince me! And more corrosively still, ‘How do you know you’re not still blinkered by neglect?’ Show me the precautions!The Eliminativist, in other words, pulls a Kant on Kant and demands what amounts to a metacritique of reason.The fact is, short of this accounting of metacognitive resources and precautions, the Intentionalist has no way of knowing whether or not they’re simply a ‘Stage-Two Dogmatist,’ whether their ‘clarity,’ like the specious clarity of the Dogmatist, isn’t simply the product of neglect—a kind of metacognitive illusion in effect. For the Eliminativist, the transcendental (whatever its guise) is a metacognitive artifact. For them, the obvious problems the Intentionalist faces—the supernaturalism of their posits, the underdetermination of their theories, the lack of decisive practical applications—are all symptomatic of inquiry gone wrong."
>>25194876Fuck you your advertising worked on me
>>25203593From a phenomenological perspective, Bakker’s position rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of what is at stake in the analysis of consciousness. To claim that consciousness is an illusion because the brain lacks access to its own enabling conditions is to confuse different explanatory levels. Phenomenology has never denied that consciousness depends on processes that are not themselves given in experience. The crucial point, however, is that such dependence does not render experience illusory. An illusion is itself a mode of appearance, and therefore presupposes the very experiential field it is meant to discredit. If one insists that consciousness as such is an illusion, one is left with the incoherent claim that there are appearances without any appearing. This is not a radical insight but a conceptual confusion that arises from conflating the conditions of manifestation with what is manifested. Moreover, Bakker’s account overlooks the intrinsic features of subjectivity that are disclosed in careful phenomenological reflection. Consciousness is not a theoretical posit inferred from hidden mechanisms but something immediately given, characterized by its first personal mode of givenness and its pre reflective self awareness. This minimal selfhood is not an optional add on or a product of speculative interpretation but an integral aspect of any experience whatsoever. To dismiss it as a byproduct of cognitive blindness is to ignore the descriptive evidence available to us. The task is not to debunk experience by appealing to subpersonal processes, but to clarify how these processes relate to the structures of lived experience without reducing one to the other.
>>25203666>Phenomenology has never denied that consciousness depends on processes that are not themselves given in experience. The crucial point, however, is that such dependence does not render experience illusory.it renders it empirically manipulable, via tweaking the processes that are 'not themselves given in experience'In other words, the trancendental gets naturalized.>but something immediately given, characterized by its first personal mode of givennessA fairly standard case of a computer stuck in a loop: it can process and display any input only *after* it received it, never immediately *as*. (Otherwise, it would have been stuck in an infinite recursion)Therefore, you cannot track the sources of your "immediately given". Therefore, it seems "immediately given".>If one insists that consciousness as such is an illusion, one is left with the incoherent claim that there are appearances without any appearing.>to confuse different explanatory levelsThese appearances, however, seem to emerge, out of brain's *in*ability to process input immediately.So, unless you claim that a disability/physical-constraint/error just-so magically opens a divine gateway to some supernatural ectoplasmic source of "minimal selfhood", it would appear that appearances are not what they appear to be.
>>25203300>consciousness is an illusion!>dysgenic freakvery interesting.
>>25194876>be me?!
>>25203758>it renders it empirically manipulable, via tweaking the processes that are 'not themselves given in experience'Incorrect, it only renders some aspects manipulable, but not all of experience as a category, there are irreducible aspects to consciousness that have never been shown to be naturalized. For example, immediate first person awareness. Even inducing a state of a loss of mental alertness or induced sleep through drugs or electrical stimulation is not a proven naturalizing of awareness since even this in phenomenological terms is merely a cessation of data being connected with awareness in experience and not a scientifically-demonstrable cessation or manipulation of awareness itself. >A fairly standard case of a computer stuck in a loopThat analogy is about processing latency. The first-person givenness claim is not about temporal immediacy in a computational sense but is rather about how experience is structured as self-presenting, its not about not how fast information is computed. So, your analogy makes a mistaken leap from “consciousness is not immediate in processing time” to “therefore first-person givenness is illusory” when this does not necessarily follow: Even a temporally delayed process can still be phenomenally self-presenting when it occurs. It also smuggles in a representational model of consciousness as input processing which is exactly the dubious claim that is under dispute.>These appearances, however, seem to emerge, out of brain's *in*ability to process input immediately.That doesn’t explain appearances but is just redescribing them in a vague causal metaphor, it's also at odds with lived experience since "inability to process” is a deficit concept but consciousness is not described phenomenologically as a deficit state but the the positive field in which anything like “processing delay” is itself experienced or manifested, So you are trying in effect to explain experience away using a notion (inability) that already presupposes an experiential framework in which something counts as delay, processing, or error. >So, unless you claim that a disability/physical-constraint/error just-so magically opens a divine gateway to some supernatural ectoplasmic source of "minimal selfhood", it would appear that appearances are not what they appear to be.This can easily be cogently explain as a physical brain interacting with or being subject to the influences of non-physical or metaphysical consciousness, but either way that response of yours is a strawman, since the earlier post simply noted the incoherencies of Bakkers account and observing this doesn't require one accepting anything metaphysical or supernatural because its simply a point about the structure of experience. Its also backtracking from Bakkers actual thesis which is that first person givenness is itself an illusion, saying that the contents of consciousness are unreliable does not automatically entail the former being true.
>>25195119Alright, thanks for the head up lol
>>25195119This has always been my default assumption. I don't see why you would assume anything else.Are you scared? Scared of being a hallucination trapped inside a meat prison inside a gigantic uncaring universe? Real men aren't supposed to be scared of the dark.
>>25204160I could kill you in one single strike.
>>25195119jewish lies, just like evolution
>>25203266Bronze-age philosophies have more value than this bugman shit
>>25195119>Also if your brain were somehow reconstituted from the same atoms a billion trillion years from now it would not be the same stream of consciousness.The reason for that being?
>>25204281The prior perceptual best-guess did not happen.
>>25199024will reading this make me schizo?
>>25204281>>25204284No, it's actually even worse. The "feeling" that you are continuous through time is just a feeling that you need to have on each individual "tick" of the brain in order to function. So...
>>25204281>>25204284Yeah.
>>25204396>>25204407Retarded reductivism that assumes there is one discrete location that accounts for explicit memory.
>>25195119>there is no escape from the fleshThis is contradictory. The rest of the explanation pretty much insist that everything is an ilussion coming from my awareness or something along those lines, so why i would not be able to change "the flesh"? It seems like they were about to give in subjective idealism but halted at last minute because that would be hecking problematic.
>>25204432He explains it in the final chapter I assume. I am about to start reading through.
>>25204451>rabbi character>name is Juddahvery creative
I'm sure other anons have already mentioned that a book like this is pointless because you can only measure what your senses can perceive. It would be as if a 2D creature says he's figured out the universe and the nature of existence.
>>25204432Also it's not subjective idealism because a universe does exist independent of perception. The brain needs to receive sensory input from a "realer" world in order to update its simulation of that real world.
>>25204462https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Loew_ben_Bezalel
>>25195119>Emotions are essentially just the mind spinning a story about your current physiological condition>perfectly healthy person is depressed>perfectly healthy person sees their family die horribly>just a physiological reaction senpai
>>25204492I don't really understand it myself, try reading his paper he wrote on it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661313002118
>>25199028
>>25204464>Also it's not subjective idealism because a universe does exist independent of perception.But then, everything imaginable exist. For example, you can't say something doesn't exist just because you never experienced. >The brain needs to receive sensory input from a "realer" world in order to update its simulation of that real world.If i dream and engange with all my senses inside the dream, how does it differs from the waking life if what's "real" is measured on present perceptual interaction? The same with very convincing hypnagogic imagery. How it can be "the brain" if i can dream even being an organism with no brain at all? I do have a brain, and a body, but there are things that happens outside the brain and the body and yet i can still experience those things.
>>25204596It's (real universe) ---> (sensory input) ---> (brain interpretation of sensory input) ---> (mentally simulated universe) - you are here
>>25204618If the Universe is a mental manifestation, and the mind exists independent of the brain (or more like, consciousness persist independent of my body), that means that reality is my own imagined structure?
>>25203266So, which of these books is the better one?
>>25194876why is the hardcover $1 cheaper than the paperback? Is the hardcover binding glued?
>>25204707It's more expensive in canada at least
>>25194963How is this bad though?Philosopher literally over-analyze simple concepts and write books about it, there's a lot of juice in that type of stuff.Even if that was true, he came to the same conclusions as descartes from a perspective that's compatible with current science, and that cant be bad.Sometimes the perspective you choose can be more or less useful long term
>>25195119So, as I understand, from interoceptive inference is what constitutes emotions. Meaning that there is an emotion assigned towards bodily states? or doesnt it bodily state have an emotion that you could condition yourself to assign to them?Because I've been able to decide quite a few emotional reactions toward certain situation, just to make my life easier. But I wonder if I really decided or it was always set in stone.
>>25204396>>25204407Maybe my ESL-ness is showing, but is the author arguing that people's sense of self would shatter upon a blip in their conscious experience accompanied by a radical change in their surroundings? If so, then that feels like a rather weak argument, people's subjective streams of experiences survive comas and near-death experiences pretty commonly.
>>25194990kek
>>25207090Desharts is one of the most BTFO'd philosophers of all time.
I just finished the book, minus the notes.For the people who were wondering what his skepticism towards functionalism was based on, it's this: He thinks that even if we were able to replicate "macro-level" processes of the brain the emergent structure behind them is completely irreplicable by our current approach towards AI. He considers consciousness and intelligence as two separate metrics that only sometimes correlate, so infinitely beefing up the processing power of neural networks will help with nothing in this regard. He also considers Turing test like metrics unuseful for measurements of consciousness because they are essentially tests of the evaluating humans rather than of the machine itself. He is also quite clearly personally biased in the matter as you can feel the disdain seething through the pages when he talks about "futurists and transhumanists for whom one life is not enough".But he does repeatedly state that this is just opinion and intuition so it's essentially just an informed hot-take.
>>25209105>He considers consciousness and intelligence as two separate metrics that only sometimes correlate, so infinitely beefing up the processing power of neural networks will help with nothing in this regard. I feel he's correct in that regard. The question I ask myself though is if Qualia is actually a relevant metric to judge intelligent life on. Could there be intelligent life without a stream of consciousness, and do we consider it the most important only because we happen to have it? If we were to beef up AI to the Nth degree to the point it becomes impossible to differenciate between geniune sentience and faked sentience, is sentience that important to begin with
I bought this book it better be good.
>>25210566He just told you it's evil and should be burned.
>>25195119Okay, and what reason is there to believe any of that is true?
>>25195119That describes the structure, not the substance of consciousness. AKA nothingburger>We are such stuff as dreams are made ofTrue Blakean spirits have been aware of the gnostic truth that "life is but a dream" and have shaken off the dogmas of their time for what would today be called a Nietzchean or absurdist outlook, for centuries already
>>25199024This is genuinely the dumbest mound of text I've ever fucking read. Why this guy is trying to compare consciousness to computer data when he doesn't know what either is astounds me. Then I look him up and he's Time's #1 Smartest whatever and actually invented Microsoft and is the leading expert on virtual niggers. There's a Nikolai Tesla quote about science going from observable reality to algorithms and equations bearing no relation to it and that's what this essay reads like.
>>25204596>f i dream and engange with all my senses inside the dream, how does it differs from the waking life if what's "real" is measured on present perceptual interaction?Because your knowledge is finite. Plenty of people have dream scenarios only to go to the real thing and it's entirely different. This is hard evidence an exterior reality exists beyond your head, as there is a clear distinction between your dreams, the ideas that inform them and what actually exists. The difference is tangible. Even if your presumptive brain got everything right, it would likely not do so twice, or three times in a row, and so on. You will always end up at "I dreamed about this but it's so different in reality" eventually.>I do have a brain, and a body, but there are things that happens outside the brain and the body and yet i can still experience those things.You don't. Your brain informs a presumption. It is extremely unlike to align 1:1 with the real thing. If you dream about skiing on a mountain and do so vividly, there will still be aspects of it during actual skiing you didn't know and therefore didn't include in your dream.
>>25196379Not necessarily, there is always a unique way to describe the current you. The simplest possibility is just time, the next you exists at a different time, time is physical, so you have a physical explanation of why you live only once.Not saying that's how consciousness works, but it's a possibility.
>>25199078What law of logic implies that? Non contradiction? Excluded middle?
If your stream of consciousness is interrupted you are essentialy dead, and a new person emerges from sleep, with the logs imprinted on him by the meat computer for his few hours of life
>>25194876If you choose to believe in free will and the soul then you've proven that you have both.>>25194912This anon kind of has a point. The faggots who delight in trying to erase all evidence of the soul are evil but there's never any putting the genie back in the Bible. Things will converge again, sooner or later.
>>25211816Delusional, sleep feels the same as forgetting but no one thinks that forgetting something retroactively makes you unconscious during whatever it is that you forgot.
>>25211816According to Anil you don't even need sleep for that. You exist in a constantly shifting present unable to perceive that the you from one second ago is no more.
>>25211816https://youtu.be/FSbEOZY7k20
>>25195119So it's just Buddhist?
>>25195119This is all meaningless word salad
>>25195119So it's another window dressing of "you're not conscious, you're just imagining it" with le hecking science (TM) phraseology to make it even worse. Doubled up by the redditors praising it for being a vaguely nihilistic take. Why are pseuds so filtered by primary philosophy? How are those "illusions" even supposed to offer the grounding of phenomenological reduction?
For posterity
>>25194876Reading pic related has taught me that it really doesnt matter if anything is real or not, as long as you are living happily it makes no difference. But idk if reality or your consciousness being an illusion bothers you that much than maybe you just haven't done enough thinking.
>>25195119>consciousness and imagination are completely fake >you're just imagining that you're conscious, and I've just made you conscious that you're imagining, tee hee!>here's how imagination and consciousness work btwThe self-contradiction is evident. Into the trash it goes.
>>25210670Apparently it maps quite neatly on how the brain has been observed to do information processing.
>>25211819But reality is deterministic, so how could anyone possibly have free will?Can you name a single thing that isn't deterministic? other than like... the exact timing of radioactive decay, everything is just happening because something else happened. Including everything you will do, and did.
>>25199702This is the ghost in the shell cityscape in real life, neato!
>>25196166Based noble savage.
>>25199364Fpbp
>>25195119>BayesianFuck off back to lesswrong, midwit
>>25217955Are you telling me that or rather just publicly expressing your frustration with the author?
>>25211483let's say I walk into a booth that blows me up but took a scan of me before thatthen 1 billion years later said booth recreates me from the scanfrom my perspective I just walked in and then walked out 1 billion years later with no interruption in my stream of consciousness, there is absolutely nothing from my point of view that would imply I was anything but the original mefrom yours I was just blown up and a clone of me was created 1 billion years laterbut in this case is my clone really not me despite the fact that I would experience my clone as just being me? does your perception of me as a copy overrule my perception of me as being the same person?in a purely materialist view I would be correct as there is literally nothing that sets me apart from the "original" me. I am by all means the exact same person, I have the same body, the same memories, the same brainwaves, etc. it's just the atoms I am made of that are different and those are switched out anyways over the course of a single lifespan. saying I am not me because I don't have the same atoms is like saying baby-you and adult-you aren't the same person either.
>>25218664>from my perspective I just walked in and then walked out 1 billion years later with no interruption in my stream of consciousness, there is absolutely nothing from my point of view that would imply I was anything but the original meThere's literally no evidence for this, you're presupposing something isomorphic to your conclusion"Bro but it makes sense if you think about it" isn't evidence btw
>>25218163 I was genuinely just annoyed at you (ab)using that word, your post is otherwise fine
>>25218724It's essentially a paraphrase of the author. I did not even have that word in my vocabulary before I read this book.
>>25218664>from my perspective I just walked in and then walked out 1 billion years later with no interruption in my stream of consciousness,This is an unproven assumption. Until the experiment is done, we can't know that the person walking out of the booth doesn't feel strange and unlike "him." Consider that that is the claimed experience of people with some dissociative disorders.
>>25194876>Anil SethMore like Anal Seeth
Scientists are literal dribbling retards with no understanding of consciousness.
>>25217461>muh data processingWho cares? Cognition =/= ConsciousnessKYS
>>25194876I'm a big fan of Anil Seth. If I could I'd have Anil Seth everywhere I go.
>>25211840If that's true, does it even make sense to pin youness to that? I imagine the observer of qualia and memories is me. If the observer feels continous based on memory, doesn't that make the pair of qualia observer + memory a better candidate for youness than a observer of qualia alone?
>by anal seetheKek
