It's fucking retarded to say a bunch of chemical reactions between nerve cells can create consciousness. It's like saying that the universe came from nothing. If materialism was true then beings could be at most biological automatons, but never have consciousness.
>>16777531>it's retarded to say consciousness comes from somewhere>it's like saying the universe came from nowhereSo, something coming from somewhere is the same as something coming from nowhere. Thanks, OP. Your contribution has been noted in our records. You are dismissed.
>>16777536>So, something coming from somewhere is the same as something coming from nowhereSomething cannot come from nothing.A subjective immaterial experience can't come from matter.
>>16777544>I am unable to conceptualize that my metaphor is brokenY'know, I did try, but apparently you're dead set on this.Are you sure your brain contains chemical reactions?
>>16777547sophist, make an argument
>>16777531>Consciousness HAS to be special or I'll cryGreat argument. Why don't you go test the bounds of consciousness and kill yourself then?
>>16777715>make an argument>for a dumb fuck that can't into logicWhich meaning of sophist, retard? Based on your manner, you mean "a captious or fallacious reasoner," yet this is precisely what I am calling out.You may also see yourself to the retard corner. Do not pass go.
>>16777531Good thing that the universe did in fact come from nothing.
>>16777719>Being sophistic about his own sophistryLike pottery.Come back when you have an argument.
>>16777744>begging the questionYou have everything you need to put potato in ricer.
>Good thing that the universe did in fact come from nothing.
>>16777531Please define "consciousness" and then explain why it cannot be a product of chemical signals
>>16777753What question am i begging? What argument are you making? You're just posting drivel.>>16777805Kek.
>>16777866How about you define both consciousness, matter, and how consciousness magically comes from matter.
>>16777916Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of information. Anything that can be interpreted as information can have consciousness. Consciousness is not a physical or spiritual propert of any object, living or otherwise
>>16777531its also not true, the sperm must be conscious to the extent that it knows to go into the eggtheres no chemicals prepared for when the baby animal learns to eat or stand up before it even knows what it looks like or is the same as the other animals and so it can not be from chemical reactions at all it must be from just mechanical functions and nervous signals
OP who made the data array into functions and instruction sets for DNA chromosomes
>>16777866>Please define "consciousness"Explain why it needs to be "defined" and define what it would mean to "define" it.>explain why it cannot be a product of chemical signalsBecause "a product of chemical signals" is a pure abstraction that dependents on minds in the first place. Meanwhile my mental space is, by definition, as real as anything could ever possibly be.
>>16777920>Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of information.This is a basic category error. "Information" is relative and purely conventional. There is no objective reality behind it. "Emergent phenomena" are slightly more objective but still nothing more than an abstract interpretation of a more basic reality whose true qualities are different.
>>16777939There is no objective reality behind consciousness, it's a matter of interpretation, just like information as a whole
>>16777967>reality is not real, it just imagined itself into existenceYou're a broken biological LLM with no coherent thoughts.
>>16777967consciousness is only observing not observing correctly or doing anything
>>16777531>could be at most biological automatons, but never have consciousness.you need to prove brain activity doesn't create consciousness. just like you'd need to prove the car's inner activity doesn't make the car go forwards or backwards.there's also lots of emergent phenomena, not sure why you're discarding that like it never happens. the whole thing is more than the sum of its parts, enables new functions
>>16777968But can you prove that? Can you prove that I am not conscious? Read Descartes
>>16777971it seems clear that the receivers which provide consciousness creates the brains structures and activities and not the other way
>>16777972I don't need to "prove" anything to you. I am simply making an observation about your bottom-tier drivel. Meanwhile my points stand unchallenged.
>>16777971>you need to prove brain activity doesn't create consciousnessFunny how your cult has given up on proving its belief system and now resorts to "you have to prove my poorly defined and unfalsifiable beliefs are wrong".
>>16777974>receiversyou need to prove your bullshit. else that can be stated about cars as well. when you arrive at particular shape for all parts some soul infusion is received that makes the car move your around>>16777976if you assemble a brain and it acts like one then function comes from form. that's all there is to everything in this world. assemble particles a certain way and it does some particular thing, end of. rest is brain rot.if you have some ideas about some soul and waves carrying it then prove it, detect ze wave like radio waves and shit, build a soul emitter, soul receiver, tell us how to create the soul you transmit from the emitter and all that
>>16777980>if you assemble a brain and it acts like one then function comes from form.But your cult has never assembled anything that acts like a brain. Nor has it established what that takes. But even if it ever happens (which is highly unlikely), your conclusion is still a logical nonsequitur.
>>16777975what about me i am challenging your points it seems more like you are unable to observe that i have challenged your argument facets which allow for an entity to observe and make observations i think are what makes consciousnessfacets which allow an entity to act are something elsesomewhere the two things should meet
>>16777984>i am challenging your pointsAre you suffering from a delusional mental condition. >facets which allow for an entity to observe and make observations i think are what makes consciousnessThis doesn't challenge anything I wrote in any way.
>>16777983>But even if it ever happens>which is highly unlikelyprimitive nonsense, which the likes of you always spouted, and have constantly been proven wrong throughout history.unless you can prove something that exists cannot be replicated then it can.it also doesn't have to be atomically perfect if function arises at higher level structures. just like two slightly different chairs offer the very same "sitting on them" function. or two different cars can move your ass at 50 miles/h from A to B.
>>16777995Notice how all of my points stand completely unchallenged and your only recourse is to home in on the irrelevant tangent. You and all your likes have a raging mental illness. Your post is a full concession.
>>16777988you said the brain and the chemicals are what makes consciousness i challenged you here >>16777921 i said its the opposite thing to what you said here>>16777970and here >>16777974and i challenged you again about something else here >>16777923
>>16777998You really are delusional. None of that concerns me in any way.
>>16778000your consciousness is not linked to your uh
>>16778005its the opposite of what you said it cant be that you agree with it or you would be thinking something else which is not what you saidcould it be that you feel romance for the words which you have used and have no comprehension of what it is that those words communicate
>>16777998electrical activity is what makes the consciousness. no electrical activity = no consciousness. unless you can prove no electrical activity = consciousness gtfo brainlet
>>16777997you are intellectually challenged enough anon. sometimes I feel sad and awkward trying to understand what kind of internal angst might make you think those things. you are so afraid and you found the weirdest ideas to help you cope. I am sorry your brain cannot do better than that. it's really quite sad in a sense
>>16778008You have a psychotic illness. None of those posts were addressing me or anything I wrote. Get professional help.
>>16778014>if you assemble a brain and it acts like one then function comes from form.But your cult has never assembled anything that acts like a brain. Nor has it established what that takes. But even if it ever happens (and it's totally gonna happen in exactly Two More Weeks!) your conclusion is still a logical nonsequitur.Has /sci/ always housed so many sub-115 IQs?
>>16778009so what about the chemicals? what you said precisely related to the organ 'brain' i disagree that the chemicals are involved and i disagree that you require organ 'brain' for consciousness (observation) moreover the faculties which allow for one to observe stimulus are not necessarily connected with those which allow an entity to react to stimulus, that this comes from a relationship between the two things and what facilitates them.
>>16778017the organ brain isnt related to the consciousness in such a way, but it allows for us to observe more different things in our environment and also tells us what to doi dont mean the voices or images which ????? cast into your facets of observation but the organ itself
>>16778022Unironically take your meds. This is word salad.
>>16778025i disagree that the brain is what creates consciousnessit is not related to consciousness in the way which you said it isthe brain allows us to observe different things in our environment with more senses the senses are to facilitate observations of our environmentthe thing which is able to observe is not the brain itselfthe brain also tells us what to dowe observe the brain telling us what to doi do not mean to say that your brain and thoughts are the voices and images in your head, i do not believe this. you clearly observe these voices in your head with your consciousness your brain is reacting to them also
>>16778019chemicals mediate the electrical activity fuck's wrong with your incompetent ass? it's about the electrical activity, chemicals or no chemicals, just reproduce the electrical activity PRECISELY taking into account precise potentials and timing for each and every single fucking pulse/spike. you will get consciousness. simple as.
>>16778029>i disagree that the brain is what creates consciousness>it is not related to consciousness in the way which you said it isYou're literally psychotic but I'm gonna try to explain to you for the 5th time now: you are either mistaking me for some other poster, or the voices in your head. I didn't make any propositions about what "creates consciousness".
>>16778017>But your cult has never assembled anything that acts like a brainyour argument is weak in the sense that even if it does assemble one, perfectly, and is conscious, you'd still claim "but you just built the antenna so it makes sense" which is why you NEED to prove your brain rot by not only assembling souls, but also emitters, and emit souls via said emitters, and a new from scratch receiver and receive said soul, that new manufactured one in particular, and then you may have "some" standing on your brain rot ideas.how is this weak ass shit discourse even tolerated here? your ideas are pure brain rot they're just trolling at this point
>>16778030what chemicals retard conductors mediate electricity retardyes your nerves are electric too i know its confusingthis next part of what you describe is something else and not consciousness, you can prove this by observing this plastic fish which reacts to its environment
>>16778035>what chemicals retardare you really so incompetent that you have no clue about how electrical activity is mediated by chemicals. electric ACTIVITY not flow. just look into ions and ion channels this is fucking pathetic I'm done talking to your incompetent ass do your bare minimum homework moron
>>16778038>how does electricity conduction work
>>16778041it's not about the flow itself it's about the timing between spikes. you incompetent mouth-breathing moron
>>16778033>your argument is weak because my claims don't follow from my premises even in my fantasy sci-fi thought experimentAn utterly irrational cult.
>>16778046hope your brain receives the meds waves it needs
>>16778050Your impotent zero-information content is irrelevant and my points still stand unchallenged. Come up with an actual argument. Protip: your cult's variation of "you can't prove my God doesn't exist" isn't an argument.
>>16778051zero-information-content post*
>>16778051>nothat's not an argument lmao, that's just you being in denial, which we both know you'll never stop doing no matter how much information you have access to
>>16778033>>16778058>your argument is weak because my claims don't follow from my premises even in my fantasy sci-fi thought experimentAn utterly irrational cult.>>16778050Your impotent zero-information-content post is irrelevant and my points still stand unchallenged. Come up with an actual argument. Protip: your cult's variation of "you can't prove my God doesn't exist" isn't an argument.
>>16778060oh so you're just a damaged drone huh. sad
>>16778070See >>16778060Your belief system is unfalsifiable and irrational. I will rub your nose in this fact every time you reply, and you WILL reply dozens more times, because your cult programming forces you to keep engaging a lost argument.
>>16778072you sound like a deranged bickering whoman just fuck off
>>16778044if the fish is conscious it proves that electricity is not needed for consciousnessif the fish is not conscious it proves that the reaction to changes in its environment (in this case temperature) do not require consciousness(and do not require electricity) such that your (brains) reactions to the environment (creating brain neural pathways and electrical signals) are not your consciousness (your ability to perceive)and in this way so does microphones and solenoid generators proves that spikes in electrical activity are not related to consciousness
>>16778074You're legit mentally ill and you WILL reply again.
>>16777971>you need to prove brain activity doesn't create consciousnessWhy does he need to prove this?
>>16778077fish nervous system relies on electrical spikes as well. depending on the complexity of the central nervous system they will be on a spectrum of consciousness. consciousness is an emergent phenomenon out of this type of activity. not sure what you're confused about
>>16778089because each and every single time when it lacks electrical activity, consciousness also goes away, quite simple.
>>16778091>consciousness is an emergent phenomenonThis statement is incoherent.
>>16778093>every single time when it lacks electrical activity, consciousness also goes awayHow do you know? What does this even mean? "Goes away" from where?
>>16778094your brain is just too frail to comprehend or accept
>>16778095goes away from the brain/person, vanishes, disappears, not there anymore, or anywhere.just like when your car lacks something crucial to its working, it stops. the working state doesn't go anywhere in particular, it just vanishes.>How do you know?well it's quite obvious, they don't exhibit that which we call consciousness. whatever else you imply in consciousness being is based on some of your own personal issues with this reality and you need to prove.
>>16778098Help my poor brain understand how subjective interpretations produce the minds they rely on in the first place.
>>16778099You sound like you haven't developed object permanence yet. The absolute state of this board...
>>16777531if chemicals created consciousnesses then it should be quite easy to replicate. They know exactly what chemicals are in your brain. They should be able to put them in a beaker and create consciousness
>>16778101>>16778103you got used to people buying into your brain rot ideas and now you're having womanlike meltdowns. stop bickering brainlets and fuck off
>>16778112>if I put a bunch of materials and shake them up I should get a mobile phone>if I type randomly on my keyboard in my favorite IDE I should get windows 11>what is order anyway?this is what ideology gets you, the most dumbfuck of results. every single fucking time
>>16778115What brainrot? I was just asking you some logical followup questions. None of your replies make any sense on the level of basic semantics, nevermind science or philosophy or anything more advanced.
>>16778121>None of your replies make any sensestop projecting you brainlet. no amount of obfuscating your ideas will ever make them anything less than pure weapons grade brain rot
>>16778112>They should be able to put them in a beaker and create consciousnessthe absolute state of dishonesty, imbecility, or both. this is fucking hilarious. this is the result of frail minds trying to process information, they shit themselves in the most wondrous of ways. how are you morons still breathing at this point, unassisted
>>16778130NOOOOOOOOO! THAT'S COMPLETELY BACKWARDS
>>16778118How is this different from nothing random becoming life?
>>16778122You said OP needs to disprove your beliefs. I asked why. You answered with a nonsequitur making a bunch of new claims. I asked you to explain them. You gave an incoherent reply that seems to treat the brain as some kind of container that consciousness is hidden inside, then reasserted that consciousness just vanishes from it, but never explained how you know this, or that it was there in the first place.
>>16778112>if chemicals created consciousnesses then it should be quite easy to replicate. They know exactly what chemicals are in your brain. They should be able to put them in a beaker and create consciousnessKek. They'll say this is a strawman but it actually demonstrates perfectly the vacuity of the actual, literal statements they themselves make when those are taken at face value.
OP, the "chemicals" you're talking about are synaptic neurotransmitters, they aren't invovled in chemical "reactions", they are used to transfer electric nerve impluses.It's primarily a physical process (electricity) being part of biological system, it's not about chemistry at all.
>>16778118double digit IQ strawman, bravo>reverse engineering isnt a thing retard!if you are an african perhaps. Whites and asians are quite adept at it>>16778130>reeeeeeeeeeeimpressive. very nice
>>16777920>Muhhhhh EMEEEERGENCEEmergence is a pseudoscientific copout for when you don't know something "Bro it just emerged ok don't ask me to explain how".>Consciousness is not physicalGee thanks Einstein I would never have guessed. Thanks for making my argument for me.
>>16778156>It's primarily a physical process (electricity) being part of biological system, it's not about chemistry at all.You could rewrite OP's post with this correction and it would remain essentially the same. Saying "electric nerve impulses cause consciousness" is every bit as uncompelling saying "chemical reactions cause consciousness". In what possible way could they cause it?
>>16777967>What is subjective is not objectiveGreat point there buddy, truly groundbreaking, thanks for stating the obvious.All 'empirical' evidence is derived from subjectivity.
>>16777971>you need to prove brain activity doesn't create consciousness.Why do soientists not understand the burden of proof? YOU are making that claim it's YOU who needs to prove it's true.
>>16778168That poster is barely sentient but you're also missing the point. I witness this mental panorama not because it's my opinion, or my vague impression or my personal interpretation, but because it simply is. It defines what "is" even means. My personal witnessing of my personal mind is observer-dependent, but this post is expressing a more general truth that is observer-independent, unlike "emergent phenomena" that are literally, by definition, a matter of adopting a certain perspective.
>>16777536geg>>16777544>subjective immaterialthose are just words, nothing separates your mind from your body, from matter, they are one and the same, there's no gap between your mind and a rock or your mind and someone else's mind, they are all the same substance inhabiting the same world
>>16777531Don't mistake the abstract model for the real experience.Also don't mistake the the concept for not implying the subjective experience. It's not "just" chemicals. It's chemicals, and that's a whole lot.
>>16778188>expressing a more general truth that is observer-independentOk, i get that, but what is missing is the fact that there is nothing that is actually observer independent, at least to the extent that we know, or even possibly know, all empirical evidence or any evidence at all is always observer dependent and based solely on observation.
>>16778197But we have absolutely no idea what the "world" is like outside of our minds.Our mind presents an image, but it's only our best guess that it corresponds accurately to the outside world. It would make sense to say there's nothing separating you from that image, but you just can't say that the image and reality are one and the same.You perceptions don't reach into the world, they are reproductions.
>>16778188In fact, to get really meta, the only observer independent fact is that everything is observer dependent, there is nothing else that is observer independent.This is indeed a strange fact to witness about the world when you realize it but it is nevertheless true.
>>16778203What if the "world" was mind? All is mind. Matter is mind, this is an ancient lost philosophy that is being slowly rediscovered.
>>16778204That's not meta. The meta part is that you don't observe what you observe, you observe the observation.
>>16778201>there is nothing that is actually observer independent, at least to the extent that we know, or even possibly know, all empirical evidence or any evidence at all is always observer dependent and based solely on observation.I literally just gave you an example of something that is true for any observer that has a notion of truth. If it's inherently true for any relevant observer, it's not observer-dependent in any meaningful sense, only in the trivial sense that it depends on observers existing at all.
>>16778208The part of the world that you interact with and makes an impression of you does form a part of your mind as a reproduction.Besides that, what you're saying is (pardon my French) wacko asspull shit.
>>16778208>>16778212Alright let me try to rephrase my qualms a bit more politely. If you're making a dichotomy saying there's X and there's Y and X is that which is not Y, you can't walk back on it and regard "all is X" and "all is Y" as two distinct propositions, you're making the two notions the same and meaningless compared to the other.
>>16778197>nothing separates my mind from a rock"People" like this will readily admit to being objects like rocks but then a bunch of retards will still argue with them unironically instead of taking it at face value and realizing they're arguing with a biological chatbot.
>>16778211>I literally just gave you an example of something that is true for any observer that has a notion of truth.What? What was your example? You didn't give me one.>notion of truth.Is it a notion of truth or actually the truth, because if it's a notion i don't think we have the same definition of objective truth.>If it's inherently true for any relevant observer, it's not observer-dependent in any meaningful senseGive me a single example of this, you can't.>only in the trivial sense that it depends on observers existing at all.How on Earth is that trivial lol? Trivial? The very existence of observers is required to observe anything that is so called 'empirical', that is not trivial that is the entire foundation of all empirical evidence and yet us arrogant humans somehow completely overlook this and we wonder why things don't make sense.
>>16778209Honestly don't understand what you just said.
>>16778218>Alright let me try to rephrase my qualms a bit more politely. If you're making a dichotomy saying there's X and there's Y and X is that which is not Y, you can't walk back on it and regard "all is X" and "all is Y" as two distinct propositions, you're making the two notions the same and meaningless compared to the other.This is a really shallow gotcha. You can start from an incorrect dichotomy that helps you conceptualize something in terms of contrasts, then realize all the stuff you thought belongs in category B actually also belongs in category A. At that point it just boils down into a distinction that clarifies the qualities of what actually is, by contrasting against something that is conceivable but untrue.
>>16778227Lol. Another psychotic.
>>16778212>The part of the world that you interact with and makes an impression of you does form a part of your mind as a reproduction.Are you not part of the world?>wacko asspull shit.Wacko asshattery is wacko jackassery until it's proven right.>>16778218>you're making the two notions the same and meaningless compared to the other.Yes.>gigachad.jpgBut seriously i wouldn't draw a distinction between matter and mind, i would just say that matter doesn't exist and all is mind. What seems like matter is just another form of mind. It starts to make everything make sense. Why can i see you as conscious and you see me as conscious when we have no 'empirical' evidence of eachothers consciousness? Because all is mind. We sophisticated humans just tend to think of a rock as 'not mind' in our arrogance because they don't behave like we do or like any animal does.
>>16778236Are you serious? I just gave you a detailed explanation and you respond with ad-hominem because you disagree with me, you are a fool. You didn't even give me your example liar.
>>16778203>But we have absolutely no idea what the "world" is like outside of our minds.True>Our mind presents an image, but it's only our best guess that it corresponds accurately to the outside world. It would make sense to say there's nothing separating you from that image, but you just can't say that the image and reality are one and the same.True>You perceptions don't reach into the world, they are reproductions.Also trueWhat is your point though? We are part of the world but incapable of answering what it "is", we can create mathematical models that describe the behaviour of stuff but they still don't answer the question of what they actually are, whatever that means, but so what?People talk about consciousness like its some outwardly stuff, but if you consider something like panpsychism it just becomes another feature of the world like electromagnetism and gravity, the "consciousness" of a atom is just as real as the gravitational effects of a hydrogen atom from Andromeda on you>>16778220Not sure how any of this has anything to do with being a rock
>>16778238Completely serious. I believe you suffer from literal delusions and can't keep track of who wrote what in a short exchange.
>>16778241If you're serious i think you're the one who's mentally off, i have no idea what example it was you were supposed to have given me. Was it the mental panorama thing? Because i have no idea what thats supposed to mean. I don't know what "personal witnessing of a personal mind" is supposed to mean, i didn't respond to it because i think it's gibberish that would require clarification.You are still a fool.
>>16778240The problem with panpsychism as i understand it is that it says: there is an atom, and it has a property of consciousness. It's much easier to just say: The atom IS consciousness. The duality is unnecessary.
>bot argument
>>16778251If you're too retarded to comprehend even such a simple post, why did you reply to it with your 80 IQ idealism-for-dummies take? Either way, the basic truths about the mind are true for all observers, so your "everything is subjective besides my opinion" retardation is false.
>>16778240>We are part of the worldNo.This is why you don't understand. You keep talking about consciousness as the mysterious domain to be analysed, but it seems so obvious to you to take the world as just simply given and self-evident.The world is not the starting point to look inside from. The absolute base given fact for each individual is that there is consciousness and is should be realized that the notion of "the world" is actually mysterious, because "the world proper" would be something that we would be allowed to use any of our internal intuitions and mind-influenced perceptions, which makes the task impossible.What makes describing uncoscinousness so hopeless is not that it's hard to penetrate in (it would be hard, but we're already there), but it's impossible to break out and see the world for what it is, to then be able to observe from a stable spot and reach full circle and see ourselves externally.>>16778255Ususally it doesn't make much sense to say that if something has a property, it's that property. Would it make sense to say that since you can read, you're an instance of literacy?
>>16778270*we would not be allowed
>>16778267If you're too retarded to even further expand upon your retarded word vomit why even say it at all.>the basic truths about the mind are true for all observersI like how you don't say what they are, very nice.>so your "everything is subjective besides my opinion" retardation is false.I never said anything like that, you're just being stupid at this point.I think you're afraid that i'm advocating for nihilism and you don't want to be sucked in by the black hole of void so you're denying the obvious truth but this urge is making you act like a cunt.
>>16778270>The absolute base given fact for each individual is that there is consciousness and is should be realized that the notion of "the world" is actually mysterious, because "the world proper" would be something that we would be allowed to use any of our internal intuitions and mind-influenced perceptions, which makes the task impossible.Then you might as well stop using your intuitions to reason about consciousness because unless you're a mindless NPC, that's actually a sliver of this mysterious world. :^)
>>16778281>I like how you don't say what they areI did, though. But you're mentally ill, so you replied to that post with the words "I get it", then claimed you never read that post, then claimed you don't comprehend it, and now claim you're just too smart to understand it. lol>I never said anything like that>>16778204> the only observer independent fact is that everything is observer dependentDumb mongrel. Literally can't keep track of what you or anyone is saying, just like I've pointed out a few posts ago.
>>16778270>if something has a property, it's that property.I wouldn't say it has a property i would say they are the same thing, the atom is consciousness, it's made of consciousness, it's like saying light has a property of brightness, no, the light is brightness, there is no distinction between the brightness and the light, the brightness isn't even a property of light it is what light is.>Would it make sense to say that since you can read, you're an instance of literacy?I would be an instance of literacy though wouldn't i? Just not the thing itself.
>>16778293Alright then, you passed the test.
>>16778286>I did, though. I just won't clarify them.Whatever retard, if you don't want a good faith exchange of ideas to try to understand the others point of view just say so and we'll end this stupid nothingburger conversation.I never claimed i'm a supergenius or whatever retarded schizo shit you're waffling about. I'm starting to think you're actually psychotic.How is saying "the only observer independent fact is that everything is observer independent", the same as saying "everything is subjective besides my opinion", you're being retarded on purpose.>YOU MUST KEEP TRACK OF EVERYTHING YOU AND EVERYONE IS SAYING EVEN WHEN HAVING MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE I SAID SO NEEHEE!Ok nerd retard how about you just have a normal conversation.
>>16778299There was a test?
>>16778301>. I just won't clarify them.You're right. I won't. If you need help with basic reading comprehension, ask gemini or chatgpt or something. You will immediately discover that you're dumber than the average chat bot. >How is saying "the only observer independent fact is that everything is observer independent", the same as saying "everything is subjective besides my opinion"Because 'subjective' means observer-dependent, and you were expressing the opinion that everything is subjective, only to then turn around and make an exception for your opinion opinion, as that quote shows. Dumb American inbred mongrel. Barely human. Neck yourself.I actually take back that last paragraph. It's not "your" opinion. You don't have any opinions of your own. You are too dumb to have formed it yourself. You heard it in a 5 minute YT video.
>>16778293Panpsychism doesn't deny that though, you conflated it with dualism
>>16778309I mean, it's a kind of pluralism because it assumes that things have a separate essence or existence from their consciousness component, that the "thing" exists and it just has a property of consciousness, that is itself a dualism i think because it divides the thing from its properties and doesn't really explain why they're separate. I really don't see the need to distinguish them.
>>16778307>You're right. I won't.Then shut the fuck up cause you've lost the argument by default.>and you were expressing the opinion that everything is subjective>only to then turn around and make an exception for your opinion opinionI'll make it reaaaally simple for you. Go ahead. Try to give me an objective truth other than the fact that all that exists apart from this fact is based on subjectivity.You won't because you can't and you know it. You're coping and seething.>Muuuhhhh american muuuuuh youtubesOk midwit, come back when you have an interesting or coherent argument to make. So aggressive for no reason.
>>16778326What argument? You're literally retarded. Call me back when you master basic reading comprehension, then maybe you can make some kind of "argument". "I don't understand what I'm reading" is not an argument.>everything is subjective besides my opinion, prove me wrongA position so worthless doesn't even warrant doesn't warrant any kind of response, except that I preemptively proved you wrong without even intending to in that first post you claimed to understand, only to then admit you didn't. Ask chatgpt how it proves you wrong. I guarantee the mindless bot is more intelligent than you and will be able to spoonfeed you.
>>16778320No, there are like 400 types of panpsychism https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism
But it did come from nothingness. To exist at all, existence was required to rebel from the innate default of nothingness.>fucking retarded to say a bunch of chemical reactions between nerve cells can create consciousnessIt seems you do not appreciate the miracle of atoms. Little bits of unitized energy, singulated into their own self contained independent existences. could you truly be so blind to the magic of that? Haha. Of course mechanisms can manifest between such powerful starting instrumentation, inducing ever further manifestations of yet more advanced mechanisms and hierarchies. This eventually leads to the phenomena of data transference - the soul being the ultimate recording instrumentation, ascribing all your interactions with your companion atomic structures - a singularity devoted to you and only you, containing all that you are, always there ready to receive more that is you and your story and individual perspective on the rest of reality. A celestial SSD with nigh infinite storage capacity, always loyally encrypted to your perfectly unique identification. Here is your You.
>>16778336>What argument? You're literally retarded. Call me back when you master basic reading comprehension, then maybe you can make some kind of "argument". "I don't understand what I'm reading" is not an argument.None of that was an argument.>everything is subjective besides my opinion, prove me wrongIt's not my opinion it's an objective fact, the only objective fact there is is that everything is based on the subjectivity of observation apart from this fact. I've already asked you to argue against it and you haven't been able to. Let me rephrase it for you so you can understand this because it's pretty high level for you i guess, i'll rephrase it so maybe a midwit like you can understand it.If there is any truth that comes close to being objective, or is 'more objective' than any other fact because it holds more consistent than any other fact, it is the fact that all things apart from this fact are based on subjectivity, MORE than this fact, because they are subject more to subjectivity.You can say this is circular you can say this is whatever, but you know it's true, everyone knows it's true, there are some truths that are paradoxes, where they transcend logic, because not all things are based on logic.>j-just ask chatGPTMidwit, say something more interesting than an adhom or "i-it's circular" in a boringly tedious way, completely missing the point on purpose, give an actual argument that deals with my argument, or i won't bother wasting time explaining high level concepts to a conceited psychotic fool.If you just want to say "it's circular!" again, fine, but you've completely missed the point if you do that. I could be wrong, but don't just keep repeating your rebuttal that i addressed, destroy my argument.
>>16778364This is all to say, subjectivity is the only objective truth. This is the objective truth which all mysteries are based upon.
>>16778348My God man, this is why panpsychism is hard to grapple with, there should just be one general framework of panpsychism.>>16778362Darned platonists, with your forms and raves.
>>16777544Matter =/= nothingI think what you mean is that something immaterial, like consciousness, cannot emerge from matter. This assumes consciousness is non-material though. However, it is true there has yet to be an accept materialist explanation for consciousness.
>>16778255By predicating something about the atom, you're giving it a property. That is what properties are. Fucking retard.
>>16777544>Something cannot come from nothing.Nothing is something, though, so things necessarily come from it, you literally tried to change the subject of the thread to nothing since it is a thing that lives rent free in your consciousness.
>>16777916Matter is the stuff a conscious agent is consciously aware of, why would they be unrelated?
>>16777921>theres no chemicals prepared for when the baby animal learns to eat or stand up before it even knows what it looks like or is the same as the otherYes there is, like you said, even the sperm has chemicals to guide it.>nervousNerves are made of chemicals.
>>16777974Brains are the receivers that allow the rest of the nervous system to be conscious of the external environmental signals that the brain receives with its various sensory mechanisms.
>>16777980>that can be stated about cars as wellYou mean like how modern cars are connected to distant servers that enable their cloud computing and autonomous driving capabilities?
>>16777983>But your cult has never assembled anything that acts like a brain.They have assembled thousands of brains.>Nor has it established what that takes. When a mommy loves a daddy very much... you will never even touch a boob, so its pointless to explain biological processes to you again.
>>16777544>A subjective immaterial experience can't come from matter.How come an immaterial force like gravity can come from matter then?
>>16778364Not reading any of this mentally ill drivel. Sorry. Come back when you're at least functionally literate.
>>16777531We are soul, spirit and body. Not just body.
>>16777531Stop thinking with a carnal, materialist mindset.
>>16778669>How come an immaterial force like gravity can come from matter then?I like how all matertrannies inevitably demonstrate their inability to separate reality from abstractions. "Forces" don't exist.
>>16778091he is talking about the plastic fish retard
>>16777531https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
>>16778779https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life
>>16778779https://en.m.wikishills.org/wiki/Different_Between_Objective_Reality_And_Subjective_Abstractions
>>16778374>This assumes consciousness is non-material thoughBut it's obviously not material lol. The neurons inside your brain are material, but everything you feel is immaterial.
>>16779727I'm convinced anons who don't get this are NPCs with no subjective experience.
>>16778716Are soul and spirit both immaterial? What distinguishes them?
>>16777531no, you don't understand. neuroscience doesn't claim to know how consciousness comes into existence. all they know is that it's located in the brain. again, they don't know how or why. if someone purporting to be a neuroscientist told you otherwise then they are an idiot
>>16779801OP's not pointing the finger at neuroscientists, he's talking about people who hold the position that everything can be reduced to matter
>>16777531on that note, perhaps the most horrifying scientific discovery would be that we, are in fact, as you put it, automatons and that there is nothing else special about consciousness. but this begs the question, why am I in this body but not some other one. why do I see through these eyes, why did the universe choose this specific place for me. it really doesn't feel like we are automatons as all, but the truth is stranger than fiction is a saying that holds for a very large portion of scientific phenomena
>>16779805yes he is, that's exactly what neuroscientists do. dumb ass. they aren't fucking magical thinking wizards like you
>>16779817neuroscience is about how the brain works on the scientific and material level, anyone making claims about the nature of consciousness is engaging in pure philosophy and not science. you would know this if you weren't retarded
>>16779801>all they know is that it's located in the brain>located in the brainOnly a broken LLM can come up with this incoherent phrase. Truly nigger-tier world modeling.
>>16778729The models describing their behavior may be abstract and imperfect, but we observe that forces do in fact exist. You seem confused.
>>16779926>we observe that forces do in fact existReally? Explain your favorite method for observing "forces". Utter retard.Public "education" should be banned and sub-130-IQs should be illiterates.
>>16778786I don't even need to click your link to seduce it's bs
>>16779938At least you don't try to hide your inability to conceive of a difference between reality and abstractions. There really is none for a bio-LLM.
>>16779727>it's obviously not materiaThen how come 100% of its traits are material? Explain why consciousness experiences the passage of time, something which can only happen to mass-bearing objects which move below c. Explain why consciousness has a spatial boundary just like one would expect from fermionic matter due to the Pauli exclusion principle. Explain why corpus callosotomies cause two parallel consciousnesses to coexist in separate cerebral hemispheres.
>>16779974>consciousness experiences the passage of time>consciousness has a spatial boundary>corpus callosotomies cause two parallel consciousnesses to coexist Your post is word salad. None of its statements have properly defined semantics.
>>16779974None of what you said is actually valid, but I'll focus on just one thing: time doesn't exist. It's a human abstraction. Things change constantly, but there's no time per se to be experienced, time is abstracted from the experience of the changing of things.
>>16779979Do you observe change, consciously? Then explain how you do that without your consciousness being the product of mass-bearing matter, given that only objects that possess mass can have a valid rest frame in time.Do you have a sense of self and not-self? Do you observe external causes acting upon your senses, causes which you do not feel your consciousness being "inside" of? Then explain how that's possible without consciousness being kept spatially localized as we would expect given that it's produced by a brain made of discrete fermionic matter whose structure is only made possible by the probability of half-integer spin systems occupying the same state being zero AKA your conscious mind isn't literally leaking into other objects and shit.Do you have an explanation for how corpus callosotomies observably produce two separate conscious process nodes within the separate brain hemispheres?>>16779980>None of what you said is actually validNice non-answer.>time doesn't exist>Things changeCool self-contradiction. A change in state is only possible by using time as a coordinate. Without mass, you can't be subjected to any kind of measurable transformation because you have no valid rest frame. Explain how consciousness can physically have a frame of reference to anything within spacetime without bearing mass instead of being unable to distinguish between now and then if it functioned like EM radation.
>>16779980>time is abstracted from the experience of the changing of thingsThat experience is what he refers to as "the passage of time", so what you said does nothing to refute him. His core mistake is that he thinks if the "contents" of consciousness are changing then consciousness itself is changing, which is a total nonsequitur.
>>16779984What's your distinction between the contents and conscious processes in themselves, in this context?
>>16779982>Then explain how ... I don't need to explain anything whatsoever. You need to explain your word salad. What does it mean to say that consciousness "experiences the passage of time" in the specific context of your analogy to matter? What does it mean to say it has "spatial boundaries"? How can you attribute such things to consciousness?
>>16779985> conscious processes in themselvesThis is yet more word salad. You are literally incapable of forming meaningful sentences.
Absolute lol at the pigshit dualists having mental breakdowns itt. Every one of you is a subhuman.
>>16779986>What does it mean to say that consciousness "experiences the passage of time"Experiencing any change whatsoever requires the observer to possess mass and therefore be limited to subliminal speeds in order to have a valid rest frame.>What does it mean to say it has "spatial boundaries"Unless you're a proponent of solipsism, you think that things other than your consciousness exist in the world, which means space between it and them.
>>16779991>Experiencing any change whatsoever requires the observer to possess massThis is a new nonsense claim but you didn't actually answer my question. Try again.>Unless you're a proponent of solipsism, Ok, I can see you're in a state of full-blown psychosis, shitting out one incoherent "response" after another. Explains the schizophasia.
consciousness is really difficult to test and learn about because it is illegal to test and experiment on the only creature we know that can directly communicate about its consciousness.
>>16779992Do you think change exists? Do you consciously observe it? If you don't think your conscious processes are a property of mass-bearing matter, then what is the mechanism which enables it to do so, given how it's mathematically impossible to set a valid rest frame for a massless object such as a photon?
>>16779998You're talking to a subhuman Christian. They don't have minds, they're NPCs
>>16779998>Do you think change exists?What does it mean for change to "exist"? Why do you keep adding word salad claims on top of your earlier ones instead of explaining them?
>>16780001>What does it mean for change to "exist"?Do you personally observe change? In anything? Objects being in one state then, and in another state now? If so, how can you possibly do that without having a valid rest frame?
>>16780005>Do you personally observe change?Yep.> Objects being in one state then, and in another state now?Nope, that's not something I "observe". Those are abstract notions that I read into what I observe. I know this mental model isn't actual reality. I even know modern physics undermines such a notion. What's your next cope?
>>16779982>>16779980The short answer is that you're entirely operating on a very false understanding. All of these concepts of "spacetime" and "coordinates" are entities that are formed in your consciousness, not vice versa, and you can't validly define them ontologically without acknowledging that in the form that you can understand or concieve them they are contingent on a conscious mind.You're the victim of what is called the Law of The Instrument, or "the golden hammer" which says "it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." , and since you're well versed in the description of phenomena in terms of Physics, you over-extend the comfortable implicit working assumptions of Physics, among which the worst is that the map is the same as the territory.But the map is not the same as the territory, so as long as you can't understand that >time doesn't exist>Things changeare true at the same time, you're just helplessly confused and not ready for a productive discussion.
>>16780007Wrong. He's operating at the level of stringing tokens in a way that roughly follows memorized linguistic patterns from pop-sci videos.
>>16777531>It's fucking retarded to say a bunch of chemical reactions between nerve cells can create consciousnessNo, it isn't. What's actually retarded is claiming the brain is a "receiver" of some sort of dualistic consciousness field, which is the standard belief for low IQ NPCs.
>>16780010Hehe, well, that might be true, he seems to be at that stage, but he's certainly been primed to be more accepting towards that general worldview.
>>16780012>What's actually retarded is claiming the brain is a "receiver" of some sort of dualistic consciousness fieldI don't see that mentioned in OP or anywhere ITT. Are you psychotic by any chance?
>>16780017Then you're blind, retarded, or a liar.>>16777974
>>16780023Pretty funny how you had to scan all 183 posts ITT post facto to find something that only roughly matches your hallucinations, which were addressed to a different poster who never mentioned or implied whatever it was the voices whispered to you.
>>16780024None of this happened. It seems the correct answer is that you're retarded as well as psychotic.You don't have a soul, buddy. Now post some more malding NPC cope while you call other people psychotic, despite being a low IQ NPC.
>>16780026>hallucinates some more nonsense about soulsMeds ASAP. You're literally mentally ill and respond incoherently.
>>16780030You're having another low IQ NPC mental breakdown.The statement that the brain is not equivalent to consciousness is equivalent to an assertion of substance pluralism. Under any monist ontology, the brain is equivalent to the mind and the mind is equivalent to the brain by the simple fact that everything is the one substance and reduces to it. It doesn't matter if you call it "materialism" or "idealism". Thus any claim against a monist and reductionist theory of mind is necessarily pluralist. However, all forms of ontological pluralism have been refuted and monism is necessarily true and thus mind = brain is true.Now you will post more low IQ cope about how my sentences have no semantic content, despite every word being completely coherent and understandable, and you mald and asset that I'm psychotic, despite the fact that I'm both completely sane as well as more intelligent than you. Chop chop!
>>16780045Are the veins in the brain part of the mind?
>>16780045>The statement that the brain is not equivalent to consciousness is equivalent to an assertion of substance pluralism.Proof?
>>16780047
>>16780047I JUST proved it in the post you're replying to.>>16780051This has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
>>16780053>I JUST proved it in the post you're replying to.Quote your "proof", then. Notice your blood pressure rising as you realize you hallucinated that "proof", and all your post contains is various restatements of your trivially false premise.
>>16780054Again, you're hallucinating and having a psychotic breakdown.>Under any monist ontology, the brain is equivalent to the mind and the mind is equivalent to the brain by the simple fact that everything is the one substance and reduces to it. It doesn't matter if you call it "materialism" or "idealism". Thus any claim against a monist and reductionist theory of mind is necessarily pluralist
>>16780056>Under any monist ontology, the brain is equivalent to the mind and the mind is equivalent to the brain by the simple fact that everything is the one substance and reduces to itThis is a restatement of your trivially false statement.>Thus any claim against a monist and reductionist theory of mind is necessarily pluralist>monist and reductionistThis is a blatant non-sequitur. Where did "reductionist" come from?
>>16780057>arguing with complete retardsyou aid and abet
>>16780057If A = C and B = C, A = B.>>16780059You're substantially less intelligent than I am.
>>16780062>If A = C and B = C, A = B.Now explain how this maps onto this discussion without simply repeating your trivially false premise. lol
>>16780064I already have.You denying this is not an actual counter argument, and is not me "asserting a trivially false statement".You are profoundly mentally ill and unintelligent
>>16780067>I already haveAnother psychotic delusion. Name the A, B and C in your next post. You won't.
>>16780070A is the brainC is the mindB is the monist substance
>>16780059>you aid and abetI like prompting biobots to see them break. It's called "experimentation".
>>16780073>more psychotic delusionsYou're malding.
>>16780072>A is the brain>C is the mind>A = C>brain = mindBut that's precisely your initial premise, not a proof of it. Lol. Try again.
>>16780075You're again showing you are profoundly retarded.My premise was that under ANY form of ontological monism, the brain and mind are equivalent as I've shown. Thus any claim that the brain and mind aren't equivalent is necessarily pluralism, usually dualism.You are asserting pluralism in any position where you claim the brain and mind are not equivalent. You're having a mental breakdown by me pointing this out.
>If brain is mind and mind is the monist substance, brain is the monist substancethe absolute state of this board
>>16780078Not an argument, buddy.
>>16780077>A=C>brain = mindThis is a premise, but you want it to be the conclusion. Try again, retard.
>>16780080The premise is that if monism is true then everything else follows,which is exactly what I've said multiple times now. If you disagree that mind = brain you're asserting non-monism. You are asserting pluralism like an NPC and denying it like a genuine retard. If you want to assert pluralism then do it.
>>16780081>if monism is true then everything else followsYou must have forgotten what your "argument" was:>A is the brain>C is the mind>B is the monist substance>If A = C and B = C, A = B.I.e. the premises here are:>mind equals brain (what you actually want to prove)>brain equals monist substance (incoherent schizobabble)Notice how "monism is true" is not even among those premises. Legit broken biobot.
>>16780085Brain = substanceMind = substanceThus brain = mind.You're so stupid you can even handle basic bitch equivalence relations.Notice also that my position is that monism being true implies this, and thus any assertion that the mind and brain are not equal is an assertion against monism via modus tollens. Which, again, is my entire point. You're profoundly moronic and mentally ill.
>>16780086>if monism is true then everything else followsYou must have forgotten what your "argument" was:>A is the brain>C is the mind>B is the monist substance>If A = C and B = C, A = B.I.e. the premises here are:>mind equals brain (what you actually want to prove)>brain equals monist substance (incoherent schizobabble)Here's what you actually need>premise: monist is true>... argument>conclusion: brain equals mindNow try again, because your attempt to exploit transitivity doesn't even have the right form. I like how you're too dumb even for basic pattern-matching. :^)
>>16780090I see the confusion, I mislabeled the variables by accident Now try to actually address my argument rather than squabbling over the syntactic mistake like an NPC.And yes, my argument does indeed have the correct form. You're profoundly unintelligent.
>>16780092>I mislabeled the variables by accidentLOL. Ok, label them correctly, so that your argument at least has the correct form such that the premise is "monism is true" and the conclusion is "brain equals mind". Go ahead, retard. If you fail to do so, you've regressed back to the entire "monist, therefore brain equals mind" statement being a premise for a circular argument rather than a justified conclusion. :^)
>>16780094I've already done this multiple times. I gave the exact argument you're demanding in the earlier post.There's nothing circular about it. All forms of monism necessarily imply that brain = mind. Thus if brain =/= mind, monism is false via modus tollens. So any claim that brain =/= mind is an assertion of pluralism. This is not circular.If you want to assert pluralism and souls and shit like a literal NPC, go ahead.
>>16780098>All forms of monism necessarily imply that brain = mind.Proof?
>>16780101If monism is true, the monist substance is causally closed. There is no second realm of things over and above the base. Thus mental states causing brain behavior or brain behavior causing mental states are equivalent. If you claim otherwise, then you're asserting the existence of causality other than the substance i.e. some form of pluralism.
>>16780045>Under any monist ontology"If monism is true...">the brain is equivalent to the mind and the mind is equivalent to the brain "... then brain is equal to mind." As it stands, this is a nonsequitur.>by the simple fact thatThis implies some justification is coming...>everything is the one substance and reduces to it... but what follows is only an assertion of reductionist monism. So far, your "argument" consists of made two unproven claims and two nonsequiturs.
>>16780111>If monism is true, the monist substance is causally closed.This is meaningless word salad.>There is no second realm of things over and above the baseLet's say this is true.>Thus mental states causing brain behavior or brain behavior causing mental states are equivalent. This doesn't follow logically. It's only a reassertion of your initial, trivially false claim. Try again.
>>16780113My entire point is that any assertion that the brain =/= mind is an assertion against monism. If you want to assert pluralism just do it. Stop dancing around the fact.>>16780115>This is meaningless word salad.No, it isn't. This is what monism *is*. Now you have your mental breakdown where you pretend perfectly coherent semantics are "meaningless" because you can't actually respond to the premise.
>>16780119I'm not seeing any point in that post. Only the dubious assertions and nonsequiturs I just covered.
>>16780120>I'm not seeing any point in that postThen you're blind or retarded
Proof to me that consciousness is real and not just a abstract concept.Maybe you are just a brain in a jar and "reality" is just a movie others put in your brain.
>>16780119>This is what monism *is*Substance monism asserts everything derives from one substance. It says nothing about causality at all. That's ignoring the fact that your sentence is full of category errors.
>>16780128Everything deriving from one substance includes causality. If there's a causal force other than the substance, that's a form of dualism.
>>16780134>Everything deriving from one substance includes causality.This is just more word salad but the point still stands: substance monism says nothing about causality, and it certainly doesn't claim that the substance is caused by itself, which is the most charitable interpretation of your original word salad.You are literally a token-stringing biobot struggling to respond to an out of distribution prompt. Nothing you shart out means anything. Also I accept your concession wrt. your initial "argument" being nothing more than a retarded assertion, and your transitivity "backup" being even more embarrassing (you were very quick to drop that one, kek).
>>16780138You are again having a profound mental hallucination and psychotic breakdown while not saying anything of substance.Not a single thing I've said is word salad nor am I asserting any non sequitur. You are resorting to claiming semantic incoherence, which is your NPC bot programmed response when you're completely refuted. Nothing I've written is semantically incoherent, not have I dropped any of my claims.You're profoundly mentally ill as well as retarded.
@16780143>incoherent meltdownFull concession accepted. Call me back when you can show how substance monism logically implies "brain=mind". You can't because it doesn't.But for now I'll do you a solid and help you avoid writing retarded word salad next time: you can claim that a system is "causally closed" if you're looking for a pseud way to say "no external causes". Claiming that a substance is "causally closed" is either a category error or just the incoherent statement that the substance somehow caused itself.The closest sane argument to your stream of schizobabble would maybe look something like this:If monism is true and reductionism is also true, then mind and brain reduce to the same substance. Technically also a nonsequitur, but very easy to make the formal argument. But this doesn't help you, because it doesn't prove "brain=mind".A more elaborate but contentious option is:If monism is true...And reductionism is true...And causality is true...And the universe is "causally closed"...Then the mind is caused by interactions between the universe's atomic elements.But again, this is also not equivalent to "brain=mind".Adding even more assumptions into the mix, you might say:If monism is true...And reductionism is true...And causality is true...And the universe is "causally closed"...And the only atomic elements directly responsible for the mind are those that compose the brain...Then the brain CAUSES consciousness.Which is still not equivalent to "brain=mind".
@16780143Finally, you can just make Dennett's argument, which is what utter retards like you are ultimately referencing, but that includes way too many assumptions to even list here. The key one relates to scientific methodology, rather than anything empiricism or ontology and simply asserts that if it's inherently impossible to show that A "causes" B, but it's empirically established that A correlates to B, then science should stop looking for a causal relationship and treat A and B as different "perspectives" on the same physical phenomenon. You can righly question this, but it's lightyears ahead of the 70 IQ nigger drivel you've been spouting and essentially unrelated to your "arguments".No more (You)s for you, niggermonkey. It's been fun intellectually sodomizing you a bit, but you're so far below me that this really isn't progressing anywhere.
>>16780163>>16780164>more absolute psychotic mental breakdownsYou just wrote the same thing that I already wrote while pretending that I didn't already write it, then assert the claims are category errors (they're not) or non sequiturs (they're not). You then assert dualism by directly stating that the substance being eternal and self caused is "incoherent" when it absolutely is not. You've just indirectly admitted that you're a coping dialist theist cuck, which is what I correctly pointed out previously.Continue being mentally ill and retarded, monkey.
>>16780163>>16780164A for effort, F for thinking this is gonna help intellectually challenged posters see their mistakes. a good reference for others, though
>>16780182>another low IQ faggot passive aggressively seething despite losing the argumentYou are profoundly low IQ
@16780175>You then assert dualism by directly stating that the substance being eternal and self caused is "incoherent" when it absolutely is not.Literally hallucinates:- A statement he didn't- A statement I didn't make- That this word salad somehow related to dualism
>>16780184Again, you're forced to blatantly lie.>>16780163>Claiming that a substance is "causally closed" is either a category error or just the incoherent statement that the substance somehow caused itself.You directly states this. If the substance is not eternal or self caused, then what caused it is a form of pluralism.You are so profoundly psychotic and retarded that you'll just lie about the things you just wrote.
@16780187>mentally ill monkey doesn't understand that claiming something caused itself implies the thing precedes itself>mentally ill monkey doesn't understand that "X caused itself" is logically incompatible with the statement "X is eternal">mentally ill monkey fails to notice that the quote it provides says nothing about anything being "eternal"
>>16780189Holy shit, just stop. You beat a lame horse into a paste and you just keep going.
>>16780189You are so profoundly stupid and psychotic that you can't even understand what "or" meansI never said that the substance is eternal AND caused itself, retard. There is nothing incoherent about it being eternal and casually closed (or there being no external cause to it). This is just sad at this point. >>16780192You're even less intelligent than that dumb faggot. Neither of you can understand basic implications.
@16780194>I never said that the substance is eternal AND caused itself@16780175> You then assert dualism by directly stating that the substance being eternal and self caused is "incoherent" when it absolutely is not.>the substance being eternal and self caused>andYep, the biobot is completely broken. It's a death spiral.
>>16780200>>16780187>If the substance is not eternal or self caused, then what caused it is a form of pluralism.>or, not andComplete mental breakdown. You are psychotic and profoundly mentally retarded. "Bio bot" also does not mean anything. You are, again, asserting pluralism while for some reason just pretending you arent.What causes such profound mental illness that you won't even own the claim your making?
>>16780203He really did mindbreak you. Get a break.
>>16780207>more psychotic hallucinations Neither of you have said a single thing to refute anything I've said. It comes down to you simply asserting that I'm making category errors, when I'm not, and asserting pluralistic claims while just stating that you aren't.You're mentally ill liars.
>>16780211He literally quoted your own post that clearly says "and". There's no way out of that but you're still trying. That's called being mindbroken, anon, you poor thing.
>>16780215So switch it out to "or" like in the other post and actually respond to the argument. You low IQ morons have a terrible habit of not addressing the points. Claiming category errors when there is no category error is not an argument
@16780203>mentally ill monkey backpedals>thinks no one would notice>people still notice
>>16780220>psychotic monkey claims I'm backpacking when I'm notWhy do you think I wrote "or" at all if I meant "and"?Respond to the actual point. There is nothing incoherent about an eternal monism that has no external causal force acting on it. And any position that the brain isn't the mind is an assertion of pluralismWhy are you such a coward that you can't even admit you're arguing for a pluralistic ontology?
@16780223>I wrote "or"@16780175> You then assert dualism by directly stating that the substance being eternal and self caused is "incoherent" when it absolutely is not.>the substance being eternal and self caused>and>inb4 he once again links to the post where i forced him to backpedal on what he wrote
>refuses to engage the point againI didn't write "or" as a backpedal. I never meant "and". The post here >>16780187 was not a "forces backpedal".Engage the actual point or I'll accept your concession.
>mentally ill monkey gets conclusively BTFO:>>16780163>>16780164>mentally ill monkey starts hallucinating that he didn't write things he clearly did:@16780194>I never said that the substance is eternal AND caused itself@16780175> You then assert dualism by directly stating that the substance being eternal and self caused is "incoherent" when it absolutely is not.>the substance being eternal and self caused>and
>>16780007>All of these concepts of "spacetime" and "coordinates" are entities that are formed in your consciousnessThis does literally nothing to prove that consciousness isn't physical. It only evades the observable facts that consciousness only possesses traits that work in physical terms.>but you only know about physics through your consciousnessYes, and? Literally who gives a shit?
>>16780239I accept your concession
>>16777531Dualism is a mental illnessIdealism is a mental illnessSolipsism is a mental illnessPanpsychism is a mental illnessPlatonism is a mental illnessThank you for your attention to this matter!
>>16780244>This does literally nothing to prove that consciousness isn't physical.If you accept his statement, you concede that you're trying to explain the mind in terms of mind-stuff whose substance (if any) has mind-like qualities, even if it's trying to describe some inherently unverifiable "material" stuff.
>>16780249>explain the mind in terms of mind-stuffThat conscious processes are limited to dealing in abstractions (what I assume is "mind stuff") does not make abstractions ontologically distinct in the sense that they exist in some spooky "elsewhere" beyond physical reality; they're merely a form of encoding information. All of this sounds like a red herring to avoid addressing the stinging point: why are ALL traits of consciousness that can be meaningfully described entirely physical? All I get is wishy-washy semantic rodeos about the meaning of the term "time" while ignoring the glaring fact that no dualist conception of consciousness has ever explained how a thing that supposedly isn't a property of an object bearing physical mass is able to have a valid rest frame.
>>16780256>That conscious processes are limited to dealing in abstractions (what I assume is "mind stuff") does not make abstractions ontologically distinctOntologically distinct from what? :^)
>>16780258From anything, because, as the other shitstorm going on ITT points out, to pretend that conscious processes are separate in nature from whatever it is that you want - spacetime, matter, forces, what have you - is to assert dualism.
@16780260>is to assert dualism.This subhuman inbred again. lol
>>16780260>to pretend conscious processes aren't the result of phlogiston, ether and protoplasmic alchemy, is to assert dualism!!!
It should be legal to shoot dualists in the head since their consciousness has nothing to do with their brain
>>16780256They aren't meaningfully described physically. Propositions have a truth value, does a waterfall have a truth value?
>i want to murder people because they don't agree with me that consciousness is made from phlogiston particles, which means they're dualists
Aww the poor dualist is afraid of the materialistic bullets uwu :((
>>16780277Kek. Nailed it. This post will receive no reply.
>>16780286Sorry, meant to quote >>16780280
>>16780288You got owned by >>16780277 and chose to make your helpless seething even clearer.
Materialists are slaves, one and all.
>>16780290You seem to be having some sort of concussion. Try getting some help ;^)
>>16780293"Materialism" isn't even a thing at this point in science. It's strictly confined to a small gaggle of internet retards who never progressed beyond bare-bones 19th century science.
>>16780297>"Materialism"Sorry, I meant to say *"Idealism"
>mentally ill niggermonkey spends 100 posts calling people dualists for no reason>gets BTFO so hard he switches to calling people idealists for no reason
>>16780277>phlogiston, ether and protoplasmic alchemyAll have been refuted thougheverbeit. Meaningless post.>>16780281>Propositions have a truth value, does a waterfall have a truth value?Propositions are a form of information to which we ascribe characteristics such as truth values. Use a waterfall to encode information and bam, it becomes something which can express truth values. Do the pixels which comprise the things you call "words" used to convey propositions have truth values? Or are we using them to conveniently communicate these ideas?
>>16780302>All have been refuted thougheverbeitAnd if they hadn't been refuted, would that "argument" have been any more logical? nu-/sci/ isn't capable of abstract thought.
>Saying consciousness arises from the brain is just like saying the ether exists because... it just fucking is okay???!!!Philosotard mental illness on full display
>>16780302>tries to refute someone who confuses abstractions for reality>immediately proceed to make the exact same mistake from the other directionReading imaginary things into a waterfall doesn't make fantasies like "information" real.
>>16780305Whom are you quoting there? Your meds are wearing out. Go take another dose.
>>16780308Since you got so triggered, it must be you who I'm quoting ;^)
>>16780304>if they hadn't been refuted, would that "argument" have been any more logical?Those theories made testable predictions. The very fact that they have been refuted means that they were, in fact, good science, because they put themselves to the test, unlike dodgy dualism which is forever digging into explanatory gaps and dancing around "what ifs" while refusing to take risks and make claims that can be tested.>>16780307>Reading imaginary things into a waterfall doesn't make fantasies like "information" real.A fantasy is representation, and representation is real. Abstracting is merely the act of adding representative layers such as with the OSI model, for example.
>>16780311Since you've clearly misread the question, or hallucinated a different question that wasn't in my post, let me repeat: if they hadn't been refuted, would that "argument" have been any more logical?>A fantasy is representation, and representation is real. Abstracting is merely the act of adding representative layers such as with the OSI model, for example.This is psychotic word salad.
>>16780313>if they hadn't been refuted, would that "argument" have been any more logical?This question is literally "If we didn't know that something we now know is wrong was wrong, would it be wrong?"It sneaks in the assumption that, because people at the time didn't know they were wrong, we must disregard our present knowledge. Except our present knowledge also makes testable predictions, and those hold up.Now please answer this: will a single dualist make a single goddamn testable prediction at any point between now and the heat death of the universe?
>>16780316>This question is literally "If we didn't know that something we now know is wrong was wrong, would it be wrong?"It's not a question about what "we know" at all, retard. Try again.
>>16780319"Consciousness is caused by the phlogiston" is a superior view to any dualist claim of consciousness because it can be proven wrong. Dualist views aren't even wrong because they're not in the game to begin with. They produce a grand total of zero testable predictions.
>>16780321Notice how your psychotic illness is causing you to argue against some imaginary dualist boogeymen instead of answering the question I asked you. This is the 3rd time you fail. Try again?
>>16780323Special pleading, you're also arguing against a phlogiston bogeyman. Who incidentally posits a more cohesive view than any non-physicalist view of consciousness, even though he is a strawman who is definitionally wrong.
>>16780326Not even a coherent reply. 4th time in a row. I accept your concession.>>16780321>They produce a grand total of zero testable predictions.By the way, this is irrefutably true about materialism.
>>16780326Don't even bother arguing against these idealist/dualist retards. They're more mentally ill than flat earthers.
>those ideliast dualist posmodernists neo marxists!>obvious samefagging
>>16780327>materialismNo one believes in materialism. "Matter" doesn't exist, it's an emergent property of interactions between fundamental forces. There is no universe comprised of tiny billiard balls bouncing off of each other. And yet for some reason only consciousness gets its mystical "hard problem" while no one treats matter as magical and non-reducible to physical properties.
>>16780332>No one believes in materialism. "Matter" doesn't existVery good.>it's an emergent propertyEven better, because you're making my case for me that "emergence" wank isn't real, either, by equating it to something you assert as nonexistent.
>>16780331>posmodernists neo marxistsPostmodernism explicitly rejects materialism and narrative historiography, which are essential parts of Marxism. Therefore, a postmodern Marxist cannot exist. Rejecting physicalism, however, does make one a dualist by definition.
>>16780332Wrong. Materialism is completely well-defined. It's just the ontology of modern particle physics. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's a mystery.
>>16780337>Rejecting physicalism, however, does make one a dualist by definition.You have a severe mental illness, as you will show by failing to provide any such definition except the one the voices in your head whispered.
>>16780334>"emergence" wank isn't real, either, by equating it to something you assert as nonexistent.No? It means that it's not fundamental; when you break up what appears to be "matter" down into its constituent fundamental components, you find that it's not made up of "smaller objects", and that objects themselves are an illusion that arises out of the law of large numbers from fundamentally uncertain probability distributions. As you can see, there is a complete description here of both the emergent phenomenon and its more fundamental, low-level constituent parts. Something which you will never see being produced by dualists before you die of old age.>>16780339>consciousness cannot be reduced to its physical componentsThis is non-physicalism. It postulates that consciousness is *something else*. Which carries the baggage of dualism.
>>16780338In that sense, "materialism" is just an archaic name for physicalism.
>>16780341>X doesn't exist>X is YTherefore Y doesn't exist. Now substitute with the relevant terms in your own post. Next!>links to my post>provides a fake quote that isn't in the post>repeats his mentally ill assertion instead of providing this "definition" he alluded to and was asked to provideThere is no such definition. It was just the voices whispering again, like I said. How many hundreds more posts will you churn out repeating the same 3 psychotic behaviors?
>>16780342They are equivalent terms. Anyway, you are forgetting that particles are fundamental in modern physics. So it really is tiny billiard balls bouncing off each other.
>>16780346>it really is tiny billiard balls bouncing off each otherOnly if you're really willing to undergo the Herculean effort required by Bohmian mechanics to treat particles as corpuscles. Most prefer to just accept wave-particle duality.
>>16780344>X doesn't exist at the base levelFixed.>There is no such definitionIt's merely the logical conclusion of pretending that conscious processes are not physical. Make that assertion, and you now carry the baggage of dualism.
>>16780353>X doesn't exist at the base levelGood thing you "fixed" your own post (i.e backpedaled) but this is just more word salad. Something either exists or it doesn't. There is no such concept as not existing "at base level" but somehow still existing. Even the braindead emergence wank you reference doesn't assert such a thing.>It's merely the logical conclusion You said it was a definition. Now you concede there is no definition, only your psychotic delusion.
>>16780350You don't need bohmian mechanics. Particles are well-defined even without it.
>>16780305True scientists are also philosophers. Separating the two was a mistake.
>>16780374>Separating the two was a mistake.It's not so much that they got separated as it is that the public spotlight has been taken by the """peer-review""" publication mill with its """expert""" culture and so-called scientific institutions have been hollowed out. Science as such is practiced only by the rare individuals who see past this anti-scientific culture but still manage to navigate its institutional politics.
>>16780374No, philosophy is antiquated and a waste of time. It's just the opinions of ignorant, dead morons.
>>16780386Delusional philosotard schizophrenia on full display.
>>16780395How many clotshots did you get? You won't answer this and it's not hard to deduce why. :^)
>>16780396Lmao, the retarded philosotard idealist is also against vaccines. I don't even need to do anything to make you embarrass yourself.
>as predicted, he didn't answerImagine arguing with these clotted subhumans...
>>16780316Predictions are not the boundary of knowledge retard. Predictions don't even prove hypothesis, nor models. They certainly don't necessitate higher standards of justifiable truth.
>>16780438Nuh uh. If you refuse to reify Current Year's abstractions and fail to treat them as fundamental causes (rather than products of the mind), you should literally be shot in the head with materialist bullets for being a filthy idealist dualist! And you must commit to this reification fallacy at least until the next edition of Science (tm) arrives. At which point the older variation of anon's sophisticated logical argument becomes invalid (suddenly, the old model must be seen as just a mind product) but that's ok, because a fashionable adjustment of the same failed argument will now tell you a new and irrefutable truth about the very foundation of all reality :^)
>>16778786>Subjective_AbstractionsYou would be surprised by the number of retards who think emergence is a thing https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/
>>16777531>>16777544Something cannot come from nothing, therefore consciousness comes from something (such as chemical reactions between neurons) and free will cannot possibly exist. You're welcome.I don't know what you read that ever convinced you otherwise, probably something about how "the spirit is from God" in the same sense that a bush growing from a seed covered in cow dung is "willed by God" (the omnipotent omniscient prime mover), but you need to work on your reading comprehension and actually follow the logical arguments of theologians instead of latching onto some sentence your half-literate ass thought it understood.
>>16780450>>16780438It must suck being a philosotard, on top of not having a job you also have to be constantly envious of and seething with hatred at the success of science.
>>16780474>You would be surprised by the number of retards who think emergence is a thingNot surprised at all. It's really just another form of Naive Realism - the default for children the ignorant.
>>16777531>consciousnessYou have yet to define consciousness.What EXACTLY, in engineering terms, do you mean?
>>16780513Why does he need to define it? And why does he need to do it "in engineering terms"?
>>16780513It's non-definable.
>>16780520It's "definable" but only in the same way the other base notions that everything else is based on are "defined". Whenever a retard asks you to "define" what consciousness "is", you should ask them to define what "is" is, first.
>>16780524And it should be noted that the very fact that this is so, strongly suggests that mind is more fundamental than the poorly defined "stuff" current iteration of physics deals with.
>>16780438>Predictions are not the boundary of knowledge retardRetroactively refuted by Popper.>Predictions don't even prove hypothesis, nor models.They prove them wrong or not-wrong (which isn't necessarily right, just not wrong in this context), which is the highest possible standard of proof.>fundamental causes (rather than products of the mind)Do you wish to use this as a stance to argue for solipsism? Because if not, you must either agree that the mind is physical and part of a greater whole, or subscribe to dualism and therefore not have a conceivable working model of mind. This is a model with a testable prediction btw: it can be proven wrong by a single dualist making a single testable prediction.
>>16780575>refuted by PopperFound the pop-sci kiddie. Imagine thinking Popper is relevant. >They prove them wrong or not-wrong (which isn't necessarily right, just not wrong in this context), which is the highest possible standard of proof.The highest possible standard of proof is logical proof, imbecile. Incidentally, it's the only one that establishes the truth of a proposition.
>>16780575>you must either agree that the mind is physical and part of a greater whole, or subscribe to dualismReminder that you shat out 70+ posts trying and failing to prove this psychotic drivel.
>>16780581>Found the pop-sci kiddie. Imagine thinking Popper is relevant.Found the pop-mysticism kiddie. Imagine thinking Popper isn't relevant.>The highest possible standard of proof is logical proofNot real proof; dependent on arbitrary axioms.>>16780583Enjoy your nonsensical dualism buddy. You made your bed; lie on it.
>>16780603You just keep exposing yourself as more and more of an uneducated retard with every post. Your retarded appeals to Popper pretty much seal the deal that you have no scientific education.
>>16777531>another day another BBC thread disguised as a consciousness thread*sigh*
>>16780626>Your retarded appeals to Popper pretty much seal the deal that you have no scientific education.Quite the opposite, your retarded dismissal of Popper seals the deal that you subscribe to nonsensical mysticism. You will live to the age of 125 and die without ever having produced a single non-physicalist assertion about counsciousness which leads to testable predictions. Prove me wrong. Make an actual fucking claim that can be tested. Put up, or shut up.
>>16780697I know you're mentally ill and will never find your way into higher education of any kind, let alone STEM, but I'll let you in on a secret: Popper's shallow takes have been considered obsolete since he got BTFO by his own student Feyerabend, if not earlier.
>>16780706Where does mental illness come from?
>>16780838>Where does mental illness come from?Yours probably comes from being a failed normie with a low IQ who copes with social inadequacy by consuming way too much pop-sci drivel. You do this in a hopeless effort to build up a sense of intellectual superiority over fellow tards who rejected you. Considering how fucking stupid you are, I bet it comes crashing down every single time you try to argue "your" position (i.e. regurgitate rhetorical patterns you picked up from YouTube videos made by midwit pseuds). Doing this over and over could drive anyone mad, especially when their entire sense of self depends on winning unwinnable arguments.
>>16780838>>16780864Or in other words: you kept trying to bend your own mind out of its natural shape until it became deformed.
>>16780864Where does mental retardation come from?
>>16780706>he got BTFO by his own student FeyerabendFeyerabend is a forgotten footnote, dear mystic. Also I've read Against Method and though it has a few interesting sketches of ideas it utterly fails at anything other than serving to platform mystical mumbo-jumbo. Also, my prediction has been confirmed: non-physicalists are physically incapable of producing testable predictions.
>>16780864>pop-sci drivelWhy do pop-myst plebs think that everyone is as shallow as them? Just because you can't understand that it is possible to speak of science beyond the pop because you have an entirely pop-level conception of your own unscientific viewpoint, that does not make pop-knowledge the limit for everyone else, pop-mysticist.
>>16780879Masturbation
>>16780886>non-physicalists are physically incapable of producing testable predictionsAnd what testable predictions do physicalists have that can support physicalism as truth?
>>16777536fucking retard
>>16777531>It's like saying that the universe came from nothing.I get that you're trying to point out it's absurd to say something fundamentally immaterial can arise from something material. This is based and true. Not the same as something from nothing though. A better analogy would be that it's like saying the color blue could create a sound, or that the number 3 could make an object.
>>16781049Here's a prediction: physicalists will demonstrably invent telepathy long before dualists do.Haha sorry, that actually happened over a decade ago.
>>16781118forgot my pic
>>16781118>>16781119The authors had some predictions of their own btw>The proposed technology could be extended to support a bi-directional dialogue between two or more mind/brains (namely, by the integration of EEG and TMS systems in each subject). In addition, we speculate that future research could explore the use of closed mind-loops in which information associated to voluntary activity from a brain area or network is captured and, after adequate external processing, used to control other brain elements in the same subject. This approach could lead to conscious synthetically mediated modulation of phenomena best detected subjectively by the subject, including emotions, pain and psychotic, depressive or obsessive-compulsive thoughts.>Finally, we anticipate that computers in the not-so-distant future will interact directly with the human brain in a fluent manner, supporting both computer- and brain-to-brain communication routinely. They were, of course, right.
>>16781118Right, so no way to test physicalism then.
>>16780886>>16780890Didn't read. Call me back when you have a STEM degree and also take some courses on the Philosophy of Science. Nobody cares about Popper.
>>16780879>Where does mental retardation come from?I know what you want me say, so I'm gonna say it just to watch you get stumped and shit the bed some more: mental retardation comes from the brain. Now explain how this supports materialism (refuted by modern physics) or physicalism (unfalsifiable non-position).
>>16781118>>16781119>materialist retard swooning over the idea of being literal brainchipped cattleBet you can't wait for corpos to start doing telemetry on your uncannily predictable bio-LLM neural correlates. But the sad part of it is that even if you got chipped and started posting your 80 IQ talking points directly through the power of your thoughtlessness, or formed a literal reddit hivemind using your pop-sci "telepathy", it still wouldn't prove your brain-damaged metaphysics.
>>16781142>>16781148I accept your concession.Posted from my Neuralink (tm)
