Gut feeling, how does the brain produce consciousness? If it's physical, how can physical '"stuff" cause it. I've seen many different takes on here
>>16845327There is no separation of physical and non physical as is often thought when studying, for example, classical physics. Every single thing is an excitation or a combination of excitations of quantum fields. All matter and non-gravitational (maybe even gravitational) forces are just different field excitations interacting. So in essence whatever consciousness is, its' fundamental structure is much like the one of an apple you'd pick up in a forest or the warmth you would feel from the sun on a nice day. But that's our current understanding, we don't know everything after all. Perhaps consciousness has unique properties of its' own.
>>16845339I would say quantum fields are entirely physical. But I guess this is semantics.
>>16845327how does a CPU produce video games? How does light produce photos? How does fire produce chicken tendies? Everything complex comes from a few basic elements and interactions. Sure it seems magic if you don't know the details, and we lack a lot of details about neuroscience, but you don't need ethereal metaphysics to explain that some results are greater then the sum of their parts
>>16845327There is no physical explanation.First, you have to understand what is "physical". Physical means phenomena that is capable of been registered on the 5 senses across a consensus population. To physically explain something means to be able to detect and predict the phenomena of that something through the physical phenomena of other things.Currently there is no scientifically recognized instrument/method that can objectively detect consciousness in others; we can only observe it subjectively within ourselves. Hence why solipsism and the p-zombie problem is still a thing.Currently there is no model that can accurately predict individual free-will based purely on biophysical and environmental factors.The idea that physical "stuff" causes consciousness is at the moment a purely material reductionist conjecture until above can be solved.Likewise, the Idealism position that consciousness is the source of all physical phenomena is also pure conjecture at the moment until one of those hot blonde /x/ interdimensional aliens comes down and starts to bend known physics left and right with their mind.Guess we'll just wait and see.
>>16845327everything is conscious
I think the problem is that even if you had a really good explanation of consciousness in terms of physics/mathematics, it would still just reduce to "why is there something rather than nothing" and thus people would still be able to claim that you haven't really explained anything. OTOH if you start from the assumption "there is something rather than nothing" then all bets are off. I don't even know anymore what would be a viable framing for the problem.
>>16845327>how does the brain produce consciousness?It doesn't. The most parsimonious hypothesis is that the substance or medium of consciousness, by which I mean the self-reflecting space that hosts all perceptions and enables them to feel like something (instead of remaining purely abstract), is an irreducible phenomenon in its own right. It's omnipresent or simply non-spatial.If you're a naive 19th century materialist, you might ask why this hypothetical phenomenon has never been detected, but that's an absurd question: it's being detected by your brain right now. The brain is the kind of physical instrument you need to measure and shape the medium of consciousness into an experience of the world.Neurons doing a special dance to summon a new phenomenon is nonsensical intuitively, unjustifiable logically, unfalsifiable scientifically. It's total slop and magical thinking that never produced scientific results and never will.
>>16845364>you don't need ethereal metaphysics to explain that some results are greater then the sum of their partsYes, you do. And you invoke it every time someone asks you to explain this magical thinking of yours. You immediately start chanting something about "emergent phenomena" which is a textbook reification fallacy and explains absolutely nothing in any case.
>>16845327Gut feeling, its tension between input data, and the ability to predict the past and future
>>16845417Wrong. Consciousness is the harmony between abstract neural processing and embodied cognition. (I am scientifically deep)
>>16845414I did not use the term emergent even once, so that's you telling on yourself. You recognize that complex behaviour can arise from simple components, to the point of naming it unprompted, yet refuse to acknowledge that it's a real thing, why?
>>16845422>I did not use the termOk. And I did not say you used the term. >y-y-you refuse to acknowledge that it's a real thing!I don't understand. What thing are we talking about? Do you "acknowledge" (fantasize) it's a real thing? Why should I partake in your magical thinking?
>>16845424Impressive how you're dancing around words without saying anything, in fear of accidentally admitting that you are perfectly aware of non-physical properties of complex systems, but for some reason have to insist that they don't exist. I hope you can find a way to deal with whatever mental illness your suffer from
>>16845425>Impressive how you're dancing around wordsWhat words? The one I specifically used to describe your beliefs, which you now refuse to mention just to spite me? You're legit mentally ill and realize your beliefs are indefensible. Moving on.
>>16845414>You immediately start chanting something about "emergent phenomena" which is a textbook reification fallacy and explains absolutely nothing in any case.things just emerge, ok? real life is not mathematics, 1+1 can be greater than 2, chud. your behavior is ruining the synergy in the office and i'm filing a complaint with HR
>>16845425>you are perfectly aware of non-physical propertiesare non-physical properties in the room with us right now? can you give some examples of non-physical properties?
>>16845430Right at this very moment, we are exchanging information through rapidly pulsed signals of light (and microwaves, if you're using WiFi). This information is encoded as predefined sequences of 0 and 1 that gets decoded into text through a CPU, which works by turning transistors on and off based on the state of other rransistors. This text is written in the English language using the Latin alphabet. You read this text on an array of rapidly firing light emitting diodes.Almost all of the above are emergent phenomena. Light, electrons, semiconductors are real concrete things. Transistors, LEDs, fiber optics, WiFi, language, letters, bits, none of those are physical distinct objects. They're made of simpler base materials which lack the properties that the combined whole exibits.Yes, these non-physical properties very much are in the room with us right now.
>>16845436> these non-physical propertiesyou mentioned a whole bunch of things in your post. can you circle the one you think is "non-physical"?
>>16845438Have you considered reading the fucking post?>Transistors, LEDs, fiber optics, WiFi, language, letters, bits, none of those are physical distinct objects
>>16845439>Transistors, LEDs, fiber optics, WiFi,these all directly refer to obviously physical things, so it couldn't be that>language, letters, bitsthese are just ways to describe physical events, as you admit, e.g:>You read this text on an array of rapidly firing light emitting diodes.so again, can you circle the "non-physical" things? are you sure they're in the room with us right now?
>>16845327It's physically based, but I don't think we'll understand it for generations, maybe even longer. We're currently on par with Romans trying to explain Mt Vesuvius's eruptions in terms of where we are in neuroscience.
>>16845441Please explain how a LED is a distinct physical object, anon. Please explain how a LED is not an emergent phenomenon of the electron bands of a semiconductor, but a distinct physical object that is not composed of other simpler distinct physical objects that do not have any of the properties a LED exhibits
>>16845444>Please explain how a LED is a distinct physical objectlol. imagine being this mentally ill retard and saying pic related is non-physical
>>16845446You don't understand. It's made up of matter. That matter doing matter things. That means it's non-physical. I am the smartest poster on this board and I hope you all get institutionalized for your delusions!!!
>>16845446Huh? I'm pretty sure my screen doesn't contain millions of discrete 2-pin LED components? If it did I'm pretty sure I'd notice, it would take an entire room
>>16845449>I'm pretty sure my screen doesn't contain millions of discrete 2-pin LED components?i like watching you go off the rails. please tell me more about how your non-physical screen is composed of non-physical LEDs that are unlike the physical LED i posted
>>16845452What's wrong anon, can't describe what a LED is without admitting that emergent properties are required for a LED to exist? Do you have to reset to>Well, you shouldn't need me to explain that to you, it's obvious!
>>16845452You can literally see that these LEDs are nonphysical!!!!!!!
>>16845456you're going even further off the rails. we were discussing how LEDs are non-physical. can you elaborate more on what non-physical properties the LEDs in your screen have and why they're less physical than a bigger LED?
>>16845459Well then, go ahead and explain how a LED works
>>16845462i can't. you've convinced me it's nonphysical. the LEDs in your screen are magic because they're small, not like a normal LED. physics just doesn't apply on that scale
>>16845464>i can't. you've convinced me it's nonphysical.Then my work here is done. Thank you for this constructive conversation, I hope the people of /sci/ have learned something today
>>16845466mentally ill retards like you are impossible to even strawman. thanks for going straight for "nonphysical" and fatally crippling your argument from the get-go. it would've been more interesting to see some insane mental gymnastics explaining while "emergent phenomena" ARE physical but a quick laugh is also fine
>>16845467It is clear that you are perfectly aware that it's impossible to explain a LED without having to mention properties that do not belong to any of the particles the LED is made from, yet insist in dancing around the point because in your sad metally ill mind "winning the argument" even if you know you are wrong is of utmost importance. I will pray for you to get better anon
>>16845473how did you get from "LEDs are nonphysical" to "a single particle is not a LED"?
>>16845473>sad metally ill mind "winning the argument">>16845466>>i can't. you've convinced me it's nonphysical.>Then my work here is done. Thank you for this constructive conversation, I hope the people of /sci/ have learned something todayLOL.
>>16845476If I'm wrong then go ahead and explain how a LED works
>>16845476He got there by being 80 IQ and brown. What do you expect him to even say at this point after shitting the bed so hard?
>>16845478did i say you're wrong? indeed, a single particle is not a LED. why did you backpedal to this from "LEDs are nonphysical"? also how does the size of a LED relate to how physical it is? you implied my picture of a big LED represents a physical object while the LEDs in your screen are not
At least one of these posters is a bot. I hope for your sake it's both.
You win, I surrender. I cannot convince you that emergent properties exist. I withdraw from this argument.
>>16845327Brain doesn't produce consciousness. Consciousness produce brain. The brain idea is super imposed upon reality that does not have a fixed characteristics. Further outside of the brain idea, whats left as "real" isn't concrete "stuffs" like atoms or quarks. Those are still super imposed upon reality. There are no "real" particular-substance underneath all of reality, but all are bundled without a fixed characteristics. The characteristics applied onto the reality are conscious made. There are no lights, there are no textures, there are no smell, there are no taste, there are no shapes, etc. Similarly, consciousness is also this, but of super imposed on top of ideas. Ideas are subject to the same lack of idea substance-essence same as the material world. There's no qualia. There's no consciousness. There's no matter. There's no essences or substance or atoms or particles. The reality isn't like a tiny particle mixing together, but a mix of everything without any particular.
>>16845484>>16845486why are you seething? you've convinced me that LEDs are nonphysical. i'm just trying to gain more insight into the non-physical world of consumer electronics. how does the size of a LED relate to how physical it is? you implied my picture of a big LED represents a physical object while the LEDs in your screen are not
>>16845491spouting dumbed down, watered down buddhist takes on a science board immediately outs you as 80 IQ and brown
Anyone stating consciousness=matter, automatically qualifies as a low iq midwit.
>>16845496>projecting
>>16845327The God particle
>>16845891Care to elaborate?
>>16845988>low iq midwit.Midwits are mid IQ, thoughbeit.>>16845988Why does he need to elaborate on something self-evident to anyone with a mind? Imagine thinking your mental space is made out of particles.
>>16846020I mean, my neurons are made out of atoms?
>>16846024>broken biobot thinks his mental space is made out of neurons
>>16846035>his mental spaceThat's an embarrassing error on my part. The biobot doesn't have a mental space. "His" -> "a".
>>16845327>If it's physical, how can physical '"stuff" cause itThe same way it causes everything else, obviously. Consciousness doesn't need a special explanation.
>>16846125>no, i can't explain a thing>it's just uhhh>like everything else, ok? it doesn't require explanationMaterialoons trying to reason.
>>16846137The only thing that needs an explanation here is why your handlers haven't euthanized you yet :^)
>>16846024>>16846125Materialists are so desperate when they are cornered into answering simple question 'where is mind located' they just freeze, their brainlet mind just become stuck and instead of admitting that they are incapable of answering that question they just come up with some ridiculous reductionist view of mind. Instead of solving actual problem of consciousness they just change their own shitty, primitive model entirely to only reduce the properties of mind to physical characteristics.
>>16845327Apparently there's technology that can "see" what people are thinking nowhttps://www.science.org/content/article/ai-re-creates-what-people-see-reading-their-brain-scansIt would be interesting to have two human brains in separate jars, each grown from birth in the jar so there's zero external sensory input. Then slowly feed the exact same sensory input to each brain and use the mind reading technology from the article above to see if each brain is having different phenomenal experiences.
it doesn't "produce", it connects to consciousness aka god like an antenna.
>>16845327sensation is something foundational or at least correlated with information processing. structures of sensation then gives rise to what we call consciousness; free-will comes from chaotic behavior in the physical mechanisms of agency, which makes the organism unmodelable.
>>16845327Most likely some sort of pantheism.We also know that it's possible to induce feelings and qualitative experiences in people by stimulating their brains in certain patterns and locations using transcranial magnetic stimulation. You can cause people to feel emotions, humor, sadness, anger, joy, fear, hope, and such like this. There's even early research now showing you can induce basic experiences of flavor in a person, you can use the TMS device and stimulate their brain and they'll experience the taste sweet or sour or whatever in their mouth. We also know that dualism and pluralistic ontology are false philosophically. There is no mind-body dualism or any form of substance dualism in general.That leaves some sort of pantheism.
>>16845327imo "conciousness" and entire personal experience (aka qualia) is a side product of sufficiently complex information processing and numerous internal feedback loopstherefore it is achivable by any system that processes information, artificial or biological I'm not saying that current AI networks are conciousjust that we could potentially make a concious intelligence in not so far future
>>16845327The world is my representation.
>>16847893You are constantly being forced to represent my dick
What is your earliest first memories that you have?
>>16848076I don't remember
>>16845327My mind has to be the craziest shit that has ever been invented and will ever be invented.
>>16845327Ongoing self-integration (approximatingly) of the brain, which just so happens to be tuned to doing that for the sake of its own survival.
A god given gift to spread the word of our lord. Repent and you may be saved.
>>16845327How are you aware of sight or smell? Through your eyes and nose of course but what do they actually do? Light is easier to gasp and understand since it at least little bit relates to properties of light. There is a frequency to it that our eyes capture part of and then we get a colored picture out of it in real time, somehow. One that is so processed and perfected that is extremely hard to really gasp any individual parts of it. Like your brain filtering your nose or how it can detect faces so easily. This is all physical and you cannot deny it. You lose your eyes and it is gone. You can say it is just a capturing part of it but if you never had it you could never even imagine it, thats how much the physical part matters. Now lets move to smells. What the fuck are even smell? Are you really telling me our brains capture some atoms and molecules and give imaginary sensations to them that are consistent across all humans? At least it is something real turned into imaginary by our brain processing. Animals have smells, even plants so it is not that magical right? How would you be aware of consciousness then? There must be some sense to it, right? Animals and insects have internal processes and so do plants and even more abstract concepts like society and computers so they are not anything special, right? Being aware of it is.What I am saying that there is an organ (could be the whole nerve system) that captures your internal process in time just like other senses. your brain heavily process it with other senses and memory and then allows you to adjust some of the same processes in future for more varied outputs. Animals are efficient at what they do but sometimes you have to do the inefficient thing that gives you the biggest advantages and compare to animals we had the right tools (hands) to actually benefit from more complex solutions. Memory is a big part of it of course. Without it there is no way to compare states.
>>16849202But what am I then if awareness of consciousness is just a sense? I am not my sight or my temperature, these are just properties of these converted to some signals I am aware of! These are just descriptors and not states! What is being aware here? It can only be the process itself. The moment to moment state that is being changed and adjusted. That is the current you of course. The one in the moment that moves its hand in an instant as it is touching something hot, that is reading this post right and the me that wrote it in a very specific moment in time. Memory is the long term me. The states of which I was aware at a time that are being compared to everything I am doing in this moment. Logically I know that the memory of a 7 years old child in my mind is me but I can't relate to it at. Its vague, I could not tell you what I was thinking, what I felt back then or how the world really look like being small. I could forget it tomorrow and nothing would change except minor details of my current decisions.If you consider everything that I wrote to be true than we will never find anything we could consider conscious. It is a very specific set of parameters that is processed in a very specific way our physiology does. It is very human and to consider anything else conscious would need very inhuman thinking. At the same time though it would mean that almost every process has a bit of consciousness to it. They are not self aware of course and there is nothing to compare to since there is no memory. There is however the next state that has to be decided on to somehow. What would you call that? Randomness? Cause and effect? Divine intent? Entropy? Life? Whatever you call it would you consider it to be sad to end a process? That is a very human emotion as well. The only answer I can come up with is that it depends. Not on the process but on me. On what I value and on who I am.
Circumcision and consciousness?
>>16845327The idea that the brain produces consciousness is outdated materialism type stuff. It makes no sense if you give it some thought.The best guess I have is that consciousness is pretty fundamental. If you think about it logically, without it there really wouldn't be anything. So you could think of it in terms of the anthropic principle or similar. Now whether you're satisfied with that answer depends on your preexisting mental model of the world.
>>16847076This seems like magical thinking or leaping to conclusions. How do you go from information processing to consciousness? There's a huge step missing there.
OH NO NO NO SINNERBROS ON THE ROPES
>>16849753>How do you go from information processing to consciousness?How do you... what? Hang on. How do you go from little bits of matter acting out molecular dynamics to "information processing"? Sounds like Made Up Shit(tm) which requires consciousness in the first place to even be conceived of. In particular, what counts as "information" is purely relative and conventional: the resolution of uncertainty is always relative to the limits of a given model.
>>16849763Are you mad at being called out or something? I can actually understand how bits of matter turn into information processing. But you definitely can't understand how information processing turns into consciousness. If you did you'd have a Nobel Prize. Maybe you just don't understand emergency that well in general and thought nobody else understood how bits of matter turns into information processing either.
>>16849789I'm slightly disgusted at how you immediately granted him his nonsensical core premise and set up a losing argument for yourself.> I can actually understand how bits of matter turn into information processingYou can? Why don't you go ahead and explain it, then? Hard mode: without relying on subjective premises every step of the way.
>>16849793No, this isn't a playground fight like you think it is. You sound like a teenager.
>>16849811>i'm heckin' better than you because i can't and won't accept the challenge of justifying my viewI accept your infantile concession.
>>16849223>>what is consciousness? what if..w-what...what is...btw, repeatedly asking same question over and over again wont help you in answering the latter. You are just an ignorant midwit who just now discovered all this 'muh what is consciousness' thing. Now allow me to enlighten you and bestow upon you the truest and most perfect form of knowledge .Consciousness is a property of the brain. Just like the table has specific configuration of atoms & molecules which constitutes its table-ness, but the property of this table is solidity. Any questions?
>>16845406>why is there something rather than nothingThere is both, something is a set of nothing, x-x=0, because nothing is the smallest possible amount of something and everything.
>>16849223>it would mean that almost every process has a bit of consciousness to itAnd that's one good reason to dismiss your hypothesis, because at that point you've reduced the word 'consciousness' into a meaningless noise.
>>16850059>Consciousness is a propertyNTA but you sound retarded. What does it even mean for consciousness to be a "property"? Statistical token stringing =/= real thoughts. Do better.
>>16845327Writing down a list of quantitative brain properties will not explain what consciousness is just like writing down the mass, charge, spin, etc. of an electron will not suddenly create an electron.My gut feeling tells me that this is the only place where qualitative states can hide
>>16850487Scientific theories never explain what something "is" in any other context, either. They only describe how things behave by way of abstractions. But people have been conditioned into accepting the latter as a substitute for the former so when they're told their mind is just a sequence of abstract mathematical states, they'll believe it.
>>16845413If I hit your head with a hammer, the nature of your consciousness would change due to neuronal damage. Neurons doing a “special dance” clearly relates to consciousness in some way. I can’t prove consciousness is a purely material phenomenon, but at the very least, it has important material associations.
>>16850664>If I hit your head with a hammer, the nature of your consciousness would changeProof?
>>16850668This may well be the single most retarded thing I have ever read in my life. You've somehow taken the crown for the world's biggest moron with a single word.You deserve a Nobel prize.
>>16850678Notice how you're losing your mind with impotent rage because you have no idea how to prove your claim. It's the same reaction you get from WBC fanatics when you question their pastor's latest bazinga.
>>16850698kek. it's the moment when the biobot realizes its token string has no semantics to work off of
>>16845327The brain is a consciousness sieve. Everyone’s is different so everyone has a different consciousness and awareness. Consciousness exists outside the brain but the physical structure is an antenna tuned to that spectrum but it’s also filtering.
>>16850723> Consciousness exists outside the brain but the physical structure is an antennaOnce upon a time, many, many years ago, when I still believed consciousness debates consist of people who can be reasoned with, I used to give the example of a broken radio simply to illustrate the fallacy in assuming that if an object stops outputting something, it was the original source. To my surprise and amusement, I found out there's a whole bunch of people who LITERALLY believe the brain is a consciousness radio, meanwhile the rest don't understand the point of the example because the brain is not a radio. It was at that point that I realized almost everyone who discusses this stuff is some kind of a retard.
>>16850728Have you considered that it's not that they're retards, but simply that they don't understand consciousness because they aren't conscious. So they attribute the word onto something else.
>>16845327Philosophically, dualism has been effectively refuted for thousands of years. Empirically and scientifically, we also know dualism is complete nonsense. The idea that the brain is a receiver or antenna to some soul or conscious field that is itself separate from the fundamental monist field that exists is nonsense. We have direct determination between electromagnetic stimulation and qualitative sensations and emotions. You can wave a magnetic wand over a person's scalp in specific ways, and they'll start feeling emotions in a 100% deterministic way. You can get them to feel joy, mirth, fear, sadness, anger, excitement, boredom, and whatever other emotion via magnetic stimulation. You can magnetically stimulate a person's brain, and they'll start to experience the sense of taste like sweetness, sourness, bitterness, etc. in their mouth. Inducement of qualitative experience via magnetic fields.The idea that these magnetic stimulators are actually "changing the gateway" or something to let in the qualia field or soul in a different way as an explanation for this is nonsense, because it destroys the independence of the mind/qualia from the brain. If subjective states are produced when the brain is in certain physical states, and we can force those states externally, then the soul is no longer autonomous. It becomes entirely parasitic on the physical brain, making it epiphenomenal and eliminating dualism’s supposed ontological distinction.If one wants, they can go to an idealism like Kastrup, but that's still monist/non-dualist. In general, crying about the supposed "hard problem" is not going to stop the reality that there is no dualistic field or soul that is the source of qualitative subjective experiences.Consciousness is not a separate field that the brain absorbs or connects to like an antenna. Dualism is false metaphysically, logically, and empirically.
>>16850732>Have you considered that it's not that they're retards, but simply that they don't understand consciousness because they aren't conscious.Yes, but ultimately I've arrived at the conclusion that most people are simply too dumb for abstract thought and have too little self-awareness to model their own cognition. The average person is something like a chatbot slapped on top of a monkey brain with poor integration between the two.
>>16850741>Philosophically, dualism has been effectively refuted for thousands of years. Empirically and scientifically, we also know dualism is complete nonsenseI think dualism is absurd but since your post stands from completely delusional premises, I have to conclude you're a brainwashed retard and stop reading.
>>16850747You have a low IQ
>>16845327The brain produces experience and ego. Space produces consciousness like an abacus of maya. The stick bug did not consent to stickness. The eyes on a eye wing moth ARE WATCHING YOU in the meta scheme of nature's grand design. There is no cortex computing data. There is suchness and thatness and isness ans watchness. Camoflauged animals are an example of embodied consciousness that is precognitive.
>>16850741>We have direct determination between electromagnetic stimulation and qualitative sensations and emotions. You can wave a magnetic wand over a person's scalp in specific ways, and they'll start feeling emotions in a 100% deterministic way. You can get them to feel joy, mirth, fear, sadness, anger, excitement, boredom, and whatever other emotion via magnetic stimulation. You can magnetically stimulate a person's brain, and they'll start to experience the sense of taste like sweetness, sourness, bitterness, etc. in their mouth. Inducement of qualitative experience via magnetic fields.You're overstating your case to the point of almost lying, based on shoddy 60s hoax-tier studies. But for the sake of argument, suppose everyone you said was completely true. How does this refute dualism?
>>16850748My IQ is most likely 3-4 stdevs above yours. There's no question whatsoever that I'm smarter than you. Anything else is statistically implausible in general and ruled out by the contents of your post in particular.
>>16850481>reduced the word 'consciousness' into a meaningless noiseIs it anything else though? None of us will agree on the definition. We can come up with some but they will always run into edge case which others don't want to accept. The most basic definition of "being aware of yourself." is meaningless noise. You could say that atom is aware of its charge because its acts on it as it moves and form bonds. Most people will dismiss it as it is the charge of other atoms and powers that make it move.I don't believe atoms are alive or self aware or whatever but at some point even I have to accept that at some level "consciousness" will form. Once any system starts to self correct I will with confidence say it is conscious of itself. Not in the human sense of course as it doesn't have memory and all the other things we have but these are all very specific things that came to be thanks to our unusual conditions.At its core, what does consciousness mean to you? Before you answer, think of all the aspects you could remove and still be able to agree with your definition.[spoiler] Its "I", isn't it? You could take everything else away and it would still be true. Without memory you would not have proof that the I from moments ago happen. You could not make anyone else know and could act only on the fastest of instinct and even these could be reduced to cause an effect. How much different is that from an atom? I agree that is an an useless reduction and it moves away from the initial question but the question itself is very human. Its our experience and to see it in anything else is inhuman.[/spoiler]
>>16850751>My IQ is most likely 3-4 stdevs above yoursIt's not>low IQ moron who's been seething since the lockfoen gers predictable triggered by the statement "dualism has been empirically refuted"Yawn
>>16850741>You can wave a magnetic wand over a person's scalp in specific ways, and they'll start feeling emotions in a 100% deterministic way.Even if this is true, which it isn't because I've never heard of that product. So what? What's that supposed to prove lmao.
>>16850749This is what gold particles look like when you're not looking
>>16850750>overstating the caseNope.
>>16850754It is clearly explained in the post. I guess modern sci can't read.
>>16850761It's not though. inb4 you make another angry reply to this without actually saying something.
>>16850764>angry replyNo such thing is happening. You can't read.
>>16850766Called it. lmao
>>16850768>lmaoSeethingYou can't read
>>16845327>muh b-brain is uh consciousness>remove entire brain and consciousness vanishes. Checkmate chudFor /sci/ this is a sound argument, apparently.
>>16850759Notice how I correctly predicted your inability to explain how your (mostly fallacious) claims disprove dualism. No arguments will be made in your next post, either.
>>16850752>starts from consciousness denialism>proceeds to "my roomba is conscious">ends with 100 IQ arguments about semanticsThis board really isn't good for anything besides spoonfeeding homework algebra questions.
>>16850772The claims are not fallacious. I clearly explain how they refute dualism in the post.You can't read.
>>16850754>What's that supposed to proveYou're talking to a statistical token stringer. It doesn't realize blindly poking around in the brain and accidentally triggering random sensations shows nothing beyond what the physicality of the senses already implies.
>>16850776>I clearly explain how they refute dualism in the post.No, you don't. Quote anything in your post that remotely resembles a logical argument leading from premises to conclusions. Hard mode: make sure it actually pertains to dualism and not some retarded strawman you made up.
>>16850777>low IQ retard continuing to seethe in its completely predictable way about anything it perceives to be reductionist*yawn*Its not random, dum dum.>>16850780You can't read or you have no theory of mind. Sad
>>16850774>my roomba isn't consciousiPhone in the desert has one conclusion>muh IQ is consciousnessIs a half baked DLC slop AAA title still a video game?Consciousness is more about null meta prime irreducibles of basic awareness. Basic essences to prove a present mindness. If you find a PCB you found something orders more sophisticated and thoughtful than a patch of sand but not quite a TPU or optics drive. But even the patch of sand would pitch a fit about being beamed in a particle beam to Mars for molecular reconstruction by one neutron facing the wrong way and having a non average subatomic particle balance. Thus it is a registrar of information.
>>16850776>>16850785>I clearly explain how they refute dualism in the post.No, you don't. Quote anything in your post that remotely resembles a logical argument leading from premises to conclusions. Hard mode: make sure it actually pertains to dualism and not some retarded strawman you made up.Notice how you will never accept this simple challenge, although you WILL keep addressing me out of impotent rage.
>>16850786>mask drops and he simply devolves into full-blown schizophreniaIt's that easy to detail them. lol
>>16850741>The idea that the brain is a receiver or antenna to some soul or conscious field is nonsense.How then do you explain why the brains of the proponents of this theory have been fried by microwaves?
>>16850802>brainlet replies to its own seething paragraphs
Well this is what happens to a thread when you feed the retards.
>>16850791I guess I need to write it out again because you're a moronYour claim is the core of the flaw in your position. It is not randomly poking around the brain and it does not accidentally correlate with a subjective sensation. It is specific stimulation that determines exact qualitative sensations. Brain state A is the same thing as qualia state Q. The question then is if qualia state Q can be determined by a different brain state B. This however is irrelevant as it still becomes epiphenominal. >>16850802What are you talking about.
>>16850805I think your fried brain receivers are causing you to experience schizophrenia. The only thing left to do is for your handlers to euthanize you.
>>16850808>Brain state A is the same thing as qualia state Q.Proof? No, nothing in your post even remotely proves this on any level. Try again.
>>16850812We can induce specific qualitative states with extremely high accuracy in modern TMS studies.
>>16850793>full blown schizophrenia>brains agency muscles have gone sick seeing agency where there is none>our brains have a built in agency detection firmware fiercely forced into our basic capacity for language itselfI am talking about unembodied mind in nature which is real and visible in the most basic life forms. It is panpsychism. It is more about applying CS from circuit view to anywhere it applies as generous as possible. Instead of anthropomorphizing things we computermorphize things. When books were our biggest tech we likened all natural phenomena to mythic stories. When gears and steam were our pinnacle tech we likened all things to mechanism. When transistor is our pinnacle tech we liken all ancient woowoo Indian metaphysics to decode software and hardware seams. Think in terms of big networks, graphs even. You will see humanity from eagle eye view and see we are like the petri dish to our neighbors. Your impressions are network impressions, not even personal ego. You inherit your mind from higher forces. You pilot a tiny zap in the grand scheme of things. Even your own mind and body are a vast inheritance of other minds other bodies. The axial age is when we see one big push one big unifying formation of realization of you and your type you and your kin and your cohort becoming a distinct power not a commodity. One discovery one Roger Bannister breaking the fastest time breeds many but not directly. Direct influence cozies our mechanistic mind. But reality is far stranger: nonlocal undecaying fields.
>>16850814No we can't
>>16850815Are Sami Aryans?Hell why not? Because they missed the history tour? Invite them now and it is like they never left!The power of this philosophy can stop Kalergi monkey ape world and stop arbitrary balkanizations of bad neighborly boundaries
>>16850814>We can induce specific qualitative states with extremely high accuracy in modern TMS studies.This is a lie, but even though I've granted you this lie for the sake of argument, you can't actually make your point. Even if you could reliably associate a particular brain state with a particular experience, it doesn't follow that they are one and the same (your stronger claim - completely hopeless) nor does it follow the causality is unidirectional. Try again. Use proper logic this time.
>>16850815Go talk to your roomba, retard. Or maybe talk some more to ChatGPT because I can tell something's been feeding into your delusions real hard lately. :^)
>>16850836Go to ShartyGet out of 4chanYou can't handle the synchronicity of a frogposter mind
>>16845327Chicken vs eggYou don't appreciate the army of eggheads it took to discover atomic theory to prove all bodies luminous. Metaphysicians were saying it before. Hardware geeks caught up to ancient software geeks.
>births CS from pure math>never programs anything but an incomplete typing program to give math textbooks typesetting>influences every major computing system on the planet ever adopted by industry>be arguably the world's most talented programmer>never use that big brain in anything but flexing itHe proved it to himself before there was anyone to prove anything to. Too soft for software!Where did Knuth get his CS degree from? Where did nature give you your brain from? Consciousness was always there. A priori. Higher levels give you hindsight but are obstructions to principial insight.
Consider the Beckenstein bound. Consider Graham's number. There is a physical cost to thinking these thoughts. There is thus a set of physical interactions and a subset of thinking actions. You need physical being to think. You need thinking to recognize and conceptualize physical being. These considered thought experiments show you the seams of a thing itself and a thing discussed at the extremes of having enough compute brainpower that thinking these things requires a universe's worth of computer to compute this concept.
All I'm going to is this. I can't disprove the possibility that I am God. I can't disprove solipsism.In fact, both seem to be true...
>thoughts produce things>things produce thoughts>only thinkers produce thoughts>but thinkers only produce thoughts as far as they personally discover thoughts so much older and deeper than any person could ever be credited to authoring
Roger Penrose believes that the mind is utilizing quantum processing to anticipate a gargantuan volume of data points to attempt to create solutions to future problem7s moments before they occur. The problem is that the mind is wet, hot and not a stable platform,m, all things which destroy quantum coherence.But instead of 100 Q-bits processing for a few seconds, it could be billions in coherence for only nano seconds, but still able to make huge processes
>>16850934Reincarnate as this then
>oh yeah this gaze was just dumb luck an accident serving no natural purpose to any coherent effect
>>16845327consciousness isn't real. we are machines and we work because of the inner workings of the molecules that form our bodies>but I feel like I'm conscious, I'm completely sure I'm consciousthat's just your inner programming talking. if you could program a robot to believe that 2+2=5, then why couldn't you program a human who believes he's conscious when he actually isn't?if your 5 senses aren't reliable, neither is your inner experience
>yeah man you need to navel gaze with deepak chopra bro all the knowledge you need is in your own fart sniffing
>>16850960>you can program a human that 2+2=5>you can program an AI that solves real problemsMaybe we aren't so special after all, man
SOULS AT CONCEPTION
>>16845438Have you considered a career as a software developer?
>>16845891To say "matter" is to give commodified meaning to things. Thus one oxygen atom is just as oxygen-ish as any other. This is not true. To the extent that this is not true, we have a natural order of being to decode so complex we need to be God level smart to understand to comprehend to name that we might as well be omnipotent while we are at it. But to sepearate being from awareness of being, that we cannot do while speaking at all.
>>16845327Let’s assume that consciousness can be explained by physics, that is, that right now we cannot explain it only due to our ignorance, then it means that, in principle, if we knew every single initial condition and had a model to describe the immense nervous system, we would be able to predict a person’s mood? Their emotions or behaviors? Then this would imply the death of man, we would become just a system that, however complex, obeys precise rules in its behavior. The idea of this terrifies me a lot, and I like to think that consciousness and human emotions emerge in a way that is not quantifiable or describable by reason itself, no matter how much we try to study the nervous system, even if we understand its dynamics, that dynamics cannot give us "objective" information about the individual’s mental state. The human mind is not a computer, it has an intrinsically irrational/emotional part
>>16850957Fucking leafcels failed in samsara
>>16850959>thank birdgod I graduated from birdschool to get my degree in bird tree camoflauge!
>>16850986I don't think you can explain peacocks with the brown rabbit math models that math was going to make that happen. Bird boners made this happen.
>reason explains thisYeah right
