Uhhh, are you sure Qualia isn't just a hallucination or representation of the inner machinations of the brain? Free will is not real and the illusion of free will is created by the brain. The brain is basically just an AI that is entirely dependent on non-random physical phenomenon like electricity and chemical signals. There is no proof free will or qualia is even real. We are just a byproduct of the natural physical shit happening in the brain that evolved to simulate intelligent choices and feelings are just a hallucination that overrides the fake choices lol.
For example: If something hurts that is just a representation of the inputs relative effect on the artificial electrochemical decision making process, etc. It simply projects itself internally like a human mind with free will because that is a one to one image of what is happening inside. Lol.
Is it even possible to have experience without memory? Can you feel the quale of redness without having a reference of what is and isn't red?
zombie thread
>>16920854https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retinotopyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonotopyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatotopic_arrangementhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_cellThe brain is a collection of modulators that shape and articulate the neural coding through attractor states and other forms of encoding. This is all interpolated by the thalamus and gives a waking slow wave state. If you took away the neurons and just were left with the fields then one would be left with the mind, which is a exteroceptive hallucination through physical external processes. Nervous tissue is like a signal processor/modulator, while the interaction or field perturbation consist of the mind.When people have epilepsy, they are the epileptic attack and that's what's scary about it.
Oh look another kid learned about solipsism. Spoiler: it doesn't matter if your choices are fake or real if fake and real feel indistinguishable to you, dipshit. It's a semantic argument at best. Look into the Phaneron. It's basically the same concept but less retarded.
>>16920854Qualia is a hallucination, there are no mental objects or representationsFree will is not real, there are no uncaused actionsThe brain does work like AI that depend on other causes and conditionsOur will/agency we have isn't outside of space time making uncaused random decisions, with no ownership. All our agency is tied to causal relations/decisions of our actions of our past, of our feelings, of our conditions we find ourselves in or createdNatural physical world outside is just as hallucination as qualia/mental representation is fiction. Both of these hallucinations work the EXACT same way.
>>16921048Just because you can't personally prove that anything is more than a hallucination doesn't make it an hallucination, and even by your own logic the concept of hallucinations would itself be made up and untrustworthy. The one thing I can say for certain is that I am experiencing being me, not you, and if the world I experience has a persistent effect on me and itself as I perceive it then it's as real as real gets because that's what real means to me. It means that neither my disagreement nor yours negate physical reality.
>>16921053You cannot prove a negative. Idealists already reject materialist view of the world of there being an external reality. Their reason is that we only access to inner conscious reality. I just do the same with idealism. The notion of inner conscious reality is fundamentally a hallucination because if you reject material external world, then the internal qualia is just a hallucination. If there are no "table" outside, then there are no "table" inside the mind. Finally the notion that there is an independent subject that sits behind all the theatre, that rests outside of space-time and inner conscious reality laws, is just as positrons as the claim that there is no such thing but also there are physical only words or that physical world is controlled by immortal souls that escape the body. On top of that, the notion that there are separate things in the inner mind is another 2nd order problem from that comes from the belief that there are inner conscious reality with all the conscious mental substances. Its all nonsense wrapped in nonsense.These are all half thoughtout assumptions that do not have any viability if you explore the limits of what those assumptions are claiming
>>16920854>Uhhh, are you sure Qualia isn't just a hallucination or representation of the inner machinations of the brain?At what point are words fungible and you're just changing syllables and pretending like you've changed the meaning?
>>16921064Either you need to proofread these things before you post or you're part of my brain that just had a stroke.
>>16921104Some spelling errors dont make my answer wrong. You're just not exposed to the problems of idealism as much because the problems of physicalism gets more attention. You just need to apply your brain more to the matter. And I even went easy on idealism, there are more pressing problems of idealism that I didnt bring up due to complexity of the problem.So if you really want to understand the reply, just sit down and think through
>>16920854You're right ad the way I think of it lately: Claims of consciousness are jargon. Personhood is performative. But its interesting to imagine what evolutionary benefit their might be for supposing ourselves to be sacred beings when we're actually just spasming bags of meat. We are the modern cynics, my friend. But nobody wants to hear the truth, same as always. All is vanity
>>16920854
>>16920854>Uhhh, are you sure Qualia isn't just a hallucination or representation of the inner machinations of the brain? Free will is not real and the illusion of free will is created by the brain. The brain is basically just an AI that is entirely dependent on non-random physical phenomenon like electricity and chemical signals. There is no proof free will or qualia is even real.>We are just a byproduct of the natural physical shit happening in the brain that evolved to simulate intelligent choices and feelings are just a hallucination that overrides the fake choices lol.>>16921033>The brain is a collection of modulators that shape and articulate the neural coding through attractor states and other forms of encoding>>16921048>Qualia is a hallucination, there are no mental objects or representations>>16921117>You're right ad the way I think of it lately: Claims of consciousness are jargon. Personhood is performative. Who prompted the nonhuman nonentities to shit out meaningless token slop again?
>>16922092Not a single sentence in this pseudointellectual trash is semantically coherent.
>>16921064>The notion of inner conscious reality is fundamentally a hallucination because if you reject material external world, then the internal qualia is just a hallucination.Speaking of hallucinations, your "logic" reads exactly like a hallucinating LLM. No viable connection between premises and conclusions.
>>16922110Uh oh someone is having another melty.
>>16922129Go wipe the foam off your mouth.
>>16922092You can tell the author of these shower thoughts is blissfully unaware of the last 400 years of Western philosophy, not to mention modern science. This specific mixture of sophomore writing and arrogant pseudointellectualism screams "American academic", but there's zero chance the author has a legitimate STEM degree (e.g. math, physics) or even an inferior field like neuro"science". Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>16922112>>16922162Hoffman, D.D. (2012). The Construction of Visual Reality. In: Blom, J., Sommer, I. (eds) Hallucinations. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0959-5_2
>>16922110
>>16922165>an American cognitive psychologist and popular science author>that faceYep, I guessed the type perfectly. Irrelevant American academioid, no significant accomplishments, no STEM degree.
>>16922181>schizoposting literally who on 4chan>that faceYep, I guess the type perfectly. Irrelevant basement dweller, no significant accomplishments, no degree at all.
>>16922224So, does the American psychologist and pop-science writer ever get to describing what "true" and "non-symbolic" and "concrete" perceptions of reality would be like? Surely his Nth order pop-sci abstractions, built entirely on top of the falsehoods he calls out, give him some solid idea of realty in its true, objective form, independent from any kind viable witness. :^)
>>16922181holy distillation of reddit. down to the meme degree in brain training games>>16922224>redditor seethe
>>16922229t. moldovan toilet cleaner
>>16922236Gonna take your expression of psychotic rage as a 'no'. Ok, does the American psychologist and pop-science writer at least define what he means by "true perceptions" anywhere in the book? What constitutes "true perceptions"? I'm especially intrigued because the relationships between the organism and its environment (which you die if you get wrong) are apparently not a facet of this popsci fart huffer's version of objective reality.
>>16922238
>>16922244>it's another 'no'Concession accepted. Unintelligent slop written for 80 IQ American pop-sci consoomer.
>>16922245
>mentally ill and obsessed
>>16922244>hydraulic girldick
>>16922238>does the American psychologist and pop-science writer at least define what he means by "true perceptions" anywhere in the book?I don't read midwit literature so I wouldn't know, but I'd a truthful perception is one that reflects reality accurately.
>>16922250Any perception is true by this naive definition, especially if you're a physicalist. Find out how the structure of human phenomenology maps to the dynamics of the cybernetic loop that drives a human and you will have found what "objective" reality perception corresponds to. Perceptions aren't lying to you about what the world is, but your thoughts might. Whoever wrote that drivel barely managed to peel off the first layer of Naive Realism before going straight to making up a new narrative, complete with unfalsifiable evolution-flavored just-so stories, based purely on his intuitions of what's evolutionarily plausible.
>>16922257>Find out how the structure of human phenomenology maps to the dynamics of the cybernetic loop that drives a human and you will have found what "objective" reality perception corresponds to.Maybe perceptions are the outcome of such a process but that doesn't mean they accurately represent that process. If they did, Phenomenology would be Neuroscience.
>>16920854Why am I experiencing this brain instead of your brain?
>>16922264Can you formulate what arbitrariness you see in that fact? Because if you can't, you're not actually asking anything.
>>16922260Given a sophisticated enough analysis, the structure of that process should correspond to the phenomenological structure. That's literally what a scientific understanding of perception would entail. So even by the basic correspondence theory of truth, perceptions accurately express something true, namely, the small piece of reality that consists of an organism entwined with its environment. The "problem" with this picture is that it inherently lacks the clear-cut separation of the objective from the subjective, but that's what midwits crave. You can never really say "this pattern in perception is an artifact of my internal processes" as opposed to "this pattern in perception corresponds to a real pattern in the world". They are one the same. Any gestalt you can get from sense data is going to be both an artifact of your internal processing and a pattern in reality. It can only act more like one or the other with respect to utility and it always depends on what your senses are dealing with. This "true representation" Hoffman is contrasting human perception against does not and cannot exist.
>>16922264>why is the brain itselfThere's no mystery here, regardless of your favorite metaphysics
>>16922320That's not what he asked, thoughbeit. Are you retarded?
>>16922264You are experiencing my brain and your own brain at the same time, separately, and independently. "Your" iteration of your brain but my iteration of my brain is also you. We are all one being that is experiencing itself on the individual level at the same time. And each brain is a closed environment that only experiences itself, because each "soul" is just an extension of each brain. Each soul is just a 1:1 representation of each brain, and each brain is just an electrochemical set-up similar to an AI. There's nothing in the brain that's not a deterministic physical process that obeys the predictable laws of nature. Everything in the brain functions according to predictable laws of nature and each "soul" is independently an extension of each respective brain. It is an internal representation, which explains why external brains have no affect on "your" soul. You are me, and I am you, the "soul" is one entity, but each brain is kind of like a separate cage for the One soul that experiences all brains. Each brain can only experience itself. But experience itself extends across all brains. There is one vital essence called soul, but the soul gets trapped in each brain and experiences each brain separately, because each brain can only experience itself, lol.
>>16920854>https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260222092302.htm>BTFOs most non-materialist schizolosophy
>>16922386Schrödinger was a "non-materialist", you utter brainlet.
>>16922374>There's nothing in the brain that's not a deterministic physical processThere's nothing in the world that's a deterministic physical process. Determinism is a delusion.
>>16922374Your word salad essentially just redefines 'self' to mean 'every sentient being', then announces it's all single experience but compartmentalized. This explains nothing and paints a picture of reality that's indistinguishable from the one where there's a bunch of individual and separate pockets of consciousness.
>>16920854>Uhhh, are you sure Qualia isn't just a hallucinationContradiction in terms. A feeling, by definition, can never be an hallucination.>or representation of the inner machinations of the brain?If it were, we should be able to predict qualia from those machinations. But we can't.>Free will is not real and the illusion of free will Completely unrelated>There is no proof free will or qualia is even real. Qualia is self-evident it doesn't need proof any more than "A=A" needs proof.
>>16922538>we should be able to predict qualia from those machinations. But we can't.Why not?>Qualia is self-evidentOnly if you reduce the idea of qualia into a neutral reference to aspects of subjective experience. Originally they were conceptualized as having a concrete and independent existence of their own, which is not "self-evident" at all.
>>16922538>If it were, we should be able to predict qualia from those machinations. But we can't.this implies that Collatz conjecture is conscious, because we don't have a negative proof that it's false and a positive proof requires enumerating all stopping times for all n in N, just like how we have to run a whole brain to produce qualia
>this implies that Collatz conjecture is consciousLLM-tier reasoning.
>>16922500His "color theory" was materialist and got EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED.Cope.
>>16922571Schrödinger was a "non-materialist", you utter brainlet.
>>16922571I read through the article you posted and there's nothing materialism-related in it. It's a perfect demonstration for what I mean by "phenomenological structure", though, so I'm gonna bookmark it and use it in discussions against brainlets like you. :^)
>>16922607>[factoids]>which means that...>[logically unrelated interpretation]>in other words, [factoids]>it follows that...>[logically unrelated conclusion]
>>16922610
>>16922611Instead of foaming at the mouth, maybe you can fill in the logic missing for the author (who, unsurprisingly, lacks a legitimate STEM degree). How do you get from an extremely limited account of how direct contact with the world shapes perception to "this means no direct contact with the outside world"? What is "direct contact with the outside world" even supposed to mean, then?
>>16922611>>16922612And while you're at it, explain how he gets from "X arises from a process that involves Y" to "X is an intrinsic product of Y"?
>>16922612>lacks a legitimate STEM degreehttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118892794.ch2Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time? Oh wait, of course you do, that's why you have all these meltdowns. Sorry didn't read the rest because you're retarded.
>>16922615He has a degree in Psychiatry (widely understood to be a pseudoscience). Either way, I accept your concession that there is no logic that can get you from the premises to the alleged conclusions.
>>16922616huh what?
>>16922612>maybe you can fill in the logiche literally can't because the entire line of reasoning is obviously false. dreams, imagination and literal hallucinations still abide by most of the same constraints attributed to modulation by sensory info
>>16922618>psychiatric patient displaying signs of confusionYou're proof the author is dabbling is pseudoscience, otherwise your meds would've worked. :^)
>>16922624Wait how
>>16921064>Idealists already reject materialist view of the world of there being an external reality.This is wrong. According to idealism, there really is a world out there external and independent of our own conscious experience. But the world out there is not physical. It is mental. External reality in which we are all immersed is a field of subjectivity unbounded by space or time. In other words it's a mind.The existence of mind as an ontological category is a given, as we are acquainted with it directly. The existence of matter on the other hand is not an empirical fact. It is a theoretical inference arising from interpretation of sense perceptions within a framework of complex thought. It violates the law of parsimony to introduce an unnecessary ontological category, namely matter, when all empirical observations are already explainable without it, and even better explained. Moreover materialism introduces an entire category of insoluble problems such as the Hard Problem of Consciousness which under idealism simply doesn't exist.
>>16923037>The existence of mind as an ontological category is a given, as we are acquainted with it directly. The existence of matter on the other hand is not an empirical fact. It is a theoretical inference arising from interpretation of sense perceptions within a framework of complex thought. It violates the law of parsimony to introduce an unnecessary ontological category, namely matter, when all empirical observations are already explainable without it, and even better explained. Moreover materialism introduces an entire category of insoluble problems such as the Hard Problem of Consciousness which under idealism simply doesn't exist.Any kind of Monism can make all of these claims just by swapping some words, including physicalism.
>>16923037>According to idealism, there really is a world out there external and independent of our own conscious experienceDualism
>>16923037Hi Kastrup.Speaking of Kastrup, I recently watched a video where he had a meltdown because NDE reports suggest that we don't need eyes to see and now he can't explain why we evolved eyes. Lol
>>16923047>NDE reports suggest that we don't need eyes to seeWhat kind of retard logic is that?
>>16923050If you take the reports seriously, which Kastrup does because they support his idealism, then they saw the external world without using their eyes. But that makes eyes unnecessary, hence the meltdown
>>16923039Wrong! Mind-matter is a false dichotomy. By definition, two members of a dichotomy are jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive, or epistemically symmetrical. Epistemic symmetry can only hold for concepts residing in the same level of explanatory abstraction. But explaining matter in terms of mind (idealism) is not epistemically symmetric with explaining mind in terms of matter (materialism) because mind and matter do not reside in the same level of explanatory abstraction. In fact, mind is the ground within which, and out of which, abstractions are made. Matter, in turn, is an abstraction of mind. This breaks the epistemic symmetry between them: we do not know matter in the same way that we know mind, for matter is an inference and mind a given. So what you've done is conflated abstraction with empirical observation! Mind is the substrate of the explanatory abstraction we call matter, so when you speak of a mind-matter dichotomy you incur a fundamental category mistake! Mind we know through direct experience, but a material world outside and independent of mind is a theoretical inference arising from interpretation of sense perceptions within a framework of complex thought, not an observable empirical fact.
>>16923052The few relevant statements in your word salad can be used by any monist just by swapping a few words around, thus proving my point. Thanks for playing.
>>16923052But explaining matter in terms of mind (idealism) is not epistemically symmetric with explaining mind in terms of matter (materialism) because mind and matter do not reside in the same level of explanatory abstraction. In fact, matter is the ground within which, and out of which, abstractions are made. Mind, in turn, is an abstraction of matter. This breaks the epistemic symmetry between them: we do not know mind in the same way that we know matter, for mind is an inference and matter a given. So what you've done is conflated abstraction with empirical observation
>>16923056>In fact, matter is the ground within which, and out of which, abstractions are made. Mind, in turn, is an abstraction of matterCan phenomenon be true or false?
>>16923058Can abstraction be true or false?
>>16923059Immediate collapse of the materialist. Unbelievable.
>>16923062Why the chimpout? I just asked you a simple question that makes every bit as little sense as yours.
>>16923062kek all i see is the immediate collapse of the idealist
>>16923072so you admit your concession which I now accept. Thank you.
>>16923075i concede that i saw >>16923058 getting owned by >>16923059 and falling apart immediately
>>16923081So you admit dodging a question is tantamount to getting pwned and that the retarded materialist got pwned. And that you are also too stupid to see my disengagement as retroactively blowing you the fuck out.Lets put it this way.I accept your next concession as well.
Ahhh the moldovan schizo has ensnared yet another victim, draining him of his precious mental energy
Is anyone else repulsed by how ugly bernardo kastrup is?
>>16923088sorry, i don't care about your retarded argument, i just noticed you getting owned and kekt
>>16923088>dodging a questionI didn't dodge your question. Your question is just a category error, which you probably realized once it got turned back on you, resulting in your ongoing meltdown. :^)
>>16923051kastrup is a fucking moron kekalmost by definition metaphysics is not set up for empirical verification so the idea that the state of quantum theory or NDEs have somefing to say about consciousness is bullshit>>16923039>Any kind of Monism can make all of these claims just by swapping some words, including physicalismphwoargood post disswhy i am an ontological.illusionist
>>16923051>then they saw the external world without using their eyes. But that makes eyes unnecessaryI'm not an Idealist but I don't see any inherent contradiction there if you believe reality and its laws are fundamentally mental constructs. You could easily argue that experiencing the world through a body grants the ability to interact with it physically, but also restricts knowledge-gathering to physical interactions, while being detached from the body makes you a direct witness but also a passive one. Maybe catsoup got mad because he has brainlet fatigue. Or maybe it doesn't mesh well with some aspects of his specific brand of Idealism, I don't know. Either way, it's a kidergarten gotcha, not really a challenge to Idealism at large.
>>16923109This is the point of the question. The materialist is compelled to hold that phenomenon which are not true or false are responsible for the very construct you use to call the question a category error. Which, by definition, is itself a category error. See >>16923088>I accept your next concession as wellAs for your question about abstraction because you are an abysmal brainlet, a proposition is an abstraction and so abstractions can be true or false. You can't even recognize the differences in the questions. You better report to the police that you were raped, becase you are too stupid to understand what happened.
>>16923243>phenomenon which are not true or false are responsible for the very construct you use to call the question a category error.So?>Which, by definition, is itself a category error.>by definitionWhere's the relevant definition?
>>16923243>a proposition is an abstraction and so abstractions can be true or false.Nonsentient token guesser "logic". You're conflating proposition itself as an object with what the proposition is saying.
>>16923247Is that true?
>>16923250Obviously, mouth breather.
>>16923251Oh so the proposition can be true or false and I was right. Thanks for clarifying.
>>16923252>the proposition can be true or falseYes, mentally ill retard. As in the content of the proposition, not the proposition itself as an object. I like how you're getting filtered by this repeatedly, even after having it spelled out for you, and just keep committing the same category over and over. I guess you literally are a nonsentient token guesser.
>>16923195>ou could easily argue that experiencing the world through a body grants the ability to interact with it physically, but also restricts knowledge-gathering to physical interactions, while being detached from the body makes you a direct witness but also a passive one.The experience got committed to memory so it can be used to gain an advantage in the physical world.Now that I think about it, even if you ignore the implications for idealism,the real answer has to be that these reports are just bullshit. If everyone had latent supervision, it would've evolved into something useful millions of years ago.
>>16923256>even if you ignore the implications for idealismStill waiting for you to derive any logical implications for idealism.
>>16923257If organisms can just do the universal-mind-powered NDE vision trick, then eyes have no reason to evolve and yet they did.
>>16923259Here's the video btwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hKuzbIkOpQ
>>16923259>If organisms can just do the universal-mind-powered NDE vision trickYou're not really an organism if you don't have a body. Are you sure you're not retarded? This is literally covered in the greentext you previously quoted.
>>16923266And I refuted the argument with the first sentence of my reply
>>16923267>the first sentence of my reply... is self-evidently nonsense, given the actual content of NDEs. Are you SURE you're not retarded? Have you ever gotten tested?
>>16923270The fact that the experience can be remembered means that it can change your behaviour which is all you need for it to have evolutionary impact.It's very easy to understand.
>>16923283>The fact that the experience can be remembered means that it can change your behaviour which is all you need for it to have evolutionary impactYou think nearly dying is a regular occurrence that someone should partake in every time they need a lifehack?
>>16923286Eyes have evolved from literally nothing. NDE vision already works in extreme situations. Making that work consistently is childs play compared to evolving an entire eye.Of course Kastrup also believes in telepathy, etc. without an NDE. Here it's even more unlikely that these things didn't evolve to become useful.
Ok, >>16923288 is very obviously a bot.
>>16923289I accept your concession
>>16923253Where did you spell out your nonsense? A phenomenon does not have a true or false value. The brain can come to true or false conclusions. Appeal to a category error is a refutation of materialism outright.
>>16923294>A phenomenon does not have a true or false valueNeither does an abstraction. Let's see you get filtered again. :^)
>>16923292>why doesn't a process that optimizes a physical body with respect to a physical environment exploit possibilities outside the physical frameworkI concede that your mental retardation makes you unable to recognize your mistakes. You lack the capacity to concede because you're genetically deformed, not because you're making sense.
Test
>>16923297You're still missing the point. These "possibilities outside the physical framework" left a memory, otherwise nobody could report the experience. They acquired information that the physical body can report on and potentially use for survival. If you deny that, then you have to deny the reports as a whole since non-physical experiences wouldn't leave a memory in the physical brain.
>>16923305>These "possibilities outside the physical framework" left a memorySee >>16923286 then see >>16923297>You lack the capacity to concede because you're genetically deformed, not because you're making sense.
>>16923306>See >>16923286My point still stands that it's much harder to evolve an eye from scratch. You probably forgot to reply to that in your brainlet rage
>>16923309I'm pretty sure you're a hallucinating chatbot or a mentally ill retard at this point, but just for the record, I'll summarize exactly why you're wrong and retarded. Suppose that:1. NDEs are true2. The true substance of reality is mindlikeThe physical world would then be a structure within the mental substrate. Evolution would be a part of that structure, optimizing physical bodies with respect to physical environments. An organism's phenomenology would be shaped by that structure and bound by it under normal conditions. You could suppose NDEs occur when that structure is in the process of breaking down, so the physical constraints that noramlly shape human phenomenology are loosened. Past a certain threshold, the structure breaks down irreversibly and you "die" (melting back into the formless mind substrate?), but until then, you're neither here nor there, i.e. neither completely disconnected from the body nor completely bound by its physical mode of witnessing the physical world.Granted, this is made up bullshit, but unlike your argument, it's at least coherent. Your entire take boils down to:>hurrrrrrrr, why doesn't a physical process of optimization just break down physics?It's retarded. NDEs don't imply that possibility. Or at least not by any means short of nearly dying, which evolution obviously wouldn't favor.
>>16923053I mean , how do you know that for sure , if you can't understand anon.
>>16923182>almost by definition metaphysicsI am a anon completely non involved in this current convesation but.I wonder if that is true historically , it might just be that as we became more materialists because that seems to be prefered more and more over time , we just made our definitions closer to it , it might not be in certain definitions.
>>16924257well thats the point innityou can change your definitions to suit your metaphysicsto kastrup ndes mean some bullshitto meits just like neurons going mental
>>16920854"Consciousness is not real" is just begging the question. You're flat out making the unreasonable demand to place faith in another that "you" are not truly experiencing anything at all lol.
>>16924434>its just like neurons going mentalWhatever that means. Sounds like Kastrup is more coherent than you are.
>>16921117>But its interesting to imagine what evolutionary benefit their might be for supposing ourselves to be sacred beings when we're actually just spasming bags of meat. You're just a demoralized cretin.
>>16922374This is the kind of schizophrenic bullshit monistcucks actually believe.
>>16921039why do half wits think idealism and solipsism are the same thing?
>>16920854I feel pain, and it hurts, so qualia must be real
>>16924434well , anon was making an argument by true definition.>almost by definition metaphysics is not set up for empirical verification so the idea that the state of quantum theory or NDEs have somefing to say about consciousness is bullshitbut what if thier are definitions of metaphysics (as a whole) that do could have some level of verification. historically speaking.>its just like neurons going mentalthat sounds cope to me without brain sourcecode evidence , but that is something we don't have at the moment.
>>16921117>You're right ad the way I think of it lately: Claims of consciousness are jargon. Personhood is performativeshould anyone really respect you if you see stuff like this , like.not necesarelly as an insult , I am more so interested how a idea like this is boderline mainstream.claiming that a group of people are fake people who don't exist , would be a horrible person ruining part about you today.but if you claim everyone is a fake person then its ok? , why.
>>16924837>not necesarelly as an insult , I am more so interested how a idea like this is boderline mainstream.academia is more concerned with browbeating and shame than actual truth claims nowadays.
>>16924441why is that incoherentless coherent thanghosts? gtfo
>>16924836we do have evidence of neurons going mental when people and animals die though and we even have evidence of neurons being active when the brain is flatlined (i.e. when it reads as dead on the machines you have in hospital)
>>16925064Because "it's just neurons doing bullshit" is strictly tautological and doesn't actually get to the heart of why NDEs occur the way they do, my reddit-spacing monkey friend.
Consciousness is an illusion.
>>16925093Consciousness is real, it just doesn't have phenomenal properties
Every argument against consciousness is materialist cope.
>>16920854>Look inside this thread because it looks interesting>EVERYONE is making strawmen, non sequiturs, false correlations and false dichotomies
>>16920854Yes, everything you just said is what your human mind is supposed to think because you have been born with spiritual amnesia. That's the perspective everyone starts with. If you were born knowing everything then you wouldn't be asking these questions, there would be no journey into truth.
>>16925065yea , but if someone used like heart evidence of similar near death stuff it would not count.I am not saying even that is bad evidence , its efficient and gets to the point.but until we get the brains sourcecode , it will be cope.if when a computer dies of like idk , overheating , it starts repating levels of mario 64. like just a visual of them , we could tell if it would be even posible for that to happen.and as such if is just a problem with the computer. to say otherwise is cope.
>>16925083well we can do science and find out but it will still br in the realms of neurons doing bullshit with no requirement to invoke spirits or other realms or whatever
>>16925083>NDEI did not even read the rest of your post.NDEs are already well known in the scientific community as being trash.They HAVE already been studied and tested. People having an OOB NDE can NOT i repeat they CANNOT accurately recall ANY information that would have been otherwise unavailable to them according to ACTUAL STUDIES not your just trust me bro gramdma's NDE anecdote with no proof behind it.The brain during an NDE is just in a dreamlike state, its similar to dreaming. It is all just fake but feels real. There is no evidence or proof that people remain coherent and intelligent after death OTHER THAN PERSONAL STORIES AND SELF DELUSIONS. Lol.
>>16920854What exactly do modern non free will thinkers believe? Surely it isn't Kants windowless monads. How do you explain your illusion of free will responding to my post? And how can any of them believe it without believing in God?This isn't a new problem.
>>16925362>lets just do more heckin' science or something>replication crisis? what's that?>>16925629>NDEs are already well known in the scientific community as being trash.Yeah stfu you dunning-kruger pseud. The insistence on the reductionist physicalist paradigm does not pertain to any order of truth claims, only that it provoke difficult questions with no straightforward answer.>The brain during an NDE is just in a dreamlike state, its similar to dreaming.Clueless. Completely clueless.
>>16925629>People having an OOB NDE can NOT i repeat they CANNOT accurately recall ANY information that would have been otherwise unavailable to them according to ACTUAL STUDIESnot true in every single case, do more research.
>>16920854Materialists have never been able to explain why I experience reality through this brain rather than through one of the billions of other brains that exist.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question
>>16926114Dualists have never been able to explain why I'm fucking your mom rather than the billions of other moms that exist.
>>16926114How would a non-materialist explain this? Why am I this soul and not that soul? Why am I this part of the universal consciousness and not that one?
>>16926114>Materialists have never been able to explain why I experience reality through this brain70 IQ take. Under their philosophy, you experience it through that brain because you ARE that brain so your question is vacuous.
>>16926260Even they realize the question is absurd on some level, after all they ask "why this brain rather than the billions of other brains", meaning they're already implicitly discounting the trillions of non-human brains on this planet alone. Probably because the inanity would be immediately obvious if you asked "why am I experiencing reality through my brain rather than through my pet goldfish's brain or the cockroach under my sink's brain"
>>1692656360 IQ take.
>>16926114Idealists have never been able to explain why Materialists exist. Think this one through, the problem isnt just Materialists beliving in shit, its Idealists also believing in the same shit with uncritical look
>>16926565Yeah sorry, I was dropped on the head too many times as a kid which has left me with lasting brain damage.
>>16920854>There is no proof free will or qualia is even real.I think therefore I am
>>16926599Materialists are inevitably brain dead empiricist. The empiricist never makes it beyond seeming causality. The materialist is the one without a critical lens, believing in fairy tales because big daddy guvment told him to. Causality is a self-defeater because it hinges on non causal forms to justify its possibility. This alone dumpsters your entire pseud brainwashing. You have no way to support causality which implies that anyone can use any equally irrational basis for their beliefs and they will be better than or equal to you. Goatfuckers, tunnel mattresses, ITS M'AM. These are your peers.
>>16926565Enlighten us, genius. How do you solve the vertiginous question?
>>16926615>I think therefore I amWhat do you think Descartes was trying to say with that statement?
>>16926744I don't even think it's a real "problem". It's just higher cognition detaching from direct experience and trying to LARP as some "objective" perspective beyond the subject's circumstances, which creates a fictional "I" entity that isn't trivially identifiable with the subject (or with anything, for that matter). But what you wrote is still retarded. Why wouldn't the veritiginous question include animal points of view? It just didn't occur to that specific poster. Doesn't make the question any more or less absurd.
>>16926760I don't think Descartes meant it literally because you can't prove that you're actually doing the thinking.It should be "thoughts appear, therefore something is happening"
>>16926768>you can't prove that you're actually doing the thinking.You don't need to prove anything in that regard. It's embedded in the very structure of the thought. You just need to witness it.
>>16926762>random word saladSo you have no answer then, redditor.
>>16926780If you're too dumb for basic reading comprehension, ask a chatbot to explain it to you or something. For all their flaws, every single one of them surpasses you at simulating intellect.
>>16926783>ur a dummyheadExcellent rebuttal
>>16926804>you didn't rebut my self-reported inability to comprehend what you wroteYou're mentally ill. Moving on.
>nu-/sci/ is demonstrably dumber than bots
>>16926807>more word salad
>mentally ill retard continues seething profusely
>>16920854>are you sure Qualia isn't just a hallucinatioWhat's a hallucination
>>16926768We know what he meant by that statement because he wrote about it in his journals, and in letters he sent.Descartes was haunted by the notion that nothing was truly verifiable. No single observation could be taken as incontrovertible proof. He wasn't even sure if he was really living his own life. One's own existence could be an elaborate illusion conjured up by a demon, it could be a dream dreamt by another person or creature, he could just as well be someone with a mental illness having a high fever, hallucinating the "life" of this "Rene Descartes" who never really existed. Maybe he was in Purgatory and God was giving him a second look, with another life in his own little sandbox world with no real consequences, to see if he truly deserved to go to heaven. One could never truly know what they are beyond a shadow of a doubt, for themselves, or anyone else.So out of every statement that can possibly be made, the only single one that is truly verifiable is "cogito, ergo sum". There is SOMETHING experiencing that existence, otherwise it would be impossible for that thing to make such a statement. But beyond that, no single thing can ever be stated with complete certainty. Beyond that, there is no such thing as proof of anything.https://emlo-portal.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/collections/?catalogue=rene-descartesDescartes would have loved the FUCK out of The Matrix.
>>16927429Yes, that's what I'm saying. The fact that there is experience is absolutely true and doesn't need further proof Anything else is unprovable. "I think, therefore I am" is not literally true. IIRC Nietzsche already dismantled the literal interpretation
>>16927437>Yes, that's what I'm saying.Sorry. I'm so tired of faggots touting that statement as an affirmation of empiricism that's it's become like a kneejerk reflex for me to explain it.
>>16927429>But beyond that, no single thing can ever be stated with complete certainty. Beyond that, there is no such thing as proof of anything.That's obviously not what Descartes thought as he went on to prove a bunch of things, including the existence of God. kek
>>16927560I gave you a link to his correspondences. Clearly you didn't even bother to read them.
>>16920854both body and mind, it seems we are a ship of theseus, and yet...the most interesting thing to me is how impossible it is to find the 'me' inside my brain, the feeling of being a 'me' is still impossible to unseethe more you look into it, the more you see how everything in your actions and thoughts are completely spontaneous.i think there is a good chance that some of the people who became big names in the eastern traditions could actually break free from this illusionlike those optical illusions that you see movement even even though you know it is a static picture
