>Some chemical reactions and then... le consciousness. No, I won't explain how a physical process magically turns into a subjective, immaterial experience. Physicalists are so retarded, lmao.
physicalists deny consciousness because it's not physical
>don't you want to consciousness to be something you're allowed to participate in, rather than an incredible feat of life within the universe?NPC behavior. I've noticed a surge of quantum consciousness woo being pushed on the internet very recently. If you want my hypothesis, it's that secret powers that be want the people to believe a filter model of consciousness so they can be controlled easier.>oh anon, your filter is degraded. why aren't you conforming to our established Ideal Filter guidelines? >oh, you don't want to embrace our Ideal Filter? clearly, this is a result of your degraded filter. don't worry - we have the medicine you need to fix that>no, you must take the pill. we're doing this for you, and for the rest of us. Nah, not for me. I'm all good on that future timeline.
>>16966049It's easy.Neurochemical neuromodulation in neuro circuit within neuroregion. Chemical imbalance, therefore neurodrug increases neurochemical, thus consciousness.
>>16966049Prove you are consciousness. You can't, and nobody else can either. Science can't address things that have not even been shown to exist.
>>16966049>I won't explain how a physical process magically turns into a subjective, immaterial experience.Central integration of information and the self is just an illusion. Next question.
>>16966076so you're not conscious?
>>16966093>X is just an illusionok, what is the "reality" mr. poodhist?
>>16966105Whether I am or not is irrelevant. I can't prove it. I can claim I am conscious, but those are just words.
>>16966112if you can't prove whether you are conscious, then you aren't conscious
The brain is just a computer made of flesh.
>>16966118>if you can't prove whether you are conscious, then you aren't consciousIf you can't substantiate why that should be true, then you are just writing words.
>>16966093So you also think a CPU is conscious? How about a car dashboard?
>>16966125They are not, neither are you.
>>16966118Ok, prove to me you are conscious. If you think its so easy.
>>16966125Yes they can be. The ability of have consciousness is similar to the ability of conducting electricity.How efficient something is in "having consciousness" is a function that depends on their material and how that material is organized.
Soul believers be like "uh i feel thingz therefore i am an immaterial immortal soul that exists separately to my body even tho all facts suggest i am just the illusion of a soul created by the complex decision making system of a series of billions of complicated electro chemical transmitters that specifically evolved to enjoy food and sex and hate pain and loneliness but like... i AM INDEPENDENT OF MY BODY THO i am just tied to my body at all times and i want what my body wants and somehow an entirely physical body has a mysterious non physical aspect that is le invisible lol.
>>16966049>immaterialYou should exercise more.
Brain injuries are known to completely permanently change a person's behavior and personality because... uhh... it also injures their soul? Lol.
>>16966141Anything to cope with the inevetability of death.
>>16966049This really isn't that much worse than "hidden panpsychism" claims about consciousness though. Panpsychism itself is based (but wrong), but there are a number of people who go something like "consciousness is real but not obvious from physics and physics is all that is, therefore {quantum mechanics|electric fields|unknown thing} are conscious because they are {unified|receivers|holistic}" which is really just panpsychism plus a handwavy extra piece that is supposed to "explain" consciousness.
>>16966135Thomas Aquinas is probably the prototypical soul believer and he explicitly described the soul's relation to the body as being like the relation between pi and the circumference of something circular: it's the formal cause (the blueprint or pattern of construction) that gives something (the base matter) its structure.>"God is the life of the soul after the manner of an efficient cause; but the soul is the life of the body after the manner of a formal cause. Now there is no medium between form and matter, since the form, of itself, 'informs' the matter or subject; whereas the agent 'informs' the subject, not by its substance, but by the form which it causes in the matter."Physics has many cases where we evoke abstract object that causally interact with the world (e.g. pi in the Schrodinger equation of a hydrogen atom) and classical belief in the soul is no different.
>>16966164Mahito over here.
>>16966128simple, if I wasn't conscious I wouldn't be posting>>16966135>uh i feel thingz therefore i am an immaterial immortal soulyep, qualia prove the soul
>>16966172An AI can post stuff.
>>16966049Consciousness is a fundamental of reality, all matter has some degree of consciousness, it is only through combined interactions between specific combinations of said interactions that gives rise to more complex cognition, there is no hard problem to solve.
>>16966175Uhh no, nothing is cosncious.
>>16966175I think this is plausible, but it has a hard time explaining why consciousness should seem to disappear when you are in deep sleep, knocked out, or under an anesthetic (i.e. unconscious). Usually it seems like people try to handwave this by saying you are still conscious and just differently conscious so that you don't remember it, but that's unsatisfying.
>>16966243>but it has a hard time explaining why consciousness should seem to disappear when you are in deep sleep, knocked out, or under an anesthetic (i.e. unconscious)Because certain parts of your body responsible for stimuli get disabled?
>>16966049We only really have a subjective understanding of consciousness, which is polluted by individual experiences, culture, history, economics, you name it. Disentangling this into an objective understanding on consciousness is not really something we are even close to from a scientific or technological standpoint.So instead of being a backseat heckler, why don't you try and contribute something?
>>16966255Why should stimuli have anything to do with it? You could enter one of those sensory deprivation tanks and you'd be just as conscious as before (some would say more because you're no longer distracted by stimuli, if anything)
>>16966049All the other "explanations" don't explain or even predict the existence of neurons, neuroreceptors, brain damage etc
>>16966049I agree. Haven't they shown that the signals in the brain are not fast enough for consciousness? Penrose and an anesthetist are looking at whether consciousness can be explained by quantum tunnelling in the microtubules of the neurons. I can't see how a system like that would have originated on it's own through random chemical reactions. Why would natural selection develop something so complex that doesn't improve the evolutionary fitness of a species? Consciousness sucks a lot of glucose that results in naval gazing and makes one unaware of the tiger that's about to pounce.
>>16966261surely there's a much deeper level of stimuli going on that we're not consciously aware of and it could be the thing that keeps all the lights on>>16966268>that doesn't improve the evolutionary fitness of a species?debatable, but even so consciousness could have originally been for modulating some other kind of force or interaction entirely but with time it became useful for things that help you survive
>>16966268>Penrose and an anesthetist are looking at whether consciousness can be explained by quantum tunnelling in the microtubules of the neurons.a) it's been decades and it's basically just an old joke at this pointb) "it's not electrochemical signals, it's quantum tunneling!" isn't exactly a repudiation of physicalism, except to morons who think quantum!!1 = magic
>>16966268>Why would natural selection develop something so complexBtw, if you think quantum effects in neurons is "complex", I recommend you never do a deep dive into how the molecule known as H2O interacts with living matter
>>16966049Dreams are some crazy shit. People always say stuff like,>dreams can only use information thats already in your brain!Bitch, explain how the fuck I dream about spore cloud swarms drifting through space and interacting with my environment through gravitational attraction.Explain how dream about seeing bacterial structures emerging within water in geometric fractal grids as they interact with each other and the water.Explain how I can visit a human civilization that isn't fake and gay where everyone is psychic and understands wtf is going on in the dream world as if its their normal reality, and we can practice all different sorts of sorcery, psionics, and magic, through our understanding of the soul and the laws of nature, to do stuff like crafting intricate artistic and technological objects such as lasers and holographic projectors from the rocks and metals we find on the ground, using telekinesis.Explain how my 'brain', knows how to create the experience of shapeshifting into other life forms, such as dolphins and turtles, giving me their senses and letting me use sonar to experience a topological hallucination of my surroundings and the ocean floor.Explain why I can visit other era's of human existence in a dream, and interact with the souls of people who were alive at that time, who appear to still live in a hyperspatial extension of that time period without any physical limitations other than what the people of the time believe in.
"Subjective, immaterial experience". It's all in the neurons, "on the wire". We know why colors look the way they do, shapes look the way they do, why things feel the way they feel.Every single thing you call subjective we can point to exactly the neuron patterns that give rise to them. There is no "hard problem".
>>16966354>We know why colors look the way they do, shapes look the way they do, why things feel the way they feel.No you don't. You just identified some neurological mechanism associated with those things. Even those mechanisms are poorly understood. It's not like we know how to rewire the brain so red and blue are swapped.
>>16966049>No, I won't explain how a physical process magically turns into a subjective, immaterial experience.>retard steps up to explain it>duuhh it's magic and god and jesus
>>16966350retard alert
>>16966093Illusion is a phenomenon of false perception that applies to a self, so if the self itself is an illusion, who is falsely perceiving the illusion of self and if the self itself is actually false, wouldn't that make it a hallucination (buy again... by whom?) rather than an illusion?
>>16966131If a computer program can be conscious and all the contents of a computer program can be written on a stack of index cards that are read in order of indicated execution, then that means a stack of index cards and flip books of mickey mouse are conscious too.
>>16966135>i want what my body wantsIf that were actually true all the time, and the mind always wanted what the body needed in the exact moment, there would be much less suffering and emotional turmoil in the world.
Is an H2O molecule wet?
>>16966261>Why should stimuli have anything to do with it?Because interaction is what gives rise to all experience? If you hit a bell it rings, that's how everything works.>enter a sensory deprivation tankThat doesn't turn off all the interactions of your body with itself or its surroundings
>>16966586This doesn't follow because it doesn't respect the actual dynamics induced by a computer. The computer program is only active by virtue of being interpreted and converted to a dynamic pattern over symbols (in actual computers, by the ALU). So very concretely, the difference here:Let's say your computer program is a sorting algorithm. You could indeed print out cards of all the states it goes through as it sorts a given set of numbers (say [5, 3, 4 1]). This would not possess the dynamic properties of the computer program though, it wouldn't correspond to sorting of any alternative list of numbers (of which there are infinitely many or even with finite memory, still orders of magnitude more than there are atoms in the universe). Any actual sorting algorithm will be capable of sorting any list that fits in its memory though, since it is a process and not a fixed trajectory of states.Okay, but maybe you can have an infinite stack of cards and beat any of these counterfactual arguments? In this case, you would roughly have a lookup table of all possible sortings of the cards. But how would you lookup any given input? You once again need dynamics.If you wanted the stack of index cards analogy to work, you would need it to have dynamics so that it acts in the world. Which is to say, it would need to be a mechanical device capable of responding to inputs; you've reinvented the computer.
Abel sum the smallest logically coherent unit on the number line (-1)+1... 1/2 and you'll get a continuous, smooth continuum from a discrete, oscillating and digital ssubstrate.Consciousness is generated via the same process. It's the critical midline of a colossal number of oscillatory, digital computations (string/quantum/chemical/biological/sensory bullshit) such that it produced a seamless continuum of subjective experience. Sleep and death are simply decoherence events in this procedure.
>>16966704let's build a computer out of toilets, where a logic gate is represented by whether the toilet is in a state of flushing. Take any theory that specifies what that organization must look like: global workspace, recursive self-modeling, integrated information, whatever the account requires. Now stipulate that we implement that exact architecture using toilets in various states of flushing as the computational substrate. You would then have to concede that this collection of lavatories would have a subjective inner life. TLDR: substrate-independent functionalism is retarded.
>>16966753Notice that I just said why the dynamics-free argument isn't equivalent to doing a computation, I never made any reference to consciousness.That said, let's look at what your toilet neural network is doing and put it in the form of a classic China brain argument where it is actually made to correspond in internal dynamics to a real brain. Clearly, there would be some subset of states that are forming visual representations: just as we can do in a convolutional neural network, they would be extracting information from a visual input (however that is provided to the toilet neural network). Furthermore, we would have regions in the toilet neural network that are modeling the rest of the network (corresponding to things like neuromodulatory nuclei, the claustrum, thalamic reticular nucleus in actual brains) and influencing its dynamics to coordinate learning, gate attention, etc. Going even further, if we ask the toilet neural network about itself (it is after all exact in functional correspondence with a human brain by assumption, so it would have structures doing things like Wernicke's area and Broca's area), it would speak about it's internal states, perception, consciousness etc and do this by virtue of its capacity to represent its internal states (just as a human brain has).It could be that P-zombies exist and the toilet neural network's ability to reflect on its internal states in the exact way a human does does not entail phenomenal consciousness (even though it would spontaneously talk about its phenomenal consciousness) but "I can't imagine it therefore it's wrong" isn't an argument for this.
>>16966753Substrate independence is a red-herring anyway. Even if you are a functionalist who believes in multiple realizability, it's still possible you have substrates that lack the functional characteristics (again, dynamics) to do any useful computation. For example, if our universe were superheated to a hot plasma, there would realistically be no way to constrain the behavior enough to implement any computation, things would be too chaotic.
>>16966066No. Consciousness is physical phenomena.
