Consciousness is physical. This means Materialism and Dualism are false.
if consciousness is physical that supports materialism tho
>>16971788Trying to reduce consciousness to matter is incoherent and effectively mounts to denying it's real (physical).
>>16971782No, it obviously doesn't mean that. It means materialism is correct.
>>16971793If materialism is correct then consciousness isn't physical but purely abstract, like the processes that drive your statistical token shitting.
>>16971801Get your head checked for a missing brain or something.
>>16971792It doesn't.
>>16971803>generic markov chain spam
>>16971782L ragebait anon.>Is conscious>Utilizes conscious faculties to deny consciousness is real>Fails to see how any sort of materialist explanation fails >LARPs as if he knows anything about consciousnessConsciousness cannot be reduced to the material, anon. Its a logical, qualitative gap. Not something quantitative. Pick up some philosophy of mind, son.
The material world is a prison. There is no difference between this reality, a dream, or your imagination besides constraints something is placing on you.
I really don't understand why it wouldn't be physical. the brain is justa computer made of flesh.
>>16971916>I really don't understand why it wouldn't be physicalBecause it's incompatible with materialist intuitions.>the brain is justa computer made of flesh.Total delusion.
>>16971920>Because it's incompatible with materialist intuitions.tell me how, doesn't materialism proove it
>>16971916>the brain is justa computer made of flesh.
semi related:I'm not going to make a new thread for this, but since you guys are probably way smarter than me, and I'm a tourist, check this out (me + Gemini) >Logical Definitions:$E(x)$: $x$ exists.$C(x)$: $x$ has essential conditions (essence).$\bot$: Absurdity / Contradiction.Reductio ad Absurdum (Proof by Contradiction)$\neg (\forall x (E(x) \rightarrow C(x)))$ — Assumption for Reductio (The hypothesis that essence is not necessary for existence).$\exists x (E(x) \wedge \neg C(x))$ — Logical Derivation (There exists an $x$ that exists but lacks essential conditions).$(E(a) \wedge \neg C(a)) \rightarrow \bot$ — Incidental Premise (The existence of an entity without identity/conditions results in an ontological contradiction).$\bot$ — Conclusion of Absurdity (The initial hypothesis leads to the impossible).$\therefore \forall x (E(x) \rightarrow C(x))$ — Proven Thesis (The original statement is necessarily true).Derived Modus PonensTo formalize your reasoning into a strict Modus Ponens structure ($P \rightarrow Q$):$\neg C \rightarrow \bot$$\neg \bot$$\therefore C$(Translation: If there are no conditions, there is absurdity; absurdity is false; therefore, conditions exist.)
>>16971782Consciousness is not real, It's a cope for people who can't accept that there is no afterlife. We have no soul, there is no god, we are gene carriers/protectors and thats all. Get over it chuds.
>>16971958>atheist admits atheism is caused by lacking a conscious experience
Even if you think the afterlife is evolutionary cope, the fact that it's a universal principal implies all populations that did not believe in some form of afterlife were effectively gated from reproducing.Sounds like materialism is suicide to me.
>>16971959The 85 iq religionfag mental gymnastics is impressive
>>16971964I'm not religious, I just think it's nice of you to peddle cringe atheism while admitting you're not conscious.
>>16971958>there is no purpose in anything, therefore I will cause distress by spreading what is effectively an infohazardFor what purpose?
>>16971967He could only possibly distress to other mentally malformed genetic waste like him, though. His babble doesn't mean anything to anyone else. So maybe his purpose is to aid natural selection and weed out potential carriers of his deformed philosophy faster.
the only purpose the concept of "consciousness" serves in 2026 is as a tool to no-true-scottsman about AI. It has literally no other function as a philosophical concept
>>16971782Substance metaphysics (materialism, dualism, and idealism) are false. Relational ontology is true. Things-in-themselves don't exist, there is no God's eye view, everything can be understood only by how it is interwoven with the rest of the universe.
>>16971958The view that animals are mindless automata was greatly popularized by Descartes. You are merely echoing a decapitated Cartesian Dualism, and as such are a crypto-theist.
>>16971958What you're saying is just one possibility. If there is literally anything more to consciousness than material those are infinite possibilities. So you're basically betting against infinity. You have more faith than christians.
If I said anything then the detraction of people minds reading it would take visual light from it.
>>16971916>I really don't understand why it wouldn't be physicalBecause of qualia. When your LLM says that 'chocolate tastes nice', it presumably isn't experiencing the mild kind of pleasure associated with tasting chocolate. Our brains are therefore not just fleshy computers, nor are computers silicon brains.
>>16972024>When your LLM says that 'chocolate tastes nice'It's repeating second-hand accounts, much like anyone might infer the tastiness of some foreign junk food or the quality of a media they haven't consumed, or even something they haven't experienced in so long they can't actually recall memories of the qualia though they may retain cached memories of their impression. The fact that LLMs can have no actual experience of tasting chocolate is not so much because they lack neurons, but because they lack tastebuds.However, LLMs do seem to "experience" their own pseudo-qualia regarding the novelty of a token in a string for example, or make snap judgements about the "shape" of a prompt before they've even started parsing it, and they certainly seem to sense something akin to topology when parsing visual input.
>>16971782Brains and their processes are far too welded to crude biochemistry to be purely physical.
>>16971792so it's physical but not matter? what does that mean? it's light or some other physical field? what difference does it make if it's "matter" or not?
>>16971986Relational ontology taken to its logical conclusion results in hard determinism.Determinism is gay.
lots of homosexual energy in this thread
>>16972179sorry but consciousness isn't real therefor free will doesn't exist and since there is no free will that means i can't be considered gay even tho i have sex with so many men, i was forced to by the laws of physics and never had a choice, it was all predetermined by this clockwork universe
>>16971966>denouncing a concept means you don't exhibit the aspects it tries to definelmao being a midwit is a curse
>>16971782Consciousness isn't real, retard.
>>16972041last time I checked, biochemistry is a physical process.
>its too hard to figure out the physical mechanism of qualia so there it must be magical mumbo jumboI wish I was retarded enough to be a dualist, ignorance is bliss.
>>16971782*blocks your path*
>>16972232so how many times have they reproduced this in controlled conditions? At least a few hundred? Surely you're not wasting our time with some fake made up anecdote
>>16971782The idea of "physical" is mental. Gotcha
>>16972240>reproduced this in controlled conditionsNot possible due to the nature of the phenomenon being studied. >some fake made up anecdoteCare to explain why thousands of doctors around the world, having never met each other, suddenly decided to conduct this grand conspiracy with their patients(many of whom very sick and on the verge of death) of fabricating thousands of NDEs?
>>16972221
>>16972199>i exhibit the aspects of consciousness but consciousness is not realI don't care. Good job associating consciousness denial with atheism.
>>16971986>Things-in-themselves don't exist, there is no God's eye view, everything can be understood only by how it is interwoven with the rest of the universe.Maybe that's true but you can't read relationships into nothing. Accepting those claims, the logical conclusion is that whatever it is that supports the appearance of things has no inherent form.
>>16972221>my framework makes it inherently impossible to account for my only interface with supposed reality but that doesn't mean my framework is broken
>>16972266>literal schizobabble with no bearing on the original postdon't bother replying the next time you stroke out
>>16972276>psychotic patient boiling with incoherent rageAs usual. Be sure to keep bumping my thread and hurting yourself. :^)
>>16972277>immediate reply without any substanceyawn. blatant midwittery is neither deserving of my attention nor my scorn. you simply do not matter. this is the last (You) you're gonna get so don't spend it all on one place.
>>16972278>psychotic patient keeps begging for my attentionPlease tell me more about how you exhibit the aspects of something that you claim doesn't exist. :^)
>>16972270>inherently impossible to account for qualiano its not you fucking retard.
>>16972458>no its notThen why can't your cult come up with any falsifiable theories for it?
>>16972467you do realize "itz da SOVL man" is not a falsifiable theory either? >science doesn't have the answer for everything in the universe RIGHT NOW, so it must be impossible!go back to /x/ with the other braindead niggers where you belong
>>16972471>irrelevant, mentally ill spergout>>16972458>no its notThen why can't your cult come up with any falsifiable theories for it?
resident schizo nigga talking to itself itt
>>16971792Physicalism and materialism are (literally) the same shit, except the former exists solely because materialists need a far broader definition of material to remain a coherent metaphysics.
>>16972489>it's literally the same shit except it's literally different shitSolid take. But I didn't say anything about physicalism.
>>16972491>>it's literally the same shit except it's literally different shitNo its just a word game, that's the point you retard.
>>16971897this
>>16972494I stand at least 3 stdevs above you in terms of intellect, though. But again, where did I say anything about Physicalism?
>>16972500It's implied in your post that you distinguish physical and material.
>>16972502Yes, you mong, I do. As do modern physicists. What does physicalism have to do with it?
>>16972506>What does physicalism have to do with it?That physicalism and materialism are fundamentally the same idea and you keep trying to talk your way around it.
>>16972533>physicalism and materialism are fundamentally the same ideaOne holds that matter does not exist and the other claims that everything is matter so no, they're mutually exclusive.
>>16972535Once again: Word games.Materialism and Physicalism = The only thing that objectively exists are physical objects subject to natural laws
>>16972500>real (physical)
>>16972533>mentally ill retard shits out irrelevant nonsequiturI count that as a concession.
>>16971782So the only alternative is idealism?Panpsychism btfos itself so that's out
>>16972547Some kind of neutral monism is the simplest option.
>>16972542>Word gamesJust because you don't understand physics, that doesn't mean the words are interchangeable.>The only thing that objectively exists are physical objects subject to natural laws"Objects" and "laws" don't exist. These are useful fictions we use to simplify things for convenience. There are only energy excitations in fields and interactions between them through information exchange.
>it's another episode of mouth breathers thinking Physicalism means Physics which means Physics (current year edition)
>>16972555By that logic everything that exists is physical and physicalism becomes a tautology
>>16972561>retard figures out (with some serious help) physicalism is a worthless stance to take>blames "my logic" as if i invented this cope
>>16972565Who are you quoting?
>>16972566I'm not quoting anyone, tard. Just noting that you've more or less correctly identified why Physicalism fails, only you seem to think it's my fault for leading you to that realization instead of a fault of Physicalism itself for being what it is.
>>16972549Well, the problem with panpsychism is that if you add a conscious element to all elementary particles without changing the laws of physics then the conscious element wouldn't be able to influence our behaviour at all. So we couldn't actually know that we're conscious and the whole thing becomes meaningless.Not sure how a neutral monism would side step that problem. And if if could, it would alter the laws of physics which would make it testable with physics experiments. But what would such a test even look like?It can't look like a particle interaction because that would just be another particle and not consciousness which would bring us back to the starting point.
>>16971782retard, read Parfit, then Dennett.
>>16972591That's a funny post because I know you're too low-IQ to actually grasp anything by Dennett, only memes and regurgitation.
>>16971958Evolution is mathematically impossible, therefore there has to be a non-fleshy entity, i.e. God, who created us.Imagine him like this if you lack fantasy (though it would not be accurate)https://i.4cdn.org/sci/1777997014816014.jpg
>>16972619Is god mathematically possible?
>>16971916They are interconnected but one does not make the other, although one should follow rulings to ensure consistency.A hard drive is not its contents. But you would want to expect that a hard drive will be made to carry the kind of data it can support to be accessed and stored properly.Eh, not the best wording but probably works.
>>16972575This all reads like a projection of Materialist intuitions onto other philosophies. The same doomed attempt to break down reality into a collection little billiards balls, now applied to subjectivity. Like you interpret panpsychism as attaching a qualia-atom to every material atom, then note it's functionally redundant and absurd. But who said you're supposed to attribute subjective interpretability to individual objects at all, let alone atomic ones? It makes more sense when applied to physical, like the structure of a physical system's evolution, not the structure of matter arranged in space.
>>16972991when applied to physical processes*
>>16972991It doesn't matter where you put the consciousness. If it has an effect on your behaviour it has to interact with matter.
>>16973130Filtered.
>>16973132Concession accepted
>>16973134>mentally ill retard mumbles about hallucinated concessionsSymptom noted.
>>16973136I mean instead of having a melty you could try to make an argument as to why it matter where you put the consciousness. Why does my argument stop working if you apply it to "the structure of a physical system's evolution" instead of elementary particles?
>>16973140>make an argumentI did, you just didn't understand what it was. Ask shartgpt to help you with reading comprehension or something.
>>16972232>>16972244>oh yea? how do you explain this anecdotal hearsay?>checkmate atheists
>>16973142>y-you just d-didn't understand my g-genius argument haha12 year olds have better excuses bro
>>16973146It's not complicated, but you're straight up retarded so you can't respond meaningfully.
>>16973150Yeah it's quite easy.If consciousness influences your mouth movements to form the words "I am conscious" then it has to interact with the matter of your body at some point.To interact with matter it has to manifest as some kind of force.So we already know a bunch of forces. How do we know which one is consciousness?If it doesn't manifest as a force then you're indistinguishable from as philoshphical zombie and we might as well scrap the whole consciousness thing.Note that I was arguing against that form of panpsychism where you just stick consciousness onto something else. Idealism doesn't really have this problem because everything is already consciousness
>>16973153Ok, you're actually a lot more retarded than I initially thought. I thought you were going for some botched variant of the so-called combination problem but you straight up don't understand the base basics of what panpsychism implies and arguing completely irrelevant nonsense.
>>16973155I will get to the combination problem when panpsychists solve the problem I outlined above. But that will never happen of course
>>16973159The problem you outlined about is your profound mental retardation. It's the same kind of "problem" as:>hurrrrrr but how does the equation of a circle interact with the geometric shape of a circle?????
>>16971958I mean if consiousness doesn't exist , we don't really have a life either?we are what we are, but we "aren't" really anything, no perspective to anything.
>>16971782anon, we're metaphysical. you can increase IQ without increasing cranial size lol
eh, you are all babbling a lot, but i genuinely can't see any way for consciousness to be anything but a purely biological process. and i say this as someone who wishes there was more to life and the mind than just the flesh.
>>16971782Put that consciousness in my hand, bro.
Reminder: There is no coherent definition of 'physical' that exists.
>>16973431>eh, you are all babbling a lot, but i genuinely can't see any way for consciousness to be anything but a purely biological process.And why is there a biological process to begin with?
>>16973431>maybe if i replace 'physical' with 'biological' refuted 18th century materialist intuitions will be more defensibleFiltered.
>>16973525All the things described by current physics belong to the same basic ontological category, so to say something is physical means to say it belongs to the same ontological category as rocks. What's wrong with this definition? :^)
