Using a scientific framework to calculate your "I" is nonsensical because "I" is absolute in regard to the subjective experiencer
>>16990533>"I" is absolute in regard to the subjective experiencerIt's still subjective tho, there are no absolutes, you have to wake up the accident wasn't your fault please stop dreaming and wake up, please wake up.
>>16990533Uh ok, but you can still be smart about it and not stupid though. What makes more sense, some mythical essence called a soul that nobody can agree on how it works, where it goes, what it is, etc. Or just a representation of the physical brain which makes sense considering the "soul" has experimentally been verified to have a 1:1 connection with the physical brain. There's countless evidence and an person who has a massive brain injury literally changes permanently as a person. Lol.
>>16990564correlation does not equal causation
>>16990564>What makes more sense, some mythical essence called a soul that nobody can agree on how it works, where it goes, what it is, etc. Or just a representation of the physical brain which makes sense considering the "soul" has experimentally been verified to have a 1:1 connection with the physical brain.Well the former, definitely. Not that there are no arguments for the latter that make sense on the surface, mind you, but they all rely heavily on epiphenomenalism or eliminativism, which is the exact opposite of an intuitive explanation for consciousness/the subjective 1st person experience we all (allegedly) experience.
It couldn't come from the elementary particles, or the force back would interfere with the observation.
>>16990533it is a product of brain function, this is easily proven by the fact that there is no such as a consciousness without brain function to go along with it
>>16990533le scientific framework/method is a meme anyway>>16990583how would you know? le consciousness can only manipulate reality through a brainif it existed without a brain to manipulate then how would you know it was there?>>16990581nonsensical
>>16990594>nonsensicalA framework couldn't be built upon itself, or it would lose meaning. Time of the observer would have to be separate from the artifact.
>>16990533consciousness does not exist.there is only awareness, a nature shared by all matter.we observe the results of our actions, structures of awareness purposefully constructed to be unpredictable as a defence against prediction, and we interpret this as free will (those with a sharp mind will notice that the two things are, in fact, equivalent)
>>16990583>fleshy bits that just happens to exist somehow leads to subjective experiencesamazing how no one really questions this
There is no subjective experience, if you replicated the state of the brain and the environment at the time someone had an experience they would have the same experience.Experience is only subjective in the sense that you can't become someone else's brain, and there are so many variables that go into it that it's unlikely for two people to have an exactly identical experience. It's as magical as fingerprints.
>>16990594>how would you know? le consciousness can only manipulate reality through a brainif it existed without a brain to manipulate then how would you know it was there?I see youe point but that again breaks >causality is not corelation ruleIf we set consciousness or brain as primary we break the rule for we have no insight into what happens before (if anything does). I think that more troublessome option is that it is case of corelation. Because if it is case of causality, at least we know starting point. This way we know there might be something benethe both but dont know what it is.
>>16990573How can you prove a soul exists nigga? Punk ass bitch
>>16990632>There is no subjective experience, if you replicated the state of the brain and the environment at the time someone had an experience they would have the same experience.Source: "Trust me, bro!"God damn soientists are retarded.
>>16990533should not you try to make sense? I think you should.
>>16990610It has been questioned which is why we know the fleshy bits are responsible for thought, you still didn't explain why you think that's not the case and didn't show even the slightest evidence towards something else.
>>16990806Meanwhile you're here trying to beg the question to push for whatever cult belief of the month you want to shill.
>>16990533>Using a scientific framework to calculate your "I" is nonsensical because "I" is absolute in regard to the subjective experiencerConsciousness is not the "I", thoughbeit.
>>16990533There is zero evidence for the existence of consciousness, so yes technically its non-scientific because science cannot hardly address something that has not even been shown to exist.
>>16990878>be unconscious>don't experience anything>be conscious>experience thingsThanks for playing
>>16990882Subjective experience is not scientific evidence.
>>16990884Anon, but its not that SE is evidence for something, we are tallking about existance of SE it self. The fact that people say SE is not valid for objective truth is argument for existance of SE, the very thing people ask evidance for.
>>16990843>It has been questioned which is why we know the fleshy bits are responsible for thoughtNo, that doesn't explain why it leads to subjective qualia retard.
>>16990887What is "why" in this context? We know subjective conscious experiences are directly related to brain function and you can't have those experiences without brain function. You seem to be begging really hard for a religiously anthropomorphic explanation of the "why" despite not even describing what you mean.
>>16990888That is exactly questiom that brought me depression after 8 years of dwelling in HPC.
>>16990845Explain the exact mechanisms of how one would be able to navigate through life with dual subjective awareness of your exact copy.>whatever cult beliefYou believe in ESP, even though you pretend otherwise.
>>16990890You haven't shown any evidence for or requirement of any sort of dualism happening.
>>16990888>What is "why" in this context?How subjective experience can arise from non-living matter. >We knowKys>despite not even describing what you mean.I just did.
>>16990891>dualismBut you literally believe that if you had an exact copy of you right here right now that you would be able to pilot both.
>>16990894>How subjective experience can arise from non-living matter.Do you mean active brain function? Can you show what you describe as subjective experience happening without living matter?
>>16990894But you are assuming here that it is something that arises and not something that is fundamental. How do you know that rock does not have some form of non-antropocentric experience?
>>16990896When was that stated? You seem to be jumping through some argument flowchart only you are aware of without really reading anything that's written.
>>16990897>Do you mean active brain function? Great, so when I'm looking at a brain, that means I'm directly experiencing what qualia looks like firsthand!
>>16990902How did you jump to that bizarre conclusion? Describe the thought process here.
>>16990902>>16990896Hard to believe in consciousness when there are actual humans making posts as retarded as these.
>>16990902Experiencing qualia...Qualia is experience anon. Your questiom makes no sense. You are loosing your mind in wordplay because of assumptions. In this case assumption of entiry such as soul experiencing qualia as separate thing.
>>16990899>How do you know that rock does not have some form of non-antropocentric experience?That's just panpsychism, which admittedly makes more sense than emergentism/eliminative materialism.>>16990900If you say "they would have the same experiences", that directly implies they share the same qualia. Obviously this is complete nonsense.
>>16990906Nowhere did I state that, and even the other anon that talked about "same experiences" did not describe whatever you are strawmanning, you aren't making any sense because you don't really seem to have a point.
>>16990906>That's just panpsychism, which admittedly makes more sense than emergentism/eliminative materialism.Yes but anon no theory has any sense from standpoint of other theory because thwy operate on different kinda of ontological assumptions!It is like writing a script for a movie in which flight is not possible and calling the movie where script allows it stupid.
>>16990903>>16990904>>16990905>if consciousness is the physical substrate, then that means brains are consciousness>therefore every time you observe a human brain, you are witnessing that person's qualiaYou're literally too retarded to follow along this conversation.
>>16990909Anon you did not even read pappers regarding formulation of HPC. And you will tell me i am retarded? What are you? Some kond of ragebait bot?
>>16990909You breaking down into hysterical idiocy to distract from the fact that you can't show even the slightest bit of evidence for the questions you're begging doesn't change the fact that you're still begging a question.
>>16990907>Nowhere did I state thatHow am I suppose to know you're a different poster?>and even the other anon that talked about "same experiences" did not describe whatever you are strawmanningYes, I'm well aware he denied subjective experience outright. However, he still implies their experiences are "identical" with zero further elaboration.>you aren't making any sense because you don't really seem to have a point.It's been established /sci/ users have the reading level of 5th graders, yes.>>16990912>HPCNo one cares.>>16990913>you can't show even the slightest bit of evidence for the questions you're begging>btw I don't have to justify my own premisesThis really is the retard board.
>>16990914Mofo you want to tallk about consciousness and dont even care about HPC?
>>16990914>How am I suppose to know you're a different poster?By not making assumptions, not like it matters anyway since your strawmanning is retarded and pointless regardless of who you're replying to, which you continue doing.Describe what you mean by qualia and why brain function would be unable to carry out such a function. We do know that brain function is directly related to experience, unless you show otherwise. You have a lot of ground to cover before you can even try shilling your religious beliefs, and no another hysterical strawman won't convince anyone.
>>16990915If you assume computers are consciousness then it's relevant. I have no reason to assume so.
>>16990917Anon trully i am asking you now. Are you delusional or are you raigbaiting?
>>16990916>By not making assumptionsIt's literally the most reasonable assumption that a person you're arguing with is speaking on behalf of the original post(er), whether or not you agree with the finer details. Go to reddit if you're so obsessed with identifying yourself.>not like it matters anyway since your strawmanning is retarded and pointless regardless of who you're replying to, which you continue doing.How am I 'strawmanning' a moronic argument when the person is the one who made it?>errmmm subjectivity doesn't exist...>but you also can't go into other people's brains!!!These are the sort of people defending eliminative materialism in the thread.>Describe what you mean by qualia and why brain function would be unable to carry out such a function.How do objects produce subjects? The hard problem of consciousness, in general. This is a question that neuroscience alone is not able to tap because it's not actually describing the phenomenal experience that goes with consciousness, only physical mechanisms. >We do know that brain function is directly related to experience, unless you show otherwise.Maybe, but how it interacts with consciousness is not 100% a 1-to-1. >You have a lot of ground to cover before you can even try shilling your religious beliefs, and no another hysterical strawman won't convince anyone.See? This is just pure anti-intellectualism/naive realism. Figures like David Chalmers aren't "religious nutjobs" for questioning the modern day dogma of consciousness.
>>16990922I think its Saturday and you're enjoying your break from high school.
>>16990924>How am I 'strawmanning' a moronic argument when the person is the one who made it?You are strawmanning because you are the one creating moronic arguments that no one made to begin with by intentionally misinterpreting them. This is blatantly obvious and you can't worm yourself out of being dishonest and irrational in any way other than apologizing for your shitty behavior and acting better next time.>the phenomenal experience that goes with consciousnessYou seem to be categorizing "feeling" as something apart, a different entity from brain function. Now show this happening, or else you're just making a blind assumption.
>>16990924The myth of qualia is quite literally an ancient dogma of consciousness that has never been even remotely close to being proven, how are you somehow blind to your obvious hypocrisy?
>>16990930>blah blah blah you're wrong because niggers tongue my assholeGot it, what else?>You seem to be categorizing "feeling" as something apart, a different entity from brain function.I never said this btw.
>>16990926I doubt that you think.
>>16990932>prove something that cannot be demonstrated to other people, yet is entirely self-evidentYeah no shit.
>>16990933>I never said this btw.You said it right here:>How do objects produce subjects?You are describing a "subject" is something apart from the cognitive change that happens in your brain, but there is zero evidence for any sort of dualism happening to begin with.
>>16990937Dualism can be demonstrated by showing subjective experience happening without the brain functions that carry out such an experience. If you cannot demonstrate that then there's absolutely no reason for a dualistic theory to exist to begin with, it's superfluous.
>>16990936Oh! And you're also probably a jeet too.>>16990938>You are describing a "subject" is something apart from the cognitive change that happens in your brainI'm asking how "subjectivity" can emerge given enough time and complexity you dumb faggot.
>>16990940>Dualism can be demonstrated Are you for real with this shit?
>>16990941Subjectivity is evidently a brain function since we know consciousness comes and goes naturally depending on brain activity, do you have a problem with that?
>>16990945You're just talking in circles.
>>16990942Yes, the concept of dualism can be demonstrated if it's actually true as described. If you intentionally twist the concept into an unknowable then it's simply valueless, a theory that does not show truth is categorically untrue.
>>16990941>Oh! And you're also probably a jeet too.Go back to /pol/ kid.
>>16990948Because that's where it ends, it's a model that accounts for itself without requiring any sort of imaginary extra entity.
>>16990949>Yes, the concept of dualism can be demonstrated if it's actually true as described.It's definitionally impossible, since the entire idea of immaterialism is literally impossible to falsify. Any good monist will have no troubles telling you this. Never mind we're not even talking about dualism until you brought it up, anyways...>>16990950>saaar do you recall the HPC bloody basterd saaaaaaar
>>16990951>imaginary extra entitySo you finally admit everyone is a p-zombie then.
>>16990955We know that wakeful consciousness is a high energy brain function since we turn it off to conserve energy during the night, we also know that there are several factors that aren't intrinsically linked that create different states of consciousness and it's far from an on off switch, such as dream states being related to sleep cycles, lucid dreams, drug-induced states, and all that. While the concept of p-zombie relies on the myth of qualia, I do think that individual people have different states of consciousness, since we do know it's a highly malleable concept that constantly changes throughout our lives.
>>16990533Radiation was too until measured.
>>16990964Brain activity being measurably electric and chemical hurts the ego, that's really the only difference and why religious dogmatists try so hard to confuse these truths it away.
Why are you trying to treat a process (or a condition of being) as a thing to be measured?
>>16990533subjective phenomena is still scientific
>>16990963>nonsensical non-sequitur bot reply
>>16990988Thanks for the bot reply I guess, I hoped for something with substance but that's hard to come by in religious bot threads.
>>16990990You are a bot because you admitted you don't have consciousness lmao.
>>16990992Can you try being less of a lazy communicator? You keep making half-posts.
>>16990993You haven't made a single argument except for irrelevant tangents because you're a philosophically illiterate shithead that doesn't understand what the hard problem of consciousness is trying to bring to light.
>>16990998What hard problem are you even trying to talk about? Another lazy half-post.
>>16991000>in a consciousness thread>doesn't know the hard problem of consciousness
>>16991003Go on.
>>16991005https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
>>16991006What do you find inadequate about the statement that consciousness is a product of brain function? This was already discussed by the way.
>>16991007>that's just the way it is, don't question itMore begging the question.
>>16991009What about it do you question and why? Why do you have such a hard time making full posts?
>>16991010Read the second paragraph of the article I linked you, particularly this line:>Even after all the relevant functional facts are explicated, they argue, there will still remain a further question: "why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience?">Why do you have such a hard time making full posts?Why are you trying to gaslight me into believing I'm not being clear?
>>16991013Can I see any evidence or argument of this distinction between brain activity and experience?>Why are you trying to gaslight me into believing I'm not being clear?Because you are being objectively and intentionally unclear.
>>16991017>Can I see any evidence or argument of this distinction between brain activity and experience?The question is not whether or not brain states supervene on mental events, but how is it that consciousness can emerge at all -- why I am *this* person experiencing such and such and so on. It's theoretically possible for everyone to be a p-zombie with no actual internal world, yet this doesn't (seem) to be the case as far as we know.>Because you are being objectively and intentionally unclear.Can you explain red to the blind?
>>16991007>consciousness is a product of brain functionBut does it become decentralised or does it persist in some sort of function after production like a wave function.Split brain raise a lot of qustions.
>>16991021>how is it that consciousness can emerge at allThrough the brain activity we know exists, this is easily proven by the lack of "experience" when there is no brain activity. Your point basically relies on the argument that the brain cannot possibly carry out such a function, despite it doing so. You have to demonstrate what you're trying to say.>It's theoretically possible for everyone to be a p-zombieThat theory violates our knowledge that people have consciousnesses, so no it's not possible.
>>16991022The brain is inherently decentralized, you cannot simplify the concept of consciousness into one thing because the word doesn't even describe one state of mind to begin with, consciousness takes many forms and you yourself experience multiple states of consciousness every day depending on the current configuration of your brain's activity.
>>16991024All you have is tautologies no real curiosity or insight. Why are you still replying?
>>16991029*nor any real
>>16991029The statement that consciousness relies on brain activity is easily proven by the fact that there is no consciousness without brain activity, and you can consistently induce different states of consciousness by tampering with brain activity, this is a statement that can be proven false by demonstrating consciousness without brain activity, so no it's not even remotely close to a tautology.
Of course everybody observer who experiences "reality" will observe that:1. They are the the observer. 2. Their subjective reality is real. What else they gonna think?
>>16991033You still don't get what is actually being asked. Even random people on the street have a roughly intuitive idea of what sort of problems the question poses for us.
>>16991040It's up to you to clearly describe your theory and prove it, which you'll obviously never do since you just threw around a bunch of piss poor mythologies of the mind so far.
>>16991033Congratulations, you proved that consciousness is contingent on a conscious brain, reality is contingent on being embedded in cause and effect, and that you are adjacent to what can be described as intelligent. None of these help move us in the right direction.
>>16991044>It's up to you to clearly describe your theoryBut I'm not describing a theory. The hard problem of consciousness is simply differentiating between the causal mechanisms that produce consciousness vs the qualitative experience of consciousness, which is irreducible insofar it can only ever refer to itself.>which you'll obviously never do since you just threw around a bunch of piss poor mythologies of the mind so far.Epiphenomenalism is probably the most incoherent, woo tier mythology of the mind to date.
>>16991048What is "the right direction"? You guys are really addicted to half-posts.>>16991049>the qualitative experience of consciousnessCan you prove the experience of consciousness is separate from brain activity? You're creating a distinction here you need to support.
>>16991049I, too, like to abstract my problems until they're somebody else's.
>>16991052I love you. Keep exposing /sci/ as the dimwitted retard dilettante board for all time, friend.>>16991053That's what you consciousness deniers do by making it impossible to discuss consciousness in good faith.
>>16991058>makes a statement>fails to substantiate it>calls others retardsThis is like, 101 shit dude. How are there still idiots that fall into these holes?
>>16991058I don't deny consciousness, just the fact that we can progress meaningfully with defining it from within. If I had to try and explain:Minds are mathematical functions taking a set of sensory data, an internal state, and outputing a set of motor data and an updated internal state, if one was provided. All parameters and output are optional.Not all mind functions are complex enough for consciousness. Internal state can be used to generate consciousness, through the formation of memories which can be used to refine behaviors based on past experiences. Internal state doesn't imply consciousness, stable memories do. Minds must be able to model themselves in order to be conscious. A mind function needs a substrate to run on. This can be a physical body running biology, for example. It could be a silicon chip. It doesn't matter.Sensory data is provided by the substrate. Substrate sensory capabilities can differ wildly.Motor data is choosing one of the available actions to the substrate. Available actions and physical capabilities also depend on the substrate. The mind function is not the substrate, any more than a computer is the program. The mind function is more of a pattern, a set of instructions and data. If replicated into a different substrate, the mind has been duplicated.
I love how nerdy about interesting stuff you are, anon. <3
>>16991064How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?>>16991068>Minds are mathematical functions taking a set of sensory data, an internal state, and outputing a set of motor data and an updated internal state, if one was provided. All parameters and output are optional.Oh my fucking lord, a functionalist...>Not all mind functions are complex enough for consciousness.>Internal state doesn't imply consciousness, stable memories do. I don't agree with this idea that one's sense of awareness is tied solely to their autobiographical memory. Are you not "conscious" when you're wide awake under midazolam and the surgeon gives you explicit instructions for you to follow? Are you not conscious when you're dreaming before forgetting all about it 20 seconds later just as soon as you wake up? Are fish not "conscious" in the way birds and mammals are? In any case, it seems to me that consciousness and intelligence (i.e. computation) are two separate orders of mind entirely.>The mind function is not the substrate, any more than a computer is the program. The mind function is more of a pattern, a set of instructions and data. If replicated into a different substrate, the mind has been duplicated.But even in the case you generate an exact replica, the consciousness that would emerge is entirely irreducible in regards to their placement within space and time. Such a thought experiment also indirectly implies that the replica never mattered to begin with and we could just theseus ship our consciousness into any non-discrete location on the globe.
You can tell you're going against quantum fluctuations to get to the function, so it's a 45-degree wave movement onto the life function.
>>16990533>Consciousness is a non-scientific phenomenon
>>16990533If consciousness has a component that is outside of material and causality then you're right
>>16990533The entire concept of consciousness is low IQ folk psychology.
>>16991210The low IQ folks are right and scientists are oversocialized retards for dogmatically rejecting something that obviously exists doebeit.
>>16991210>cutting edge neuroscience is low IQ folk psychologyConsciousness denialism is low IQ pop science.
