I'm too stupid to understand the debate around consciousness, but as far as I understand, physicalists are losing and we may have souls. Is this correct?
>>17019900No
>>17019900There's no debate to be had. You can't measure or do any experiments with consciousness so you're left with pure speculation.
>>17019900Pretty much. >>17019905>>17019903See:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrMEL20o5KE
>>17019906I'm not watching your shitty youtube video. Present the strongest arguments here.
>>17019908 Physicalism has always had rhetorical power over its alternatives, especially in our Anglo-analytical western world, even if it’s conceptually empty. Somehow, someway, in a non question begging fashion, consciousness is supposed to “emerge” out of underlying “processes”. How is that “emergence” described, what are the “processes”? We’re never told. Saying that “neurons/chemistry/physics did it” is about as conceptually meaningful and explanatory as saying pixie dust did it. Emergent properties in physics are statistical emergent properties like pressure and temperature which arise out of an underlying ensemble of particles. (Of which we often make deeply simplifying assumptions about and do calculus computations on). For that emergence to work, we have to have knowledge of the emergent state variable and the underlying particle ensemble. Pressure is derived from entropy, which is derived from mathematical objects like partition functions, which is constructed by knowledge of the energy properties of the individual particles (It’s Hamiltonian). The overlying emergent property we care about (pressure, temperature, whatever) is, effectively, a complicated function of the underlying high-dimensional energy geometry of the particles. Those particles are things we know exist: , photons, electrons, molecules (if we’re making simplifying assumptions about the molecules) etc. Physicalists are at pains, then, to describe what or how consciousness emerges without it devolving into normal statistical mechanics on particles we know exist. 1/2
>>17019908>>170199162/2What are we measuring? How does that depend on the underlying energies of the particles in question? Are there special consciousness particles we’re not familiar with? How do we even measure consciousness precisely (I.e: how am I supposed do calculus on consciousness?) if I can’t do calculus on consciousness, then there isn’t any emergence to begin with, because there’s no objects to compute integrals over. If I can’t do calculus on the supposed (let’s say “C”) particles that consciousness emerges from, then there is no emergence at all whatever. This is why smart physicalists deny that consciousness or thoughts or intentionality exist at all. And that, to me, is effectively reductio ad absurdum, and gives sufficient reason to reject physicalism.
>>17019917It's likely physicalism isn't truly physicalism, but Earth-humans, of the lowliest and evil kind, are using it to propagate their evil.
>>17019916>How is that “emergence” described, what are the “processes”? We’re never toldArgument from ignorance. It takes a very cursory amount of research to learn what direction this line of speculation tends to go. >Saying that “neurons/chemistry/physics did it” is about as conceptually meaningful and explanatory as saying pixie dust did itGood thing that's not what the emergentist camp says >For that emergence to work, we have to have knowledge of the emergent state variable and the underlying particle ensemble.Patently false. We don't need to have knowledge of anything for that thing to work.>Physicalists are at pains, then, to describe what or how consciousness emerges without it devolving into normal statistical mechanics on particles we know exist.Consciousness could very well be a result of "normal statistical mechanics." That's pretty much the point.>>17019917>How do we even measure consciousness preciselyWe can't. See >>17019905>if I can’t do calculus on consciousness, then there isn’t any emergence to begin withI repeat that emergence does not rely on human knowledge. This line of argumentation is a non-starter.>This is why smart physicalists deny that consciousness or thoughts or intentionality exist at all.It depends what you mean by this.Tl;dr: you don't understand the things which you are opining on.
>>17019925>>17019905>>17019908The thing is, there's no reason for humans to be conscious. The debate isn't over "how" but "why". It serves no evolutionary purpose. That's why we need dualism or idealism to explain it.
>>17019905>You can't measure or do any experiments without consciousness so you're left with pure speculation.Ftfy NPC
>>17019928>It serves no evolutionary purposeA few problems with this line of reasoning:>Misunderstanding of evolution.Evolution doesn't optimize for the simplest possible being that fills a niche. Natural selection will weed out unfavorable traits but has no problem preserving inconsequential ones. Even if consciousness were a thing that arose out of some genetic fluke independently of responsiveness to stimuli, there would be no reason for that trait to be removed from the gene pool.>Assumes consciousness can even be separated from the aforementioned responsiveness A common position within the emergentist camp is that consciousness naturally arises from the mere act of processing sensory data. This would render your premise false as these things are useful in survival and reproduction. >Assumes consciousness as unique to biologyIt's a very common assumption. But an assumption nonetheless. Asserting the relevance of evolution to the discussion of consciousness is built on a foundation that hinges on the "special-ness" of life. It's a form of question-begging in favor of non-physicalist descriptions of consciousness.Even with those points aside, this statement:>That's why we need dualism or idealism to explain it.Does not necessarily follow.
>>17019900Physicalists easily win by demonstrating that anesthetic drugs work to temporarily cease consciousness.
>>17019947How does that disprove soul?
>>17019941>A common position within the emergentist camp is that consciousness naturally arises from the mere act of processing sensory data. This would render your premise false as these things are useful in survival and reproduction.How come animals have no consciousness or abstract thinking skills?
>>17019960Animals do have consciousness and abstract thinking skills.
>>17019961But it's not like human consciousness, and it's impossible to compare the two.
>>17019960>How come animals have no consciousnessWhether this is true is fundamentally unknowable.>or abstract thinking skills?It depends where your goalposts are.If you mean "thinking" in a way that presupposes consciousness, then see the above point. If you're talking about problem solving and planning capabilities in an observable, behavioral, context then many animals demonstrably do have those skills.
>>17019962By what metric?
>>17019900>physicalists are losingYes>and we may have soulsNo
>>17019960>>17019964Animals might just be P-zombies, though?
>>17019976So might every person who isn't me. Hence it being a non-argument to assert what things do and don't have consciousness.I could be the only conscious being in the universe. Equal and opposite to that, even the most elementary of particles may have a rudimentary form of consciousness. It's all meaningless speculation.
>>17019968Could you elaborate, anon?
>>17019980But all humans demonstrably have consciousness, though?
>>17019994In what way which cannot also be applied to other animals?
>>17019947They temporarily cease autobiographical memory, retard.
>>17020000How come reflexes also stop working then, Mr. quads man?
>>17020004Irrelevant.
>>17020000What does consciousness look like in a person under anesthesia?
>>17019997Abstract reasoning like math and logic
>>17020012Impossible to demonstrate either way. All we have is an assumption there are no experiential stream of events under anesthesia. A good analogy is to think of something like blindsight where I can react to a ball without any conscious awareness of doing so. I still *experience* the action taking place.
>>17020015So is a computer conscious?
>>17020023They show literally no signs of consciousness. That doesn't imply "impossible to determine". It implies lack of consciousness.
>>17020030What even is a sign of consciousness? You only have one example of a knowably conscious thing to base your entire notion of consciousness on and that is your own mind. Literally any deviation from it would be an equally valid demonstration of "lack of consciousness."
>>17020030You are a retard.
>>17020044Use of (human) language [the counterexample being parrots or lyre birds--meaning we should say with an intent to communicate something meaningful, that you expect a receiver to both understand and be able to respond to]. Dreaming. Memories. Are you trying to tell me since you exist outside of my own mind that you're not conscious? Fair enough. I don't think you're conscious either. >>17020047Ah yes, Anonymous, the 4channel credential-less /sci/ poster who believes neuroscientists are retards. Now, I know what you're thinking (because I am conscious, unlike you). No, I am not a neuroscientist. I am, however, capable of relaying what reliable neuroscientists have said. If you think the words I've given are those of a retard, then you're calling those who professionally study the brain retards. Of course you'd be someone who does that.
>>17020051>Use of (human) languageSo mutes who don't know sign language aren't conscious?>intent to communicate something meaningful,You can't prove intent>Dreaming. MemoriesHow do you prove that?>Are you trying to tell me since you exist outside of my own mind that you're not conscious?No. I'm saying you have no means of knowing whether Iam or not.From my perspective, I can't know you're conscious.
>>17020051Consciousness is subjective experience. Thoughts aren't consciousness. The experiencing of thoughts, sight, sound, etc. is consciousness
>>17020054Consciousness doesn't require all signs of it to exist. This is a pretty simple concept. If someone tells you female humans have uteruses and vaginas, and you respond>Heh, so "women" without a uterus or vagina are not women? Lol! Gotcha!You are not being witty nor intelligent. You're being obtuse. I hope deliberately so because if it's not on purpose then you're a legitimate dumbass.
>>17019900I wish for physicalists to be wrong because imagine the shit we could do after understanding the nature, conduit and expression mechanics of consciousness.Engineering souls to spec and putting them wherever you like sounds like a really fun field for R&D
>>17020051>Ah yes, Anonymous, the 4channel credential-less /sci/ poster who believes neuroscientists are retards. Now, I know what you're thinking (because I am conscious, unlike you). No, I am not a neuroscientist. I am, however, capable of relaying what reliable neuroscientists have said. If you think the words I've given are those of a retard, then you're calling those who professionally study the brain retards. Of course you'd be someone who does that.Tell me what metric your precious neuroscientists use to determine a person is conscious or not without resorting to tautologies.
>>17020089Emotionally driven word salad.
>>17020089>Consciousness doesn't require all signs of it to existMy point is that you can't (or at least shouldn't) make these generalizations with a sample size of 1.I can effectively generalize women having uteruses as billions of them do. I can identify a woman by her uterus.You have only observed your own consciousness. Hence my point here:>>17020044Your distinction about the use of language (even stranger, singling out human language and explicitly excluding animals that mimic it) is very much missing the point. Your "signs" of consciousness are nothing more than inferences you have compiled from a sample size of 1.
>>17019900>physicalists are losingPhysicalists are not even playing. They have no concrete, future-proof definition of what it means for anything to be physical.
>>17019928>It serves no evolutionary purpose.Proof?
>>17019941>A common position within the emergentist camp is that consciousness naturally arises from the mere act of processing sensory dataThat's not a "position" worthy of consideration. It's an uninformative statement based on magical thinking.
>>17020103You've seen more people with consciousness (You) (1) than you have uteruses (zero) (0). Yet you generalize off zero while rejecting generalizing off one. Bizarre pseudologic.
>>17020112>It's an uninformative statement based on magical thinking.And the notion that consciousness arises from literal magic isn't?
>>17020117>i'm hearing voices in my head talking about literal magicTalk to your tardwrangler about upping your dose of antipsychotics.
>>17020117Accidental invariant identity across all domains of episteme ontologically actually; that's their claim: that an accidentally self assembling fluke manifested across the entire universe bringing order universally and invariantly to every particle, every field, and every genetic template; spontaneously and naturally self organizing abiogenesis of the universe itself which is slave to an entropy gradient that makes the originating organization impossible.
>meds mentioned>namefag appearsAm I nooticing too much? Am I going schizo? Am I destined to become a user of the name field?
>>17020123Is that your formal argument? Where's the Lagrange?
>>17020126In 1884, meridian time personnel met in Washington and wick-rotated it out of existence. No god equals 4 corner simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth. No god equals 4 corner stages of metamorphic rotating humanity.
>>17020113I will never understand fedoras like you who adamantly defend the existence of consciousness.
>>17020141That's fine. You need consciousness to understand.
>>17019900OP here. I still don't get it, but physicalism sounds more possible now.
>>17019900There is no feedback on ourselves, so we are a stable entity outside of it cause.
>>17019900>we may have souls.The way I think of it is materialism is just one possibility out of infinite. Something being out there is infinite possibilities. So why would I gamble on one out of infinity?
>>17019900>physicalists are losingkinda>we may have soulsJust as a dragon may live in Carl Sagan's garage
>>17019905Thank you. I'm so sick of weirdo religious/anti-religious people inserting themselves into scientific discussions having no clue what the fuck they are talking about.The study of the natural world can't make any claims about the supernatural.
>>17020462>consciousness is supernatural
>>17020465OP asked about souls, a soul is definitely supernatural.Otherwise go measure it and get a noble price or something
>>17020468OP is a complete brainlet who mistakenly believes the "debate around consciousness" is about souls.
>>17020468'Soul' is a good descriptor of consciousness, but it's not exactly what consciousness is.
Consciousness is something that emerges after a being has high enough general intelligence that there is excess brain power left after the necessary functions for survival. This plus excess time to use that intelligence to discover one's own consciousness. Stone Age people who had ritual burials already had consciousness, and I would argue that they were more so than many people today, as that time to contemplate is wasted on all the distractions a mind can have these days. Consciousness seems to emerge from the "why" line of thought. Once you start observing your own actions and thinking from a 3rd perspective, you are conscious. It kind of separates the mind from body, creating an illusion of a soul.
>Consciousness is something that emerges after a being has high enough general intelligence
>>17020493Sure all humans can be conscious even if they don’t realize it but it seems that one has to be conscious of their consciousness to be conscious. And to have those thoughts it makes sense that one has to be capable of complex thought.
>it seems that one has to be conscious of their consciousness to be conscious. And to have those thoughts it makes sense that one has to be capable of complex thought.
>we're going to ignore the /sci/entifically documented effects of every psychoactive molecule and neurological case studies on regional brain damage to argue that spoopy soopernatural properties underpin higher consciousness
>i'm just going to allude to the heckin' Science (tm) without logically explaining how it confirms my belief system
>>17020150You can't prove consciousness empirically exists, dumb fedora. Read Dennett.
>>17020656That's what you think.Brain can be used to prove anything.
>>17020658I already know consciousness is swirling power, and some people can be analyzed, proving they have consciousness.
