>>17083711
>When I was 11, the idea of solipsism randomly independently crossed my mind
>And I came to realization that the question of Other Mind still boils down to (not so blind?) faith.
Just wait until you hit 12 and finally realize that by your kiddie logic, pretty much everything is "down to faith", rendering your musings completely moot.

>>17083714

The problem of the possible "experienced hallucination" we cannot quite get rid of anyway. It is just highly unlikely. Instead, we could compare behavioural complexity and consistency.

>>17083714
>Just wait until you hit 12
Happened years ago and didn't quite help. Maybe it's because I'm neurodivergent, who knows.
I do realize that literally everything is up to faith (in case of what I call consistent and convergent experience, I find the scientific/materialist/physicalist/(post-)positivist model the most practical and utilitarian thing to believe in, because it predicts future experience with immense accuracy, but still, it doesn't explain why there is only one subject), it just always seemed counter-intuitive to me that there is more than one conscious subject in the world because I can't quite grasp how more than one could possibly exist. Well, I couldn't until I discovered Hume, James and Kastrup in my late teens, they offer a pretty good explanation - the subject, if we even introduce such category, is indeed only one, and the illusion of it "being trapped in its head" is simply a part of this universal stream of experience.

>>17083750
>Happened years ago and didn't quite help.
Then you're mentally challenged and will forever remain stuck in a stage of intellectual development that any moderately intelligent kid passes by the end of middle school.

>>17083750
>Maybe it's because I'm neurodivergent
We used to just call that retardation.

>>17083753
>>17083756
Ok, so the very moment I decided to calm down and get my shit together, you decide to go back into the territory of personal insults instead? I thought we could finally have a decent discussion.
If you for some reason do truly believe that I possess an IQ score below two standard deviations though (which is one of the main criteria of mental retardation), then what really makes you think so? Just curious.

>>17083765
The fact that you're unable to make the natural progression from:

>How can I prove that Bob really feels pain when I whack him with a hammer?
To:
>I guess I can't prove it, so now what?
To:
>Come to think of it, I can't actually prove anything about anything outside of abstract axiomatic systems
To:
>I guess demanding impossible proofs isn't very deep or useful, so what's a viable standard for justified belief?

When you get to the bottom of this sequence you'll be asking babby's first serious epistemological question. But you're (supposedly) a grown-ass adult and still stuck on Level 1 thinking you're very advanced, so I doubt that's ever gonna happen.

>>17083769
>I guess demanding impossible proofs isn't very deep or useful, so what's a viable standard for justified belief?
I partially touched this topic in >>17083750, specifically, in the
>in case of what I call consistent and convergent experience, I find the scientific/materialist/physicalist/(post-)positivist model the most practical and utilitarian thing to believe in, because it predicts future experience with immense accuracy, but still, it doesn't explain why there is only one subject.
part - what I'm trying to say is that belief (to a certain extent) in physicalism is justified for me due its ability to accurately predict future experience, but where this belief reaches its epistemic limits for me is in the part where I'm trying to reach for something beyond mere prediction of experience.

>>17083805
It reaches its "epistemic limit" where your mental retardation kicks in and you arbitrarily decide that the normal standards don't apply for some reason, even though you're obviously still applying them when you're not pumping out pseudointellectual takes on the internet.

>>17083806
There is a good reason I "arbitrarily" decide that these standards stop applying - because physicalist model, no matter how good at prediction of experience, ultimately exists inside my stream of experience. I can try modeling the stream of experience inside the physicalist model and frame it as if the stream of experience exists inside the physicalist model and not vice versa, but the thing is, I know I'm conscious by direct experience (specifically, by the fact that I am experiencing experience), while I only "know" you are conscious by observing your physical behavior and applying a physicalist model and that is what mainly concerns me

>>17083769
how do i know bob really dies when i murder him you mean?

The existence of my experience is the only a priori knowledge I have by default, whereas the existence of other experiences can only be "inferred" from the observations that others behave similarly to what is called "my body".

>>17083820
Does your retarded "stream of experience" follows any consistent rules? Are you human according to your "stream of experience", or do you think you're some kind of special entity?

>>17083823
nta, and you most likely don't want to talk to me, but im gonna just put forward the idea that one of the rules is you can't know the superset of all the rules you already know

>>17083831
>you can't know the superset of all the rules you already know
Ok. And?

>>17083823
Well, according to the physicalist model inside the stream of experience, "I" "am" "human" indeed, but outside of that model, I'm not even so sure if the concept of "I" or "me" even really makes sense - the only thing "I" know is that experience exists as a stream of... experience.
At this point I'm not even sure if it makes sense to use language to philosophize (see "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao" and Cratylus' finger-pointing - keep in mind right now I'm not using these as strict logical formal arguments akin to how they're traditionally used in analytical philosophy - rather I'm trying to point out towards the vibe, the intuitive insight of the concept I'm attempting to formulate with words right now, because I don't wanna eventually spiral into circular definitions where I'll have to define what is a definition, what is what, what is I, etc. - I think at a certain point language and wordceldom might actually become an obstacle for philosophizing, not an aid)

>>17083832
you can combine rules to make new sets of rules to predict some things, but you can't predict everything

>>17083833
I didn't ask anything about "the physicalist model". Do you think you're human? Or are you some kind of special entity?

>>17083834
>but you can't predict everything
Ok. And?

>>17083835
Can you elaborate your question a bit more? In which paradigm or model exactly do I think I'm a human or a special entity? As I said earlier - in the physicalist paradigm/model - I am human. Outside of that model - I'm not sure if this question is even applicable.

>>17083837
>he can't tell me if he believes he's human or not
Holy mental illness. This is what Philosophy 101 does to babby's 80 IQ brain.

>>17083836
well, for one you can't predict if everything in the set creates consistent rules. if only some sets make consistent rules then arguably _______ (potentially the set of all intersections) is not consistent with the superset

>>17083839
I don't care. Do you believe reality follows consistent rules?

>>17083844
maybe in some hypothetical world where you don't care about my answer?

>>17083845
>can't answer a basic question coherently
If you're gonna samefag at least try not to display the same mentally ill patterns as your other samefag.

>>17083838
>babby
On a separate note though, what is a "babby"? Is that some word you made up? Or I'm unaware of some niche slang? Or I haven't visited this board for a few years and this is a common term used here nowadays? Or is it a misspelled "baby"? What does that word mean?
Also why do you keep using personal insults such as unsubstantiated claims about your opponent's cognitive abilities? What is your motivation for such behavior?

>>17083847
k, let me ask you a question. between three laws of motion do you believe that they stand in dramatic tension or are they just kind of separate and don't interact?

>>17083848
Do you think you're human? Or are you some kind of special entity?

>>17083849
>samefag samefags after exactly 1 cooldown period down to the second
Zero impulse control. Lol. Do you believe reality follows consistent rules?

>>17083851
i believe you can affirm whatever you want, yes

>>17083853
>mentally ill retard replies incoherently again

>>17083854
would you prefer a mentally sound retard?

>>17083855
Yes. A mentally sound retard would go do something more appropriate like playing with legos or eating glue or something. A mentally sound retard knows his place and purpose.

>>17083862
mate, i know my place and my purpose because i'm reminded of it daily. enjoy the rest of your day

>>17083863
>i know my place and my purpose because i'm reminded of it daily
Kek. I'm sure you are. And you're welcome for today's daily reminder. Now go, the glue is drying up.

Slav anon back. What did I miss out on?

Oh, I see. There's an "ally" of me in the thread now. Interesting.

OP is literally mentally disabled and I feel bad about bullying him now.

>>17083880
imagine being such a pathetic faggot spending an entire thread bullying an obvious clinical autist with neuroticism flowing over the top
there's not really much dignity in chosing easy targets like that

>>17083936
Yeah, I agree. This is a new low. There are many retards on this board that I genuinely enjoy tormenting but OP just makes me feel bad about myself.

File: 9cac0ff7f6142d4ba26b5a8e9(...).jpg (223 KB, 1024x1024)

223 KB JPG

>>17083711
Yes OP, that is why solipsism and p-zombie is consistently a thing.
While the Hard Problem is "separate", it stems from the same root, which is what is the source of consciousness.
Materialists postulate consciousness is an emergent property of intelligence (aka complex organization of matter such as the brain)
Idealists postulate consciousness is fundemental and matter is the emergent property (objects simulated/dreamed up by a super intelligence, aka the Mind of God, which is either you yourself if you subscribe to solipsism, or a Matrix created by another consciousness whose mind you logged into for a game session).

And since there is no way to objectively define and measure consciousness other than observe your own within yourself, the two sides are locked into an impasse while on this plane of existence.

>>17083821
define death (you'll fail)

>>17083962
>And since there is no way to objectively define and measure consciousness other than observe your own within yourself, the two sides are locked into an impasse while on this plane of existence.
no they aren't.
again, if I make another You it will obligatory experience what you now experience, there is no known scientific way around this. you must argue for it, if you think that isn't so, and prove it.
thus, if you know your own experience, you must accept another identical you has the same experience, and thus you bridge the gap of you knowing someone else has the same experience.
this is banal, I do not really understand why it's breaking your brain so hard.
you refusing to accept this simple fact is a different matter, you can try and cling to your religious ideas as much as you want, but a simple thought exercise btfo's your perspective.
I know you will refuse it, which is typical for people rejecting reality. meds are in order, in that case.

File: 1688624551573728.jpg (64 KB, 618x597)

64 KB JPG

>>17084129
>if hypothetically I magically manifest a perfect example to counter your argument your argument will be countered
Yes, you are somehow perfectly capable of making "another me" just as you are perfectly capable of somehow objectively proving this "other me" you made have the exact same experience as I do.

Just as I am perfectly capable of creating an universe where I am god and you are nothing but a figment of my imagination. You must accept these perfectly reasonable argument or you are in need of meds.

>>17084159
>>17084129
>but a simple thought exercise btfo's your perspective.
suppose you didn't have breakfast

File: 1690852299124439.gif (1.36 MB, 400x300)

1.36 MB GIF

>>17084161
>suppose I didn't have breakfast = suppose you make a perfect copy of me
You know what, you want this so bad, I'll give it to you: I concede that if you make a copy of me that will experience exactly what I experience, then this copy of me will experience exactly what I experience, by definition.
There, now go claim your Nobel while I take some much needed meds.

>>17084177
you are not the same one second to the next, so if it's slightly off, will it still experience what you experience? you keep being conscious, yet your structure is pretty different, to when you started reading this post

Oh boy I sure love when /sci/ turns into /x/

>>17083711
Can you predict how a pair of dice you throw are going to land? If you can, go to a bunch of casinos and take their money until they all kick you out. There's no difference between that and "other minds."

>>17084181
I know for a fact I can experience what I experience, because I directly experiences it, form change from one second to the next or no form change.
I do not know for a fact you really experience what you claim to experience because I simply cannot observe your inner experiencing. I am taking you at your word for the sake of social cohesion, as everyone is.

>>17083711
anyone got a link to the previous thread

>>17083711
>Because you can't prove that spike trains, hemodynamics, EM fields, behavior, etc. actually corresponds to something inside that actually "feels shit" the same way I do.
Everything you just typed flows causally from your subjective experience of being self-aware. In theory it should be possible to understand this process and then in theory it should also be possible to prove that other humans have it too. It's not a complete solution to the hard problem but it's much better than where you are now (and also a refutation of the zombie argument, by the way).

>>17084493
That proves solipcism is wrong but doesnt disprove that pzombies arent a thing, p zombies dont have qualia ( inner experience) they can have a subjective experience of the world like the rest of us. they arent conscious in they way we are. Im not explaining this right but here is an example.
Emotions are subjective and can be observed through CT scan of the brain that show certain regoins are active when feeling that emotion. However the individual lacks an actual subjective qualia experience. Im not saying i believe in the concept of pzombies though.

>>17084493
>In theory it should be possible to understand this process and then in theory it should also be possible to prove that other humans have it too.
In theory, how would you gauge if you actually understand the process?

>>17084501
Reminder that the p-zombie retardation is only possible under dualism, which, to any reasonable person, only serves to undermine dualism.

>>17084501
yes it does, p-zombies would have the exact same conversation about subjective experience we're having now, except it would not be causally connected to any actual subjective experience. If this were true, then it follows that our own (non-zombie) conversation about subjective experience is also causally disconnected from our actual subjective experience, which would be absurd i.e. dualism or epiphenomenalism.

>>17084504
Reminder that only a p-zombie could be a non-dualist.

>>17084503
How would you gauge if you understand any scientific theory? By going "aha, I get it now, that makes sense" once you understand it, or something. How would you gauge if we have actually understood the theory of stellar fusion? Maybe it's all one big confusion but noone has noticed because our minds are wired to deny the correct theory of stellar fusion...

>>17084521
>one of the most idiotic ideas in the history of philosophy still sticking around by the sheer force of having a template for insulting its opponents built into it
>appeal to protestant dogma is still sufficient to shut down most people's critical reasoning faculty

>>17084522
>incoherent response
Why is basic reading comprehension so difficult for brown "people"?

>>17084521
>retarded mumbling noises
Doesn't matter. I accept your concession that p-zombies aren't actually relevant outside of your niche belief system.

>>17084524
>>17084555
>just... assume you don't exist, bro!
>oh you do exist? well you're wrong, haha!

>>17084561
>tardmumbled pleading for more attention
Savor your last (You).

>>17084566
>p zoomber defense matrix activated

>>17083711
Is well accepted that if you remave your brain crate from your anus you have no problem accepting other people inner experience as truth, if you need any more evidence read poetry

>>17084223
you seem to completely miss the point, and just repeated the same thing like a parrot.

>>17084589
Nothing is missed. You simply lack the ability to understand because you are coming from an unquestioned assumption instead of epistemological root.

>>17084613
do you agree if you build two things the same they behave the same?

>>17084620
No, because no two things are exactly the same in reality. Things are only ever "same" in the sense that they are approximation of each other to a degree that it satisfies our subjective human consensus.

But this actually doesn't matter either way to the discussion at hand. You are only asking this question thinking it matters because you are coming again from an unquestioned assumption.

>>17084623
are you fucking retarded perhaps? humans can make atomic perfect transistors (few atoms wide gates ffs). like a fuckload of them. what the actual fuck?? what century are you stuck in? also care to fucking prove your nonsense statement?
you are also not atomically perfect one second to the next doesn't fucking seem to affect you as much.

>>17084623
Is it the case that human consensus determines what human consensus is? Relativism has no grounding. If the ontological state of affairs is dependent upon peeception as what we willfully see, then the holocaust really did happen even in the case where it is made up. We really went to the moon Kubrick tells you on the moon set. Tesla really has a rocket car by virtue of a video with no substantive refutation.
Seemings arent facts. Consensus -> consensus refutes the claim. Therr must be some tyoe that is a consensus which the operative consensus appeals to. But if the operative consensus appeals to itself then we must admit all self-types by extension ubless there is extended basis permitting the reflection.

>>17084627
>you are also not atomically perfect one second to the next doesn't fucking seem to affect you as much
That is right. I can confirm this by been able to observe my own inner experiences while measuring my flexing outer state.

The only way a p-zombie could work is if it has structural/architectural differences from MY MIND

I like how this thread has devolved into two retards screeching:
>dualism!!!!
>nuh-uh, monism!!!
... at each other, but neither one understands that's all they're doing.

>>17084717
>The only way a p-zombie could work is if it has structural/architectural differences from MY MIND
If its brain is observably different from a human brain, it doesn't qualify as a p-zombie anymore. But nevermind that. A more realistic problem is that "structural/architectural differences" is a subjective criterion. The structure of a brain goes all the way down to the fundamental particles it's made up of but you obviously want to draw your line on a higher level. But when you abstract over any physical/biological detail as "architecturally" irrelevant, how do you know it doesn't destroy some of the ineffable aspects of subjective experience?

>>17084749
>But when you abstract over any physical/biological detail as "architecturally" irrelevant, how do you know it doesn't destroy some of the ineffable aspects of subjective experience?
I don't know how you can just keep asking these kinds of questions with a straight face. We will know it simply by eventually developing a thorough understanding of the processes involved which will naturally point us to the right level of abstraction (i.e. neurons and their interactions). So many people keep making an argument of the form "we don't know how it works currently, therefore we could never understand it" just because the idea of the mind being subject to scientific understanding like everything else hurts their feefees.

>>17084789
>we will know by knowing!!!
Mentally ill retard.

File: IMG_0296.jpg (293 KB, 1200x695)

293 KB JPG

>>17083711
That’s the beauty anon… the universe doesn’t operate on pure logic alone..

Ask these questions.

what is logical about being in a relationship with my wife or girlfriend?

Why does something exist rather than nothing?

That last question is information in itself.

The fact that reality exists at all, defys logic and reason.


Im a mechanic I can go down a list of cause and effect reasons I became a mechanic.. but truthfully I really don’t know what compelles me to like this job… I just do..

Gödel already settled these arguments with his completeness/incompleteness theroms in logic and mathematics..


There are some things inside a system that are true that you cannot prove

>>17084789
>we dont know but science will figure it out eventually
Im sure it will eventually but you admit you have no answer currently, what was the point of your post?

>>17084805
> what is logical about being in a relationship with my wife or girlfriend?
Personal benefit. Being in a relationship makes you feel good.

>why is there something rather than nothing
Cant be answered with current understanding of what life is or what humans purpose is

>the fact that reality exists defys logic
No I think it defys language. Language has limits and if someone did know the answer to life i highly doubt it could be translated to english. Like trying to describe a color to someone who hasnt seen that color before

>>17084805
In many religions, even christianity, there are things that "just are", so i don´t disagree with this. But, I want to talk more about.
Can you explain me how can we know those true things that we can not proove, or is it just beliefs? This is my first comment here in 4chan, bye!

>>17084790
the Sentinelese people would marvel at seeing a car, no way of understanding what the fuck it is, but doesn't make the car magic, have a soul or any of that nonsense.
just because you do not have a formal explanation for everything does not imply magic and souls and gods. as in dualism.

>>17084805
>what is logical about being in a relationship with my wife or girlfriend?
species survival. basically. nature used some chemical tricks to increase the chances

>>17084805
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
nonsense question. why implies cause, which is nonsense in the context of the big bang.

>>17084805
>The fact that reality exists at all, defys logic and reason.
it defies classical understanding. it doesn't "break" logic as it's not subjected to it.

>>17084931 me
>it doesn't "break" logic as it's not subjected to it.
or rather it is subjected to it, but you're using logic the wrong way in its context.

>>17084931
>nonsense question. why implies cause, which is nonsense in the context of the big bang.
The big bang creating this complex reality is a coincidence? The big bang being a thing doesnt exclude cause. im not advocating for the existence of god but physics and life is far to advanced for it not to have a bigger purpose.

>>17084945
>but physics and life is far to advanced for it not to have a bigger purpose.
that's what the Sentinelese would say about it yeah.
what you are doing is an old trap. everything you do not understand falls under magic and gods and higher powers. you can see it in the way society is structured.
you need to rule out the anthropic principle, which you can't. you especially can't. and won't be able to. your mind in shaped such that it always defaults to silly nonsense when it runs into shit it doesn't understand.
>The big bang creating this complex reality is a coincidence?
you cannot even understand what the word means. it simply means low probability. coincidence is not something this universe cares about. it's a primitive concept.
replace it with low probability and your world and understanding will widen. but I doubt you can. the chemical feedback you get is too strong to give it up. you are literal junkie, but you do not understand it.

>>17084950
Where do universal eternally invariant things exist? You call a group, the sentinelese, but this is a label over a category or type. Where does that category exist?

>>17084952
>Where do universal eternally invariant things exist?
the laws of this universe. so in this universe
>You call a group, the sentinelese, but this is a label over a category or type. Where does that category exist?
in the human brain.

what is your point? seems unrelated.

slavs have feminine psyche, a lot of talking and rumination but close to zero action

>>17084954
Universe, what does that mean?
Literally one question in and your smoke and mirrors are gone. So i tap into the universe to know sentinelese? And is that you that put the sentinelese meaning into the universe? What mystical powers of creation. What is their mechanism of action?

>>17084957
sir I think you need to take your meds, you seem deranged, seething and having full blown meltdowns.
>uh I win
sure you did.

>>17084950
>>17084950
Why would the probability for a complex system like reality to exist even be a thing if it has no greater purpose?
Why would the ingredients for such a probability just be floating around somewhere waiting for the right occurence for the complex system to become a thing?

>>17084950
Also coincidence itself implies probabilty I assumed you would be smart enough to know this
Do you need a definition of the word?

>>17084966
>Why would the probability for a complex system like reality to exist even be a thing if it has no greater purpose?
I cannot answer religious questions. that's not a valid scientific question. try a different board please

>>17084968
that word has no place in science, again, try another board (a spiritual adjacent one maybe). scientists use correct terminology. not "coincidence".

>>17083756
no we didn't.

>>17084931
>mentally ill retard churns out another incoherent "response"
>>17084749 still stands.

>>17084893
the point is thaf people keep arguing not simply that we don't know how consciousness works at present but that it is in principle unknowable for all time, which is wrong

>>17084805
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
I'm not really a mysterianist but sometimes I get the feeling the consciousness question might ultimately reduce to this.

>>17084129
HOW THE FUCK DO I KNOW IF HE'S TRULY IDENTICAL

>>17084129
>your religious ideas
Everything is religious in that sense is that when you believe in the scientific reality being the "true", noumenal (as opposed to phenomenal) reality, you also literally have to believe in it. If a pattern is constantly repeating itself, it doesn't follow that it will repeat for eternity (see the Problem Of Induction by Karl Popper), and thus you have to believe in it to be infinitely repeating

>>17085258
if someone copies a chessboard how do you know if it truly has 64 black and white squares? How do you know if you can truly play chess on it? What exactly are you puzzled about?

>>17085261
>Everything is religious
wrong
>in that sense is that when you believe in the scientific reality being the "true"
oh stop it, there is no comparison between science and religion. they have nothing in common. science is about finding out objective truth regardless of how it makes one feel, where religion is hiding whatever doesn't fit your worldview, but is objectively real.
that and some weird schizo impulse to steal god's power for yourself. yes, you'd choke on that cock just to get a shadow of his power. you're worshipping him because you want to subvert him and steal his power. that is the underlying motive of believers. even if they know it or not. you need someone with more power than you, so you have something to steal for yourself, so you have someone you can subvert. you suck up to him in the hopes he reveals himself, so you can start your seditious plan, that you hid from your conscious btw, which increases your chances of success. you masked it as "love" and "worship".

science is repeatable anon. that's how you get to read this message btw. if you used religion you'd still be sending smoke signals to gods and get random answers in your sleep

>>17085266
Completely unsubstantiated atheist schizo babble. Try an argument, not some retarded projective psychologizing.
You are an evolutionist because you just want to fuck monekys!!!1!!
What a fag.

what is artificial intelligence?
if your answer nests in a well contained and unimpressed belief, your interpretation is absent sufficient information.

AI is closer to fiction than you realize.

>>17085641
whatever it is it does code very well

>>17085266
The fact that you believe that the same experiment being repeated over and over is going to give the same results forever is religious on its own - believing in any kind of axiom is religious by definition, since it is a BELIEF. I'm not talking about religion as in organized religion, which implies church, tradition, etc. (it doesn't imply God as in Abrahamic sense btw, my religion doesn't even have one to begin with). Also the fact that you believe that science is uncovering "objective reality" whatever that means and not simply uncovering statistically convergent patterns which repeat over time (if you call that objective reality - I'm ok with that, it's just people usually mean something more than mere repeating patterns), that fact on its own is religious in the broad sense I defined, since it implies you believing in an axiom which postulates that repeating patterns let us see actual noumena, the things the way they are outside of our perception, which is simply one of the possible beliefs regarding the nature of repeating patterns.

>>17083756
This. The only people who use the word 'neurodivergent' are clinically retarded in the first place. People who have actual mental issues would never use the word for obvious fucking reasons (they suffer quite enough from their condition, thank you very much).

>>17087888
>clinically retarded
Ahem. You mean they're neurodivergent.

>>17087892
I apologize my good sir, I did not mean to offend you.

>>17087892
https://youtu.be/wcztDZ13TLI?t=122