>qualia don't exist >consciousness is an illusion

I like to think I helped contribute to making the hard problem of consciousness one of the top meme arguments on /his/. You're welcome

>>434144
You know, even as someone staunchly opposed to every form of reductive scientism there is, in a way he is right. There is nothing intrinsically "painful" about a pain signal, it's only my perception of that signal that "imagines" I am feeling pain. The Buddha would agree that there is no fixed, ontic identity we can point to and say that's us, that's our "soul-pearl", as Dennett refers to it.


That said, it doesn't explain the existence of this perceptual field in the first place, so Dennett doesn't really succeed in proving anything substantive about consciousness other than "it's kinda tricky lmao"

You can use Hitchen's Razor to solve the problem of Conciousness easily.

1. Conciousness is presented without evidence
2. Therefor we can dismiss it
3. Problem solved.

I'm gonna shoot up a school and use Dennett's arguments in court as defense.

>>434158
>no evidence for consciousness

This so autistic I think I just blacked out and rearranged my pantry in alphabetical order

>>434164
Prove there is conciousness using the scientific method then.

>>434169
For there even to be a scientific method to utilize there must be an agent to utilize it. I mean how fucking autistic can you get? Your consciousness presupposes the existence of everything, even the concept of a "concept".

>>434157

from experience; the 'pain signal' trigers a learned responce, automatic and conditioned, perception here is only a fact of being conscious of it, willpower and self-control is what determins the actual behavior, if the automatic response is sucesfully represed, which depends on pain tollerance, inherent and developed

in other states or conditions pain can be a relief or a diversion helping to deal with deeper and more intense suffering, especialy the kind that do not have a 'automatic relief response', like severe lack of serotonin or dopamin, intense frustration, fear, violent urge towards others, or chronic boredom etc... pain also trigers various neurotransmiter secretion, this is why a lot of people self-harm

from what i know

File: 1447692416027.png (29KB, 778x458px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 778x458px

>>434169
CAN'T SEE IT!
ISN'T THERE!

>>434178
Right this supports my assertion that there is nothing intrinsically painful about a pain signal, any more than there is something intrinsically hot about the motion of atoms.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that perception is just an automatic biological response and that's all there is to it. Seems a bit circular. "The ghost in the machine is just the machine" well, sure, but the reason we call it a ghost is because it's the very antithesis of being machine-like

>>434169
How are you thinking if consciousness doesn't exist? And even if you don't exist, I am producing some form of thought, ergo there must be some form of consciousness.

>>434144
Basically our definition of consciousness which amounts to magic does not exist so everything is horrible.

Grow the fuck up.

>>434169
The question isn't whether consciousness exists, the question is whether it's inherently magical or whatever.

>>434201
Doesn't mean that you're right by any stretch of the word. All you're doing is getting defensive because you have no proof.

File: 1424237541562.jpg (136KB, 634x560px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 634x560px

>>434144
scientists are still not able to offer an experiment that shows that there is more than one human on earth.

>>434265
Given an infinite amount of time, an assortment of billiard balls randomly smacking into each other will never spontaneously assemble themselves into a replica of the Eiffel Tower.

For that to happen there must be a ruleset in the material itself that actualizes past a threshold of complexity that results in life and, eventually, consciousness. Until this ruleset and its axioms (which must logically proceed from the 'axioms of reality) can be totally and intuitively described, the jury's out on the fundamental nature of consciousness. "Emergent complexity" is as much of an answer to the problem of consciousness as "chords" is to why we perceive music and harmony the way we do.

Dennett's argument is more like "science can't explain it, so it isn't there".

>>434269
>I will unite all of the dwarf peoples under one flag

>>434202

no, no, im saying that perception is simply what happens due to the perceptive aparatus functioning, and the brain being in a conscious state

but perception does not realy contribute or factor into much at all, except that what you do not percieve you are not directly conscious of in the momet, which does not mean it is not causing some effect you percieve indirectly

once perception occurs, its things like thought process, memory retrieval, identifications, internal capacities like will and control, etc... as well as complexes of ideas and concepts and the context of the situation/interelation to others around you etc... that determine the outcome

for example you will literaly react diferently to pain if you are identifying with a role or set a specific mindset, differntly if theres others around you depending on weather you try to 'show no weakness', 'defy/fight', 'obey/perform' or 'ask for help', which again depends on the current emotional state, which is literaly a concrete physiological state(it determins what behavior will be spontaneous), mostly indipendent of you conscious will

so actualy emotions, as irrational operative states of the organism, factor in even more, moreso than conscious functions by default

all these things are distinct functions and states that work in combinations, perception is just the fact the nervous system works

purely impersonal things like the general capacity of the organism to tolerate pain and frustration also factor in greately, the state of the organism, things like how nervous, tired, hungry or already hurting one is etc... since there are subconscious systems built in by default to deal with such things based on what the organism 'believes' to be its capacity

i know youll say thats what you meant by perception, but the word perception shouldnt be used that way imo, i cant back that up with science or wathever, just my experience with things like disease, violence and BDSM

>>434288
Of course you're right, but we could just as easily imagine a being that responds to stimuli as realistically as we do, but without the experience of an inner life. Again, there is a perceptual field or state that that is the terminus of a whole host of subconscious/unconscious processes. Why should this be so? Why would a universe as fundamentally mechanistic as you seem to be describing just randomly spit out thinking, feeling, consciousness? Why should the endpoint of all these mechanical processes even involve a perception of them if we're just puppets on physiological strings?

>>434304

because theres no difference, youre just confused by semantics, that IS what thoughts, feels and consciusness ARE

there is no diffrenece betveen mechanistic and not-mechanistic, its just misconception around terms used

much greater diferences are betveen things like conscious-unconscious, personal-impersonal, capacity or lack of it, strenght-weaknes, information of one kind or another etc... basicaly the actual diffrences are betveen effectively IS and effectively IS NOT, as this, in complex combinations, determines the actual factors and posibilities, the state of the functioning form lets say

again, thats just how i see it, or rather how i experience it, so again were back to perception in a way

i mean im not asking anyone to believe me, but id bet my monthly paychek its more or less true

>>434337
No, I agree with you. It's not matter on one side and consciousness in another. We're thinking matter, and matter is just frozen thought, or rather, an unconscious consciousness, if it just had some organic molecules, cells etc.

My point is scifags just wanna keep dragging us back into their worldview of "matter, matter, matter" because they think the deadness of matter is all there really, truly is at the heart of things and reality is a kind of a sick farce. The truth encompasses the entire spectrum, from rocks to the human mind, and grander than both its poles. I don't give a shot about matter, I give a shit about putting name to what gave us both matter and the ability for matter to apprehend itself

>>434144
Consciousness is the same software we all run on.
It's the higher layer of what makes us humans.
Pain is just a mechanism something that reflects upon consciousness as a whole and manifests.. in a way inside our consciousness we experience everything alone and pain becomes the center of that reality.. indicating that it's time to do something and keep the body alive to support the consciousness more.

it's pretty clear that we just dwell in concepts but
what we all can agree on is that we're alive and
let it be that way... we need to find ways to enjoy this experience.

>>434279
I was saying that your idea that the consciousness is magic isn't necessarily true because someone said you have no proof. Not that the opposite was certainly true.

>>434169
If i remove your brain you're no longer aware of anything.
If I damage your brain you can experience reality in a different way and think that that's how it should be.

>>434375
>I want it to be true and I don't like scientists, so it must be true!

>>434375

yea but... matter isnt dead

its more un-dead, or a manifetsation of what is 'living'

a no birth no death kind of thing

but now were going into hermetics

>>434394
I don't think it's possible to read that post and disagree matter and consciousness are fundamentally expressions of the same process, mechanism, or principle.

I literally said that matter is consciousness and consciousness matter you illiterate. It's your shitty fedora attitude I'm railing against

>>434169
You are primitive or simple-minded who is unable to accept the obvious biological imperative importance of the brain, no philisophy or school of tought can compete with the persuasiveness of materialistic science backed up by its technological triumphs.

>>434397
Well sure, it technically isn't dead, and the vacuum seethes with quantum interactions and all that. It's just the dismissal of everything we hold dear and what it means to be human in favor of a reductive worldview as joyless and inert as the matter it champions that's my problem

>>434408
>what is rationalism

Dibs fedora

>atoms aren't conscious
>the brain is made of atoms
>therefore the brain isn't conscious

CHECKMATE christfags
#logic #science #truth

>>434432
Consciousness isn't made of atoms.

File: shrek.jpg (24KB, 353x334px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 353x334px

>>434408

>>434435
>muh dualism

File: 1441086773418.jpg (82KB, 928x1380px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 928x1380px

>>434408
>the persuasiveness of materialistic science backed up by its technological triumphs.
>science is about persuasion and hedonism...


more seriously:
-science works with causes and effects.
-ask a scientist what a cause is.
-no answer...

thanks science....

File: 1448060487528.jpg (229KB, 900x948px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 900x948px

>>434507
Your answer made me dumber and brought no benefit to humanity.
If you want to pursue philosophy for the sake contemplating reality do it in a cave alone, isolated from the world.

>>434512

Except he's completely right.

>Science cannot answer the deepest questions. As soon as you ask why there is something instead of nothing, you have gone beyond science. - Allan Sandage, the father of modern astronomy

Back to reddit friendo

IF SCIENCE CANNOT ANSWER IT THE QUESTION DOESN'T EXIST

>>434559
>what is my favorite song

Autism speaks, it's time to listen

>>434559
>science cannot answer consciousness, therefore it doesn't exist

It's funny because this is what Dennett is really arguing

>>434559
>what is north of the north pole

>>434507
isn't a cause, by definition, what offsets an effect?
seems like a simple question desu senpai

>>434562
>>434567
>>434572
I love STEMfag tears

File: 1444584666161.png (23KB, 268x120px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 268x120px

>endgame of philosophy is solipsism: nothing but your mind exists

>endgame of science is eliminative materialism: objective world exists and our mind is just an illusion

I'm just gonna go back to math

File: 45a76f24b2bf2726c5c08dbe4d1a1ec9.jpg (40KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x500px

>>434579
>tfw math IS philosophy

>>434579
>endgame of philosophy is solipsism: nothing but your mind exists
more like babbys first philosophy desu
but maybe thats your joke and I just cant see through all those layers of irony

I read Plato and discovered that I had an immortal soul. Not been tempted to materialism since.

>>434637
lol

>>434157
> our "soul-pearl", as Dennett refers to it.

That's what he calls it? What a douche.

>>434647
He's like the Deepak Chopra of materialism kek

>>434647
This is a man who thought that atheists should call themselves "brights". All of his terminology is cringeworthy.

>>434172
agent =/= consciousness.
the scientific method can be conducted by highly evolved zombies

>>434201
butthurt philosophers bitching about the death of philosophy in matters of the mind, physics, and ethics. Poor little guy

>>434158
That's cute but demanding evidence for every belief is going to put you in an infinite regress. Most belief systems seem to assume something.

>>434676
Look dude, it's the most self evident thing in the universe that I am conscious right now. I cannot prove with 100% verifiability that you aren't a p-zombie, but why don't we cool our autism jets and just assume consciousness of all fucking things exists. I mean Christ.

By the way, the scientific method cannot be proven with the scientific method, so you're also putting all your fedoras in one basket too

>>434686
>it's taking me a while to unite relativity and quantum mechanics
Maybe you guys need some help

;^)

>>434698
That last comment really is something only a butthurt philosopher would say. Yes. The scientific method cannot be "proven" with the scientific method. But the last 300 years of its usage has been extremely successful in answering questions which philosophy got nowhere with (or worse) in thousands of years.

Regarding consciousness, I completely agree that it exists due to our ability of reporting it. But modern neruoscience has shown over and over and over again that it's downright foolish to assume our intuition can accurately describe its nature. Theories treating consciousness as modeled information processing do a really good job at explaining it. I'd reccomend you look into the Attention Schema Theory.

>>434699
Both those examples have shown time and time again that philosophy is utterly incapable of describing fundamental nature. I agree that a philosophical mindset is absolutely necessary in tackling fringe scientific topics like the merger of relativity and quantum, but without intense scientific training in physics, you're completely useless.

>>434732
>science has solved ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics and epistemology

I'll grant you post-structuralism isn't that practical and all but Cmon dude.

>>434754
where the fuck did I say solved. Man, it's uncanny how religious you guys sound. My claim was that philosophy was merely replaced by science since it was found that the mindbrain and its ethical behavior is a matter of neuropsychology. Try using logic and reasoning to explain neural processing. Christ, get your head out of the sand and join the modern world to actually make some contributions instead of pointlessly reasoning with issues that have gone nowhere in millennia

>>434769

>ethics is behavior
>mindbrain
>you can't use logic to explain neurons!!

you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

>>434750
Lel, did Democritus need the scientific method to deduce we are made of incredibly fine particles?

Or how about the Buddhist insight that our consciousness/self is nothing fundamentally more than an emergent quality of an assemblage of certain organic elements?

Give me a break with this fedora shit. Science is nothing but the study of matter, it's properties, and the rules that govern it's interaction. Telling me it can penetrate to the thing-in-itself is like saying the most exhaustive medical readout of my bodily functions can tell you everything about my personality and who I am

>>434769
Brain scans and textbooks on neurology tell you nothing about what the good is, if it even exists, etc. other than this 'this is what the brain looks like after it gave the homeless man a dollar' you twit

>>434787
alright lol

>>434799
the notion of good and bad came from observations of human behavior and our intuitive sense of morality. Both of these have been accounted for in sociology, psychology, neuroscience, evolution etc. It's a done case man, get over it.

>>434790
Democritus could only say that it's theoretically possible that the universe is atomic. Not only was his theory one of countless dozens, it was never even the most popular. It took science to actually show that it was true, and only then did all other theories dissipate.

I completely agree with the Buddhist bit, not sure how I came off as thinking otherwise.

Yes, science is a study of physical interactions. And using the extremely successful scientific method, we've discovered that the mindbrain and it's behavior is accounted for by physical interactions. So yes, in theory (though we clearly don't have the technology atm), science can tell us everything about who you are. Sorry to burst your bubble.

If you want to know what/who you are, put down the philosophy for a second and study neuropsychology. Philosophy can do wonders in explaining implications of scientific discoveries, but it holds a distant back seat to unearthing the discoveries themselves.

>>434816
>Neuroscience, sociology (lol), evolution etc. have solved all ethical quandaries and not just revealed how the moral sense evolved and how it manifests physically through neuron activity
>the scientific method can help us model a perfect ethical system because it's a "done case", apparently

Top kek m8 reddit is thataway --->

>>434810
just as it is somewhat telling that physicists never need to posit mysticism and personal deities to explain nature, it should be somewhat telling that neuropsychologists don't need the likes of Hume and Kant to explain who/what we are and our behavior.
That't not to say they don't provide useful information, but as far as what we truly are fundamentally, they're worse than useless - especially if you're ignorant of modern cognitive science.

>>434833
>if you want to know who you are, study neuropsychology

Haha you're fucking shitting me right?

By the way your assertion was that philosophy is "utterly incapable" of granting us a look at fundamental nature, and I blew you the fuck out with examples of figures who did just that. Shit, the Buddha didn't even philosophize prior to his enlightenment, he knew these truths intuitively and science has been playing catch up in regards to them ever since. Lmao Nice backpedaling

>>434844
truth hurts. if you don't like it, go to church and let us actually get something done.

>>434855
Should I or should I kill the fat man? Please help me science man!!!

>>434833
>And using the extremely successful scientific method, we've discovered that the mindbrain and it's behavior is accounted for by physical interactions. So yes, in theory (though we clearly don't have the technology atm), science can tell us everything about who you are. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I think you're referring to reductive materialism, which is different from eliminative materialism (Dennett's position)

Reductive materialism says that "mental events" can be correlated with types of physical events in the brain

Eliminative materialism says that those "mental events" do not even exist, on basis of the failure to correlate them to physical events in the brain.

>>434790
>the Buddhist insight

not all Buddhists believe the same thing about the nature of being.

>nothing fundamentally more than an emergent quality of an assemblage of certain organic elements

they all believe in reincarnation, so I don't see how they associate the conscious entity with the base matter it is tied to.

>is like saying the most exhaustive medical readout of my bodily functions can tell you everything about my personality

it can though. Blood pressure alone can tell a lot about someone's arousal levels.

>and who I am

So you are distinct from your body.

>>434863
I'm not gonna get into a slapfight about Buddhist beliefs. The plain fact of the matter is intuitive knowledge revealed the nature of consciousness without the slightest need for any externally-directed, empirical methodology.

>>434872
>intuitive knowledge revealed the nature of consciousness

why do you assume he's right? What's his justification, what are his axioms?

File: ben stiller harris.png (623KB, 750x1117px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 750x1117px

>>434857
Our lord and savior Science-Man is more than clear about this, you should.

"ethics solved by science" in essence is just utilitarianism with some fancy "neuroscience can provide us with the information necessary" added.
A lot of hardcore STEMlords like the cultists from lesswrong really do believe in utilitarianism, too.
The advantage they have is that if you think utilitarianism is immoral they can just accuse of being "anti-science".

For example if you point out how utilitarianism doesn't account for personal freedom, and makes the individual just an expendable cog in the machinery of the community, the scientist can simply point out that 'freedom' isn't empirically verifiable and therefore a meaningless word.

>>434883
Impermanence. Also another fundamental insight into the nature of reality without the need of a bunch of guys in labcoats

>>434853
blew me the fuck out lol hehe ok. The buddha bit is a good example, I'm glad you keep bringing it up. Buddhist mindfulness is observation (the foundation of science) at its purest, not logical reasoning (philosophy). The untested buddhist philosophies that came with this discovered observation led to some gems of truth within heaping piles of horse shit. So my case stands.

>>434157
>it's not physical
>therefore it's not ontic
>If I can't see it it's not real

>>434288

>Have a neuroscience and psychology degree
How the fuck aren't emotions conscious?

>>434896
>Impermanence

ooh wow, shit changes, deep man.

Too bad it's actually the complete opposite. Nothing ever changes, change is an illusion. Can change itself change? Is impermanence permanent?

>>434896

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus

whoah dude what if............ nothing is real ?? WOAH !!

>>434900
You're arguing for the primacy of the scientific method you soft faggot. By definition, it is a system that helps us make reliable empirical observations about the external world.

No shit the Buddhist investigation of one's own consciousness is going to resemble a kind of science, because the Buddha specifically instructed his sangha to never uncritically accept anything, and to always be observing and getting at the root of their emotional states, thought patterns, mental complexes etc

Except the knowledge produced by this inner science is an intuitive one. Can only the scientific method reveal truths about our reality and our inner worlds? Fuck no, go back to reddit. Can only a systematic, rational study of what we want to understand reveal the truth? Of course, but there is nothing inherently better if we direct this study to the external instead of the internal, especially when we have proof some dude sitting under a tree could get at the pith of existence 2000 years before Europe had even formulated what science was

>>434956
>we have proof some dude sitting under a tree could get at the pith of existence

what fucking proof?

What if I want to say he was just wrong about dukkha being something to escape from and all that shit? Lao Tzu and Confucius have some fucking words too you know, doesn't mean they have any proof.

>>434935
Who said it was supposed be deep you clown, you asked for an axiom and there it is. From that follows pretty much every Buddhist maxim there is

And wow dude, you mean to say everything is emptiness and there is nothing to truly "change"? No shit, that's the whole Buddhist reply to the problem of impermanence you dingus. Everything changes, but nothing stays the same. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form

>>434975
>the Buddha said x
>science agrees that x is the case
>WHAT FUCKING PROOF???

the fuck are we even suppose do be arguing you doof

>>434475
Or unism

>>434406
Flattery will get you nowhere

>we don't know exactly how the brain produces experiences yet, even though it's obvious qualia can be effected by physical substances in a predictable way
>therefore qualia = magic suck it raddit xD
"Philosophy"

>>434732
All of those theories explain "how" consciousness, but not "why" consciousness.

>>435015
>Philosophy is a monolith

U stupid

>>435023
I know philosophy is a serious field of intellectual endeavor, that's why I used the scare quotes. It's only the joke form you get from /lit/ that should be mocked

>>434769
...but brain neurons operate according to rules we've worked out with logic and reason

>>434994
>science agrees

holy shit

>>434833
>mindbrain producing thought is not behavior

>>434979
>Everything changes, but nothing stays the same.

A is A, but A is A.

Nothing changes, everything stays the same.

Did I blow your mind?

>>434279
>"Emergent complexity" is as much of an answer to the problem of consciousness as "chords" is to why we perceive music and harmony the way we do.

Bullshit. Based on the best evidence we have, Emergent complexity is the best expmanation so far. Some claims have zero evidence (like substance dualism for instance) whereas Emergent Complexity has far more evidence and is probably more plausible.

>>435059
I messed that up but you get the point. The contention that intuitive knowledge is bankrupt by default of it not being the scientific method is so fedora I can feel the hairs on my neck growing faster just thinking about it

>>435062
You can't read.

Science is wrong literally all the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgk8UdV7GQ0

>>434279
>there must be a ruleset in the material itself that actualizes past a threshold of complexity that results in life and, eventually, consciousness.

Gobbledygook

>>435072
Thanks for stopping by, /a/

>>435062
>>435062
>emergent complexity
>things are really complicated so it makes consciousness
>..but but it's not the right KIND of complexity
>well what is the right KIND of complexity
>brains that match humans

That's called begging the question.

Prove rocks don't have an active mental life

>>435080
>what do the big words mean mommy

Are you literally denying complex systems of comprised of simpler components?

>>434144
>qualia don't exist
They do somewhat exist. Depending on whether or not you mean that it's simplifying processed input for your consciousness. Just look at blindsight, or synesthesia.
>Consciousness is an illusion
It's a byproduct of your neurons. As a metaphysical construct seperate from your neuronal pathways it does not exist.
>You don't really feel pain or pleasure, you just think you do
They're signals sent to your brain. Logically that means you think that you feel them. They do not objectively exist. Grasping a cold and a hot object at the same time can yield the experience of touching a boiling object even though individually they may be merely uncomfortable to hold.
>there are no mental events, you are only imagining them!
Neuronal interactions.

>>435102
The problem of induction exists, therefore I can believe whatever I want and concepts like "evidence" are meaningless.

>This is what /lit/ actually believes

>>434279
>must

Hume's induction.

>>435077
Neither can you, senpai.

>>435100
That is not Energent complexity at all, you should read a book rather than shitposting.

>>435110
I think you're literally retarded if you don't think the behavior of a complex system is not the totality of the many, many smaller behaviors performed by its components.

>>435115
Haha you really can't read dude.

>>435122
XD

>>435128
>you're conscious cause you're complex!
>then why isn't a twenty billion dollar NASA satellite conscious?
>because it's not made of neurons?
>then why does consciousness arise in complex networks of neurons?
>because it's complex

Round and round we go family

>>434144
Are you fucking finished with the "it's all a mystery!1" book yet OP I can recommend you some better ones if you're done

>>435070
>naive observation is equal to the scientific method

Or if you only think that it's beneath it but still works, then you may as well try stepping it up.

Naive observation is there to help you figure out what to study.

Tell me when you get that beard.

>>435134

for that matter why isn't the internet conscious?

It's made up of millions of computers each with millions of circuits and behind each is a brain with billions of neurons.

It should be self aware on a certain level.

>>435134
You do not understand emergence. There is more to it than "it's complex so it's conscious". The nature of the emergent property depends on the structure of interdependencies in the material. As >>435115 said you should read a fucking book, or if you'd like I can recommend you some papers.

>>435115
Yes it is.

>consciousness is the emergent property of certain kinds of complexity

Literally every scholarly article on the subject.

The problem with emergence is that it presupposes consciousness in the weak form, and deus ex machina's it in in the second.

Type one emergence is like how the solidity of objects emerges from electromagnetic forces. Which basically tells us what Spinoza figured out in the 1600s(?) and is the biggest no shit in the history of science.

Type two isn't how properties work.

>>435151
Can you prove it isn't? Can you offer evidence either way? Seems like it's in much the same boat as human consciousness.

>>435151
The Internet is a mental construct consisting of multiple phenomenona. But then again most things are.

>>435158
Like I said here

>>435161
You're either saying nothing of value, or you're retarded

>>435149
>naive observation
>the Buddha
>millions of monks, mystics, and yogis throughout thousands of years
>naive
>if only someone gave them a nice crisp labcoat and a couple bill bye dvds and we'd actually be getting somewhere!

Dude you don't know shit about the topic you're rashing on. Go back to reddit

>>435161
>consciousness is the emergent property of certain kinds of complexity
You're just saying words like they mean a thing. There are great tutorials online about *precisely* why we can get some mindlike results out of artificial neural networks, but you're not going to bother trying to get any more than a one-line understanding of the subject.

>>435162
Welcome to the other minds problem

>>435177
>You're not going to get past a one line understanding

I have multiple degrees in psychology, neuroscience, and computer science. Your shit is retarded tbqh senpai

>>435177
Why assume this person is even interested in understanding consciousness? He's not. He's interested in establishing who's a "real 4chan neet xD" and who "needs to go back to Reddit!"

>>435175
No, really, you have no idea what you're talking about as regards emergence and should read a book or two. It's not just "lol it's complex so it gets emergent properties". Lots of emergent properties are very simple, and the usual approach to demonstrating them is to instantiate them in the simplest possible way. Seriously, there are great, free resources that you can use to understand this, but you clearly are not interested in having a clue.

>>435161
>>435194
What do you think of Integrated Information Theory?

>>435158
No fucking shit that consciousness arises out of the mutual and complex interactions of neurons, that's obviously what's meant by complexity. Marone, are you for real with this shit? My whole point is "these properties happen when things get complex" doesn't explain the properties (or rather, the potentiality for the property of consciousness) THEMSELVES

File: Hopfield-net.png (23KB, 406x423px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 406x423px

>>435194
Oh yeah dude yeah it's like a total fucking mystery how associative memory emerges yea lol but I think this pop-philosophy hardback might have the real answers

>>435176

>I don't know what naive means
>I project my religious beliefs onto others and act incredulous when they disagree with my perceptions

no, you go back to reddit.

>>435205
My whole point is "these properties happen when things get complex" is not an accurate or relevant summation of emergence and leads you to miss the actual explanations for emergent properties.

>>435197
Once again, I have multiple degrees in this subject. I have devoted a large portion of my life to this subject.

Emergence explains how the behaviors you have associated with consciousness emerge. Not how consciousness emerges

>>435177
Does it explain how these mindlike behaviors can suddenly become aware of themselves past a certain threshold? All righty then

>>435216
>Once again, I have multiple degrees in this subject. I have devoted a large portion of my life to this subject.
kek.

you literally just explained epiphenomena

>>435206
Behaviors you have associated with consciousness are not consciousness. Learn to other minds problem

>>435209
> everything that isn't scientific is naive

Just stop

this thread is autistic rambling

>>435216
FUXKING THANK YOU. been arguing this the whole thread, I feel fucking vindicated someone whose actually studied this shit agrees with me

>>435214
Except "consciousness arises from the mutual inter dependencies of neurons yadda yadda" is exactly what's implied when I'm using the word complex man. This proper arises WHEN this condition is met doesn't explain the property itself

>>435202
Calling it information assumes a viewer. It's an attempt at bootstrapping.

The problem these theorists run into is that they think Skinner was arguing the mind doesn't exist, when really he said it's scientifically unavailable.>>435202

>>435227

naive observation is part of the scientific method you hipster fuck

>>434554
But science does have an answer for the whys.

Was it the result of the physical laws of the universe influencing matter for aeons? Then, there is no intrinsic purpose whatsoever for it.
Was it made by a human? Then we can extrapolate its purpose from our own behavior.
Was it made by some other kind of non-human, alien intelligence? Then we can't put its purpose in terms accurate to the human mind. Thus, it is useless to study it..

>>435242
>there is no intrinsic purpose whatsoever for it

why?

>>435242
>science does have an answer for the whys
>what is metaphysics

Boy sure is getting reddit in here

>>435240
>intuitive knowledge is naive observation

Tips

>>435239
>information assumes a viewer
Information/complexity is inherent and doesn't need a viewer

>>435237
>Except "consciousness arises from the mutual inter dependencies of neurons yadda yadda" is exactly what's implied when I'm using the word complex man.

There are lots of ways to define complex and it is not at all clear that this is what you're implying. Still, that you say

>This proper arises WHEN this condition is met doesn't explain the property itself

Shows that you're not getting it. "There are interdependencies" is not one condition that leads to the emergence of a property. The specific structure of the interdependencies leads to emergence in ways that yes, really often do explain the property in straightforward ways.

>>435259
Bruh, regardless of how complex the storm system were talking about is, "if it's cold THEN it will snow" doesn't tell me shit about snow, though I can certainly speculate as to its nature. Smiliarly, "if neurons connect in a certain complex pattern THEN you have consciousness" doesn't tell me shit about it consciousness other than its apparently physical and apparently has to do with lots neurons firing together. There is no reason why mind-like behaviors should be accompanied by an inner experience of those behaviors, if the physical behaviors can be accounted for in our framework. But it does. And no one can apparently explain it

>>435257
It's derived from information theory. A viewer is presupposed

>>435247
Because it was the result of something without a mind of its own. Gravity couldn't have foreseen the outcome of its existence, it couldn't have desired the outcome and it couldn't have changed its behavior, even if it was somehow able to want it.

>>435283
>>435257
Information requires meaning. Meaning requires a giver of meaning, I.e. a viewer

>>435285

>minds are the result of something without a mind of it's own

if consciousness is a product of systemic complexity, why isn't the universe conscious?

>>435277
>"if it's cold THEN it will snow" doesn't tell me shit about snow
Because that is a very simple explanation that does not get into specifics. More detailed explanations of how snow leads to cold can tell you a lot about snow.

>"if neurons connect in a certain complex pattern THEN you have consciousness" doesn't tell me shit about it consciousness
Again, "it's a pattern" is not all there is to it. There are specific patterns. A Hopfield network >>435206 has a specific pattern of dependencies. You can watch it go and you can understand how the action of the dependencies gives it its properties.

>>435307
> how snow leads to cold
[other way around obvs]

>>435307
How does that get past the other minds problem

Also
>The solution to the hard problem of consciousness is near infinite recursion!

>>435307
But it won't tell me what snow is except the causal connection it has to the cold.

All you're doing is refining emergent complexity to mean this or that interdependency, this or that set of inter dependencies etc. Which like yeah, sure, you're right

But you're just making the rube Goldberg machine of consciousness more and more complex and conditional and not explaining what makes it go. Or in other words, that thing you linked, why can't it be (dimly) conscious? What is the fundamental difference between neurons and complex algorithms, that the former can become aware of its behaviors and the latter performs its function without an inner experience of said function?

>>435330
If you accept that an emergent property arises from a structure of interdependencies, you should expect the same properties everywhere you see the same structure.

>>435237
80%+ of the field is neckbeards who don't understand that a "hard" problem, is philosospeak for "impossible to solve a priori."

>>435339
Yes but you need to PROVE that it is emergent in that manner. Since you can only prove YOU are consciousness you don't have anything near a sample, just an anecdote.

Now, you can prove things about the behaviors you have associated with consciousness, but you can't prove rocks aren't conscious.

>>435334
>But it won't tell me what snow is except the causal connection it has to the cold.

Right, but a more detailed explanation including the structure of water, the phenomenon of precipitation, etc. will lead to a description of snow in greater detail. Maybe a more detailed explanation shows that you will get flakes of such a size given such a pressure and temperature and whatever else. The most general explanation that cold leads to snow of course does not tell you these things. Neither does the most general explanation that complex structure leads to consciousness explain anything about consciousness, but there is no reason to expect that it would.

>>435351
>>435339

For example (so you don't think I'm just being a dick)

What if we are simply conscious in a very particular way that is the result of hopfeild networks? What if there are other types of networks? How would you go about proving/disproving this? What if the sun is conscious?

The theory is unfalsifiable, the only thing keeping it in check is human ego

>>435351
If consciousness does not emerge from the brain, why am I conscious of information routed to my brain through my nervous system? Why am I not conscious of nearby things at random, or of things perceived by other people?

>>435366
How do you know rocks aren't conscious of things at random?

What if consciousness is an ontological dangler and is just routed through the peneal gland and we're just robots?

Regardless your theory is unfalsifiable because I can't access whether something is conscious or not, so the entire theory is just about the behavior we associate with consciousness

>>435357
I vehemently disagree that even the most exhaustive description of neural phenomena can explain the experience of consciousness. If I'd never seen snow before, all the analysis and descriptons in the world wouldn't hold a candle to actually seeing it, feeling it. Similarly, a mechanistic picture of consciousness can never explain the experience of consciousness - unless we're literally describing metaphysical axioms of reality.

Think of it this way: if there was nothing else in the universe but this snowstorm, literally nothing, we could satisfactorily explain what snow is in reference to the snow storm, how it behaves, how it arises. But without the grander picture of "snow is actually the solidified state of this thing called water that doesn't exist in this hypothetical universe" we would have no frame of understanding to get at its true nature. Similarly, we can't explain consciousness in relation to matter without getting at what exactly, in God's POV (don't have a heart attack, you know what I mean), what they are in essence

>>435366
>>435392
Encapsulated in that theory is the idea that things "we know" are conscious, have hopfeild networks, but we don't actually have proof they are conscious, just that they display certain behavior

>>435365
>What if there are other types of networks?
Well there are, networks are a very general descriptive tool.

>How would you go about proving/disproving this? What if the sun is conscious?
If we find that Zebra networks are conscious and that there are Zebra networks at work in the sun, then we should conclude that those parts of the sun are conscious. No less a stretch than going "gravity makes apples fall, if the sun has gravity, the earth might be falling around it"

>>435405
Just want to point out here that Hopfield networks are not important, they're an example. They only serve to demonstrate associative memory.

ITT

we confuse consciousness with it's physical coorelates

>>435416
>If we find that Zebra networks are conscious and that there are Zebra networks at work in the sun, then we should conclude that those parts of the sun are conscious.

Yes, but once again, how do you show something is conscious, given the other minds problem?

>>435423
Dude with degrees here. Thank you for saying it

>>435416
PRAISE THE SUN

>>434144
>DUDE EVERYTHING IS AN ILLUSION LMAO

>>435429
Again, if my own consciousness is an emergent property of a certain organization of matter, like organizations of matter will have consciousness too. Other minds are a problem when you only have observed behavior to go off of.

File: 123543265456.jpg (49KB, 600x598px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x598px

>>434686
>butthurt fedorafag who can't even understand science just parades behind it and believes everything about it 100% in a fleeting attempt to seem intelligent

>>435455
>if
-Spartans
-Butthurt theoreticians


That'd be a really big if mate

>>435301
It might be, but we don't have any evidence that it could be,

Moreover, complexity without an aim would be VERY unlikely to go anywhere. As somebody wrote a while earlier, I could throw random sticks at each other and they would never make the Eiffel Tower

The complexity of the human mind is the result of the need of self-replicating systems to be able to analyze surroundings. Which would have probably started as follow:
Self-replicating system arises.
Self-replicating system eventually produces a member with some kind of locomotion.
Self-replicating system with locomotion eventually produces some kind of flight responses to threatening (probably chemical) signals and approach responses to (probably chemical) signals of food, which would eventually produce creatures with full-fledged pain-pleasure receptors.
Self-replicating system with locomotion and pain-pleasure receptors eventually produces members with more specialized and varied senses.
And from there you would probably have creatures that are able to memorize painful or pleasurable experiences in order to not have to rely exclusively on evolution to tell what is a threat or not. Then you would obtain creatures capable of extrapolating from previous experiences in order to analyze likely outcomes of pain/pleasure. Then you would obtain creatures that actively explore their surroundings to find possible threats and food in a place. Finally, you would end up with self-replicating creatures with an analysis of inputs complex enough to understand the workings of their own and other organisms.

Since there is a "guiding hand" that arises from "stuff that that lets creatures self-replicate", the complexity now progresses in an order that can eventually, with some luck, reach sapience. You are no longer dealing with just throwing random sticks to build the Eiffel Tower. With self-replication you are dealing with a system that is able to keep all the sticks that "stand" together after every throw.

>>434389
how would I know that?

>>435484
>>435366

>>435455
>>435484
Not to be a dick and double post again, but you basically said "if you agree that my theory is right, my theory is right."

>>435487
Exactly, I was the one who made the Eiffel Tower post. You're exactly right, that was my point. There's obviously no literal god guiding evolution long but the POTENTIALITY for this self-aware complexity is what must be explained, not the process by which it arises.

Throw dumb, dead, inert matter at a wall for eternity. Nothing happens. Dumb, dead, inert matter is just that, follows no other rule than maybe gravity and shit.

Throw the same stuff at a wall. Suddenly in a couple billion years, not only is the matter up and about, but it knows itself as matter too. What's going on? Apparently it's self awareness correlates with its complexity, but it's complexity doesn't explain it's self awareness. It's complexity is only the vehicle through which consciousness is finally allowed to be expressed.

>>435525
>There's obviously no literal god

that is less than obvious at the least.

>>435516
I said "if emergence is how consciousness happens, other minds are not a problem".

>Philosophy students
Most pretentious useless burger flippers in the world,pseudo intellectuals that think they have a say on conciousness when they don't even know even the names of the cells of the brain.

>>435533
Yeah you just showed you don't understand the other minds problem.

>>435543
>>>reddit

>>435529
The potentiality for consciousness is extremely suggestive of an intelligent principle behind reality that created physical laws with the potential for life and consciousness "built-in". But I can't prove that so i'm not ready to tread those waters just yet. All I'm saying is its presence, and not its mechanism, must be explained before fedora fags start getting smug about it.

>>435529
Actually the fact that consciousness is "built-in" the laws of physics is extremely suggestive of an intelligent principle behind the universe, but I'm not ready to tread those waters just yet

>>435543
Seriously this. Philosophers are shit-tier cognitive scientists. They should argue about the ethics and leave the important issues to grown-ups

>>435618
>ethics
>not important

Reddit pls

File: 1450269890292.png (756KB, 1308x1440px) Image search: [Google]

756KB, 1308x1440px

>>435631
>Ethics
The reason only chinks can research human genetic engineering,very useful (for those who take advantage of those who think its important),thanks a lot you whinny pseudo intellectual scum.
I don't want to study fucking Chinese to join a research team.

>>435575
Other minds a problem when we can only get knowledge on them from their behavior. If minds are emergent, this is not the only avenue for knowledge.

>>435600
The fact that hydrogen bonds are "built in" to the laws of reality is extremely suggestive that the principle behind existence is a difference in electronegativities.

>>435631
Ethics can be worked out using science. Philosophy is dead.

>>435716
Why aren't you donating all your money then? Are you anti-science?

>>435525
>Throw dumb, dead, inert matter at a wall for eternity. Nothing happens. Dumb, dead, inert matter is just that, follows no other rule than maybe gravity and shit.
And entropy, most pertinently.
>What is going on?
Dissipation-driven adaptation, possibly

>>435709
Except the hydrogen bonds contribute to the complexity of greater and greater systems than the bonds themselves, so we must account for those systems instead of stopping the explanation short because you wanted to make a half assed point

>>435762
>Except the hydrogen bonds contribute to the complexity of greater and greater systems
Okay.

The fact that the laws of economics (or nation states, or any other large system that humans collectively contribute to) are "built in" to the laws of reality is extremely suggestive of a mercantile (again, you may substitute anything you'd like here, like Nationalist) principle underlying reality.

>>435686
>Other minds a problem because we can only get knowledge on things we believe are conscious from their behavior. If minds are emergent, this is does not help us get knowledge, because we cannot be certain what is and isn't conscious

Ftfy

>>435806
> If minds are emergent, we can eventually discover the structure that leads to emergence, and thereafter know that there is consciousness wherever we find that structure

>>435618
Ethics is just a fancy way of saying cost benefit analysis. That's what it boils down to.

>>435839
>le altruism is hedonism maymay

Fuck off with this sperg shit faggot

>>435176
A priori reasoning is not the same as observation, although they did both.

Someone spending a lot of time thinking with a title doesn't make it automatically right, though. Naive observation does not attempt to reduce bias.

Furthermore, you misunderstand the point of the scientific method. It's a systematic way to reduce bias, not whatever fedora tippery you're thinking of.

>>435227
Also, naive observation is a specific term. How's the chin doing?

>>434144
>there are no mental events, you are only imagining them!
Strict behaviourism has been discredited for decades. The modern view on conciousness boils down to "it probably isn't magic" which is somehow enough to cause all this shitposting.

>>435839
For me it is, at least.

>>435873
Since when did I imply that.

>>435810
Are you trolling or something? You can't pick yourself by boot straps.

>>434169
Just pick any scientific article on consciousness-altering molecules.

>>435936
You realize that "observe" means "measure" right?

>>435888
>mindfulness meditation
>thinking

pick one bruh

>>435790
I had a big reply to this but it didn't go through for some reason. the basic gist was that regardless of what the "primary" principle is you're still conceding that incredible, almost unimaginable complexity is "pre-packed" in atoms (since you're implying there are whole grades of complexity past the human, which of course there are)

>>435925
You don't seem to get what a system property is. If we have strings of three bits, and we know 001 is odd on account of its structure, all other strings of 001 are odd, too. If we have brains and know that they are conscious on account of their structure, we know other brains with the same structure are also conscious.

>>435965
I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Are you arguing that there is no scientific evidence that consciousness-altering substances or methods exist? If not, how can there be no evidence for consciousness if there is evidence for consciousness-altering molecules, and vice versa?
You can't have maglev trains if magnetic forces aren't a valid scientific concept. Same thing with drugs.

>>434169
Consider the case of an apparent blind man, asked to complete an obstacle course to the best of their ability. Let's say they are to never step on a red tile and only step on blue tiles.

Statistically, a legitimately blind man will do roughly no better or worse than random chance for a sufficient number of tries. Someone who is pretending to be blind will do (statistically) significantly worse than random chance, as they over compensate to "prove" they are blind. The most interesting group are those with psychosomatic symptoms. Their eyes work just fine, but they claim to be blind. They perform (statistically) significantly better than random chance and the legitimately blind, but still much worse than non-blind participants. If they were pretending to be blind, they would do worse than random chance (or adhere too perfectly matching to random chance and thus were counting/faking results). Instead, they do better. Somehow, they are able to avoid the "obstacles" in ways legitimately blind people cannot, but not as well as someone who does not report being blind. Thus, there must be a level of information processing and integration beyond simple awareness (since their simple awareness is intact enough to avoid the "obstaces"). This heightened level of awareness is what is popularly termed "concious experience. "

>>436036
>we know that
>odd
You're ascribing meaning a priori. It takes a while to get past this.

The key point is that we don't know brains are conscious on account of their structure as likely as that may seem. We could demonstrate that cognition is based on some structure, but consciousness is not cognition

>>436043
Cognitive science studies cognition not consciousness. Cognition is internal behavior we can prove. Consciousness is a qualitative experience, not an interperson observable fact.

>>436085
>makes judgement on internal behavior based on outward behavior

You're talking about cognition buddy.

>claims to be logical and be better than scientists
>pays thousands of dollars for a burger flipping major

Something is amiss here.

>>436015
>principle is you're still conceding that incredible, almost unimaginable complexity is "pre-packed" in atoms
What I am actually saying is that to assume these principles are properties of their constituent parts is incorrect. "Pre-packaged" into atoms are their mass, charge, energy level etc., but higher order organizations emerge from interactions based on those properties. A waterfall does not come "prepackaged" in water, it is a function of flow, gravity, channels, drops, etc. There is no reason to believe conciousness is any different.

>>436106
Yes? Cognitive science is science. If you make a prediction, do an experiment, support/fail to support your prediction and make new predictions based on those results, you are doing science (as long as you dotted all your is, crossed all your ts and didn't fuck up your stats.) If concious experience didn't exist, we would expect psychosomatic patients to do no differently than intact patients, as their unconcious awareness of obstacles would be identical. If it can be measured reliably, even indirectly, it is real according to the scintific method.

>>436098
> You're ascribing meaning a priori

No, just parity. Saying one is odd a priori is not inappropriate.

>The key point is that we don't know brains are conscious on account of their structure as likely as that may seem.

I agree. I only said that other minds are not a problem if consciousness is emergent.

>We could demonstrate that cognition is based on some structure, but consciousness is not cognition

Does not imply that we cannot demonstrate that consciousness is based on some structure

>>436098
So are you saying that consciousness-altering substances only affect cognition and have no demonstrable effect on consciousness, and that it's not a proven fact that any of them have "interperson observable" effects on consciousness?
How do you explain the recognition of consciousness-altering substances as a category?

Define "consciousness".

>>436132
>don't need experience to know odd is odd

Axioms derive from experience, since axioms are chosen. That's why its called mathS. There are multiple axiomatic systems where "oddness" is not a concept. Oddness requires cardinality among other things if I remember correctly.

>I only said that other minds are not a problem if consciousness is emergent.

Once again. A solution to consciousness is not a solution to the hard problem of consciousness. You have to measure consciousness, but all you can measure is behavior.


>Does not imply that we cannot demonstrate that consciousness is based on some structure

You can't measure consciousness. You can't do an experiment on consciousness. Therefore you can't prove anything about consciousness. You can measure behavior, you can't measure consciousness.

Prove that your window is not conscious.

>>436138
Cognition is not consciousness.
Just because someone is talking about "unconscious awareness" they mean "cognition that is unavailable to outward report."

It's just like postmodernism, if you don't understand the terminology you can't get anywhere

>>436085
There are also many interesting experiments on animal consciousness. For example, which animals can understand that they are seeing themselves in a mirror? Which animals can watch TV in a meaningful sense? Which animals react to the number of colored dots drawn on a floor under various circumstances?

>>436198
>You have to measure consciousness, but all you can measure is behavior.
That's like saying you can't measure an apple with your eyes because all you can measure is the light.

>>436207
>For example, which animals can understand that they are seeing themselves in a mirror?
There are ants that can do this while many types of dogs can't.

>>436198
>You can measure behavior, you can't measure consciousness.
Just because something can't be measured directly doesn't mean it can't be measured scientifically. For example, we can't directly measure ancient glaciers, since they melted during Greenhouse periods. However, by measuring the ratio of oxygen isotopes in ancient limestone created from organisms with Calcite skeletons, we can deduce relative levels of glaciaton from the same period. So we measure something indrectly (glaciation) by directly measuring something availiable to us (limestone) that was directly affected by the thing we actually want to measure (glaciers concentrate light oxygen, reducing its abundance in contemporary limestone. )

Same idea. We can't directly measure conciousness, but we can directly measure behaviour. So we measure behaviour in ways directly affected by conciousness. Again, the example of the patient, the faker, and the psychosomatic patient is an example.

>>436144
O! You don't into hypothetical constructs.

Cognition is a hypothetical construct we use to attempt to explore internal behavior.

What people call things colloquially is irrelevant.

Why do you think the technical term is "cognitive impairment"?

>>436204
Distinguish "conciousness" from "cognition that is available to outward report."

>>436212
Hell, there are people who can't do that because of brain damage or other conditions affecting their consciousness. Though more complex organisms are generally more intelligent and have wider consciousness, it's clear that intelligence and consciousness don't progress as we naively expected from comparing ourselves to "lesser" mammals. Birds, mollusks and insects keep surprising us.
It really drives home how alien non-mammals (and non-humans) really are.

>>436015
>monks never did anything but meditate and never used reasoning

>>436198
>Once again. A solution to consciousness is not a solution to the hard problem of consciousness. You have to measure consciousness, but all you can measure is behavior.

The hard problem of consciousness was not what we were talking about.

Again, I am not claiming to know what consciousness is, only that IF we knew that it emerged from certain organizations of matter, THEN we would know that matter with that organization is conscious, and this would not depend on observations of behavior.

>>436207
*animal cognition
>>436208
Read Skinner. There's a reason "cognition " is the nomenclature. Basically we can prove that the brain reacts in specific ways, but we can't prove that the qualia exists. My red could be your green.

>>436225
But qualia or the experience is not required for behavior. I can explain a sea slug brain from cause to effect with no need for qualia.

>>436234
Consciousness is the experience.
Cognition is behavior.

It's the difference between "red" and light waves traveling at a certain wavelength

>>436265
>But qualia or the experience is not required for behavior.
I never said conciousness is required for behaviour. I said it affects it directly, and gave an example for how "conviousness" differs from simple awareness, and how conciousness has been established in a scientific, laboratory setting.

Never used the word qualia though. That's getting into spooky territory and there is no need for it.

>>436264
>only that IF we knew that it emerged from certain organizations of matter, THEN we would know that matter with that organization is conscious, and this would not depend on observations of behavior.

I get you, but we don't know that.

That's like saying if I had an example of p=np I could solve all np-hard problems. Sure I could, but fuck all it does me.

>>436282
A proof that one np problem is p can be turned to all np problems because someone linked that shit up already.

>>436282
Right, but all I said was that if consciousness is emergent, other minds are not a problem.

>>436271
So how is someone failing to experience the sensation of actually seeing the "obstacles," but still avoiding them to a certain extent anyway not an example of conciousness?

>>436265
>My red could be your green.
That requires presuming that internal experience exists in the first place. The need to explain internal experience arises from already believing in internal experience. It's circular reasoning.

>>436280
>I never said conciousness is required for behaviour.
Good. Because it ostensibly is not.

>I said it affects it directly, and gave an example for how "conviousness" differs from simple awareness, and how conciousness has been established in a scientific, laboratory setting.

You really do mean cognition here. All of these words you're using have lawyer tier definitions, you need to be very careful about how you say what you're trying to say.
>Never used the word qualia though. That's getting into spooky territory and there is no need for it.
No. Just stop. You have an experience. You seem to be going in a Dennet direction

>experience isn't a behavior

>>436291
I should rephrase this.
What we have is an example where the disordered brain is aware enough of the obstacles to avoid them more than an actual blind person, but the self-report still lacks the subjective experience of having seen them.

Does this not imply that, in ordered brains, simple awareness of information and experience of information is separate, therefore conciousness exists? And it can be examined in a scientific context.

>>436337
That's just simple self-evaluation though. The person is unaware of their own abilities.

>>436346
Not him but I think self-evaluation is an important part of any criteria for consciousness

>>436287
Exactly, but you don't have it. That was the fucking point.

>>436289
You still don't understand, read some Descartes, Spinoza, and I think Searle.

>>436291
It's an example of cognition. I would have to experience your conscious experience to demonstrate consciousness.

>>436302
False, the need to explain personal experience derives from the experience of personal experience.

>>436346
Aren't self-evaluation, self-awareness, and meta-cognition aspects of conciousness?

And it's not that they are unaware of their own abilities, it's that "they" lack access to them while other portions of their brain seem to have access to them.

>>436334
It is, it's just not observable

>>436230
"Consciousness-altering substance" is not a colloquialism, it's not a less or more technical term than "cognitive impairment", which represents a wholly different concept. Furthermore, the classifications of psychoactive substances are usually based on the qualitative consciousness-altering experiences they produce, not on their cognitive effects. While it may be that substances can improve cognition or impair it, this effect is almost entirely based on the experiences they impart (or more indirectly, their physical effects)
Stimulants will "wake you up" but they can also cause you to fidget and freak out. Depressants can calm you and take your mind off the pain but they can also make you "float away". Hallucinogens can lead to great insights and thinking outside the box or they can throw you into a living nightmare.
How well you score on a IQ test while under the influence of these substances has little to do with any direct effect on cognition, but rather your emotional state, mood, awareness and perception. Your consciousness.

>>434699
Yeah sure, I need my network of infinite rank 2 tensors to be renormalisable, I'm trying an Ads/CFT Mera representation but I cant achieve the degree of accuracy I need with classical computation. Any advice philosophy anon?

>>436355
>I would have to experience your conscious experience to demonstrate consciousness.
Why does conciousness have to be measured directly while many other phenomena are successfully measured indirectly?

>>436355
>You still don't understand

Either explain how the problem of other minds doesn't depend on behavior being our only source of knowledge, or explain how knowledge of dynamics cannot give any knowledge.

>>436362
The effects of psychoactive drugs are based on the reported effects. Cognition.

>>436367
There is directly observable, indirectly observable, and unobservable. Directly observable is the person, indirectly observable is the internal doing of things, unobserved is the experience of the doing.

>>436362
I'll also add that claiming we can't observe or measure the effects of any substances on consciousness is like we claiming we have no evidence for the very existence of fear, anger, hallucinations or whatever. Unless you want to claim the existence of "philosophical zombies", conscious states of euphoria, terror or delirium have observable and measurable (potentially fatal) physical symptoms and real-world consequences, from perspiration to cardiac rythms. Inversely, some substances have observable and verifiable neurological/biochemical effects reliably leading to conscious states and experiences. For example, the effects of the various receptor agonists and antagonists are well understood and well linked to consciousness.

>>436421
If experience is unobserved, how do you know it exists? Since you have never observed experience, you shouldn't know anything about it.

>>436411

>either or
Neither.
It's the bootstrapping problem.
You can't have knowledge of dynamics because behavior is the only way to get information. Since behavior can't give you the information you need, you never get any hand holds to prove things about consciousness

>>436421
>indirectly observable is the internal doing of things, unobserved is the experience of the doing.
What is the actual difference between these two? I'm assuming you're going to say something like "the neurons that fire when thinking of red vs the thought of red" but within the conext of the system, they don't seem that different. I still don't see how conciousness is distinguished from "cognition availiable to the self report."

>>436432
Have you ever taken a neuroscience class? All of those things are defined behaviorally.

>>436433
Sorry should have been more clear. Its Descartes. I think therefore I am. I can experience my experience, just not yours. A sample size of one isn't worth much

>>436434
>Since behavior can't give you the information you need, you never get any hand holds to prove things about consciousness
By that logic, you can't even claim that it exists because the behavior of saying consciousness exists in no way indicates that consciousness exists.

>>436444
>quoting things I don't understand means I'm right

File: 1412305792220.jpg (36KB, 340x565px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 340x565px

>you don't really feel pain or pleasure, you just think you do

Anyone who says this should be stabbed, maybe that will get them to think straight.

>>436434
> You can't have knowledge of dynamics because behavior is the only way to get information
Behaviorism fails as a means of getting knowledge about anything with more than a handful of variables as complexity rises exponentially. Theoretical knowledge becomes essential. I haven't multiplied 7777777778 x 5556 before, and I'm not going to, but from what I know about even numbers, I can say the result is even without checking.

>>436442
I don't know how to answer your question other than by saying cognition is the hypothetical construct. Consciousness is probably very similar to some of our models. But models are models and this is science. It's a bit more complicated, but we can't scientifically say rocks aren't conscious, so we can't have a theory of consciousness

.>>436447
I think therefore I am

>>436452
Yeah but having several degrees means I might understand more than you.

>>436462
This isn't behaviorism. Read how cognitivism came about. Unobservable behavior

>>436085
>Their eyes work just fine, but they claim to be blind.
I think you're talking about blindsight, which is usually caused by a kind of brain damage, so saying "their eyes work just fine" is misleading, since that's irrelevant, if the part of the brain that processes the information is broken, as is the case here.

>>436471
>we can't scientifically say rocks aren't conscious
If rocks are concious, they should behave in a way that they would not without conciousness. In this case, the word "behave" does not necessarily mean "perform an action with intent" but is a general term mean "an event should occur."

>>436471
>I think therefore I am
This is not a formal statement.

>>436476
> This isn't behaviorism
Ey, wrong word, doesn't change getting all knowledge from observed behavior is unworkable and valuable and predictive knowledge can come from theory

>>436477
Different parts of the brain process the information the eyes are successfully collecting, unlike true blindness where the eyes do not successfully collect information.

>>436421
>The effects of psychoactive drugs are based on the reported effects.
That's almost nonsensical, but I get what you are trying to say.
No, the categorizations of psychoactive drugs are not exclusively carried out based on the effects reported by users, and a similarity in reported effects generally leads us to discover a very concrete similarity in the molecules or their neurological effects.

>Cognition.
How is the condition medically termed "chronic euphoria" a matter of cognition?

>>436444
>Have you ever taken a neuroscience class? All of those things are defined behaviorally.
Not only is that a dishonest oversimplification, neuroscience actually demonstrates that there is empirical evidence for fear and delirium as conscious states.

>>436502
Yeah, but that's not the salient property of blindsight.

>>436484
Why should an event occur, what are you basing this on?

>>436492
No but it's based on a relavant one.

>>436494
Theory based on observed behavior, justified by observable behavior. Therefore behavior

>>436476
You don't understand what it's like to be another person, while I do. I am more experienced in this subject than you.

>>436476
>Read how cognitivism came about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_learning

BF Skinner wasted his entire career teaching pigeons circus tricks.

>>436513
>No but it's based on a relavant one.
Then why would you use the informal statement?

>>436484
>If x are conscious, they should behave

WRONG

GB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDITGB2REDDIT

sorry, it's like tourettes

>>436521
What is your definition of "conscious" then?

>>436471
Currently all being we observe as being conscious exhibit neural interactions within some structure we generally term a "brain". Rocks do not exhibit any form of this structure, thus there is a strong weighting that rocks do not have any consciousness.

If someone was to find another structure that was strongly correlated (the current definition has a correlation factor of 1 and I would want any other structure to have at least p >0.5) with consciousness (note I'm sticking to correlation not causation here).

Until you find such a structure or demonstrate that rocks exhibit some property that is strongly correlated with, or causally linked to consciousness (with no additional correlated factors that would explain the behaviour), then I will state that based on prior evidence it is very likely that rocks are not conscious.

File: Reductionism.png (240KB, 648x1214px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 648x1214px

>>436528
>>436521
>>436520
>>436516
>>436514
>>436513
>>436512
>>436509
>>436502
>>436494
>>436492
>>436484
>>436477

>>435021
This is the epitome of philosophical stupidity

>>436513
>Why should an event occur, what are you basing this on?
If something exists, it has some sort of effect. If an effect exists, it can be measured.

Concious rocks shoukd be expected to have different properties than non-concious rocks, or if rocks are concious we should expect them to exhibit properties they would not if they were non-concious. If the property is really there, there should be an effect, which can be directly or indirectly measured through experiment.

>>436509
Yeah you've never taken a neuroscience course. Come back when you get past 200. I don't mean to be rude, you're just using all these terms you don't understand. You're saying things aren't based on behavior, and then showing how we use behavior to define it

>>436471
>>436521
>we can't scientifically say rocks aren't conscious
If we have no evidence that rocks are or could be conscious, we can't scientifically say rocks are or could be conscious, which, for scientific purposes, is as good as saying rocks aren't conscious.
I mean, rocks could suddenly exhibit consciousness tomorrow, just like water could start flowing upstream.

>>436530
>observe
You don't observe consciousness

>>436535

Consciousness is not a property of an object.

Objects are properties of consciousness.

>>436512
For the purposes of establishing the existence of conciousness in a laboratory setting, it is the one I am discussing. Awareness without subjective experience causes a different behavior than awareness with subjective experience, therefore subjective experience (conciousness) can be said to exist in a scientific context.

>>436537
>You're saying things aren't based on behavior,
Go ahead, find a quote where I claim that.

>>436545
There's no data you are conscious. Don't talk about things you dont understand.

Anyways, I have to fix a steering column. Bye guys.

>>436546
How do people say consciousness exists if they don't observe it?

>>436549
Ah yes, the deadman paradox. I have yet to see a solution for that one.

>>436547
>Objects are properties of consciousness.
Oh okay, see now we're just getting spooky. When take note, >>436532, when people say "conciousness doesn't exist" they are talking about statements like the above, not regular mundane conciousness as a measurable function of the brain.

>>436555
>There's no data you are conscious.
There's no data that you exist.

>>436547
Difficult. You'd have to reject any sort of timeline that includes time before your birth. In other words, nothing could exist before the first conscious thing appeared on Earth.

>>436546
>ignoring the rest of the argument
You didn't define consciousness, I provided a definition, either specify the scope of your argument or stop moving the goalposts.

>>436547
Please provide evidence or support for this statement, unless you're assuming it axiomatically in which case state that.

>>436116
My friend, I'm not literally saying atoms are conscious or alive. But just as you put a bunch of important people in a room and call it a government, you can also put just the right atoms together in a tight space and get a living organism. Is any individual member's person literally the government? Of course not. You're arguing semantics. Of course I agree these things are a function of atomic and force interactions, just as government is a function of the cognitive power of its members.

But just as these brains have the potential to get together and make something bigger, so do atoms. That's the remarkable part. you're misunderstanding. We could have just easily had a universe where matter can only arrange itself into beautiful geometric patterns of different sizes, and that's the end of it. but we don't. Atoms, in their charge, spin, number of electrons/protons, come pre-packed with the capacity to become something more when they interact together. Something that is both incredible complex and aware of itself as complexity. We don't disagree about the process, we're just disagreeing about it's metaphysical ramifications, or lack thereof

Arguing philosophy on 4chan through aggressive shitposting and memes is more intellectually stimulating than anything in college

Ahh,the rhetoric

>>436549
>Awareness without subjective experience causes a different behavior than awareness with subjective experience, therefore subjective experience (conciousness) can be said to exist in a scientific context.
Blindsight works through the brain working around broken parts, so it's to be expected that it doesn't work as well are regular sight. When people have a stroke, they often don't fully recover. It's the same principle.

>>436595
You aren't saying anything I disagree with. I'm just adding that, in a clinical context, it also provides evidence that concious experience exists.

>>436583
Stop shitposting

>>436601
It's rather weak evidence. You can explain the difference through the brain damage alone, without bringing consciousness into it.

>>436570
>before the first conscious thing appeared on Earth

Actually, in this situation it would be necessary for consciousness to be metaphysically primary to temporal existence itself, ie no Earth/Solar System/Galactic cluster/Universe without consciousness first.

t. George Berkeley

>>436583

mfwiktftbhfam

>>436630
I guess it depends on how you define "conciousness." To me, it looks like aware cognitions, and the separation of aware cognition from unaware cognitions is right there. If you're defining conciousness as whatever >>436547 means, then yeah, it is no evidence at all.

>>436652
I'm not a new age retard, but blindsight adds no further evidence beyond the word of a person. They say they are unaware of their ability to see, but maybe they just don't see well, because they have brain damage, and perform worse on tests because of that? People aren't aware of how they move their muscles to accomplish some movement of their body, but you can consciously control that, if you train to. Perhaps someone with blindsight could learn to "see" (in principle anyway)?

>>436681
>They say they are unaware of their ability to see, but maybe they just don't see well, because they have brain damage, and perform worse on tests because of that?
Possibly, but then their results should be difficult to separate from people with "legitimate" blindness.

>>436696
Why would there be? There's all kinds of degrees of damage and recovery.

>>436716
Yes, but patients who would be undergoing these tests wouldn't be people with varying degrees of damage and recovery. They would be diagnosed as legally blind by a doctor with a particular diagnosis criteria. The only difference would be that they had a psychological reason for their blindness rather than something like an eye problem.

I guess you could argue that constitutes a selection effect, and therefore not necessarily applicable.

>>436556
You can observe you own Consciousness but not other people's.

>>436568
For you there isn't.

>>436571
Consciousness is the subjective experience of existing.
>>436574
But inherent in each person is an aspect of the whole. Therefore atoms display aspects of consciousness.

>>436652
I know that sounds like a coherent thought to you. Cognition and consciousness are separate concepts, one is scientific the other philosophical.

>>436681
This guy gets it.

>>437021
>You can observe you own Consciousness but not other people's.
Then that means there are behaviors contingent on consciousness, which means consciousness can be measured.

>>437029
Yes, but only your own consciousness. Not a very large sample size m8. Thus is is not scientifically available to observation.

>>437029
>>437036
Like, 100 years ago, psychology operated that way. Then Skinner came along and explained in painfully specific detail that we were just measuring behavior. Took him like 20 years, so I don't see myself convincing you today.

But I assure you, every psychological measure measures behavior and every theory is about behavior. It's just that most undergrads don't have this properly explained to them

>>437052
So then you're claiming that somebody who lacked consciousness would not differ in behavior?

You only have these two choices. Either it can be measured, or no effect on behavior exists.

>>437058
>So then you're claiming that somebody who lacked consciousness would not differ in behavior?

I'm saying you have no way of knowing it would

>>437090
That's the same as saying we can't know anything because all measurements are "indirect". Except it's not consistent because somehow one thing can be sure of consciousness, but that information suddenly becomes unsure once it passes through a few arbitrary barriers.

>>437102
No. Just no.

I give up. This is basic cognitive science.

You can't prove anything about the ontological nature of the mind, so you're not in a position to make judgements on how it should affect people or even if it exists in other people.

People tried doing your psychology in the 40s, it was wrong.

>>437153
Can we prove anything about the ontological nature of a tree?

>>434144
You're most welcome friend.

>>434732
>But the last 300 years of its usage has been extremely successful in answering questions which philosophy got nowhere with (or worse) in thousands of years.
lel, tell us one question answered by science and tell this answer.