What are /lit/s thoughts on Consciousness? Are you materialists?

fallor ergo sum

>>9107838
What did he mean by this?

File: lighto.jpg (833KB, 1390x2048px) Image search: [Google]

833KB, 1390x2048px

any categorial rifts in the perception of concepts tells you not to confront but complement each. as the duality of confront and complement are also a rift in perception.

>>9107903
Cmon dont babble explain, I need a redpill on my existence here

You should look into William James and his arguments against epiphenomenalism.

Remember: Don't drink the materialist Kool-Aid. Their metaphysic is no more correct by default than any other.

Substance dualism has unresolvable paradoxes.
Denialism only argues against substance dualism.
Panpsychism is the only remaining consistent model of consciousness, but we don't have the technology to reliably test what it claims yet.

>>9107906
you are asking for existence on a platform that denies and fractions your existence.

Thomas Nagel BTFO reductionist by invoking the mind-body problem.
Come on dudes. What is it like to be a bat?

>>9107976
The mind-body problem only exists in the first place if you subscribe to substance dualism.

Plato was right about everything.

File: spirner.jpg (41KB, 600x359px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x359px

I am a meat computer. I have no interest in transcendental meaning, but I read books because they're interesting and I like to know a lot of things.

My desire to know things is purely an emergent property of the physical and chemical configuration of my brain but that doesn't change anything about the way I feel so I don't care.

Going from believing in souls to not believing in souls changed nothing about the way I feel when I do things.

>>9107988
>if you subscribe to substance dualism
Daily reminders that only p-zombies reject the existence of mindstuffs

>>9108036
>implying dualism and denialism are the only views of consciousness

>>9108045
>implying paradoxes in dualism mean it's false

>>9108053
If you're going to abandon a basic tenant of logic, then you can't argue anything at all.

>>9108055
>not knowing about paraconsistent logic

It is just composed of a bunch of memes

>>9107833

Is every possible molecule a ""fundamentally"" different "material"

>>9108055
>>implying paradoxes in dualism mean it's false
Hes only right in the sense that "the discovers of the "paradox"" could be wrong in thinking they discovered a "paradox"

>>9107833
google philosophy index and mind-body problem

take your pick