Spread Mind Theory

File: floopy.png (422KB, 779x793px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 779x793px

In case anyone was wondering (and cbf to read through the website), this is the counterpart to that image

>>8723894
Literally the first sentence is this:
>According to neuroscience, consciousness is secreted by the brain, much as the pancreas secretes insulin.
That does not bode well for the rest of the argument lol

File: floopydoo.png (326KB, 633x900px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 633x900px

>>8724009
He means this

>>8723894
Pseudo-philosophical bunk.

>>8723894
"one's consciousness of an object is the object one is conscious of"

How retarded do you have to be to entertain this view? Seeing something before your minds eye, say, an apple, does not give new information about that apple. It is what you expect it to be, and your expectation can be accurate or mistaken.

I reiterate: How retarded do you have to be?

Didn't Kant settle this with the thing-in-itself? Transcendental idealism anyone?

>>8724237
Basically this. It's just a thinly disguised reformulation of solipsism, based on an outdated medieval concept of "existence".

>>8724404
Why do you suppose there's any other substance than experience?
And he has a reply to the whole illusion/hallucination/misperception thing.

>>8724967
How is it at all like solipsism? I would argue if anything the traditional view is way more solipsistic it assumes there's something outside of experience that you never get to contact.

>>8723894
>http://www.thespreadmind.com/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalism
It is a butchered form of externalism..

>>8725057
Explain :)

File: Pilot+Razor+Point+II+Ultra+Fine.jpg (185KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1000x750px

>>8723894
Good lecture on the subject by Peter Russell

https://youtu.be/-d4ugppcRUE

>>8725046
Why do I suppose there's any other substance than experience? I'm not sure what you mean. The essence of this theory is that experience is irrelevant, and that's crazy.

I read the pages on illusion and hallucination. That's not an argument because it says nothing to support his thesis. You would expect these phenomena to be problems for the theory but they're not.

Because of reasons.

>>8725078
ctrl-f "Manzotti" on that wiki page, it's right there.
>>8724125
Is that pic literally denying that an information processing system can interpret information? Not sure if I follow but that sounds retarded.
>take picture of apple
>pixels in the image have rgb value (255, 0, 0)
>but the actual apple doesn't have rgb value (255, 0, 0)
>therefore, the picture is the apple!

>>8725046
>And he has a reply to the whole illusion/hallucination/misperception thing.
I read it, it's retarded.
(here http://www.thespreadmind.com/The_Spread_Mind_S10.php)
>The Spread Mind supports this counterintuitive claim by pointing out two empirical facts. First, all hallucinations are made of parts of actual objects. Second, both in perception and hallucination there is a time lag.
The first claim is flat-out wrong, second one is a logical error (and I'm not even sure how you can claim there is a time lag in hallucination)