The so called "hard problem of consciousness."

In a battle to the Death between Dennett and Chalmers who would win? Maybe that's how we can settle this once and for all.

Never heard of this before
Sounds like its just the result of us thinking we're more than just organisms and we can't grasp that fact

There is a hard problem of matter, too. When you think about that it's a bit easier to see why there might be a hard problem of consciousness.

>>8823961
There is a hard problem of problems, where problems are sometimes too hard so you make up bullshit woo like the immortal soul or the homunculus and make a career out of spreading your shitty woo to Christfags with money for coffee table books.

Fuck you!

>>8823965
What? Who said anything about souls?

There is no hard problem, but dualism is still true.

>>8823989
Post your address so I can come murder you.

>>8823989
>>8824011
Lol

Were you in the thread a few days ago? I argued with some guy that didn't want to/couldn't explain the difference between the signal for blue and seeing blue. I'm still looking for an answer.

>>8823989
Do you believe in ghosts as well?

>>8824019
There is no difference, fuckhead. That's the point.

>>8824019
What makes blue a signal?

File: drunk-girl-passed-out-at-party.jpg (35KB, 500x495px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x495px

>>8823948
pic related: the real hard problem of consciousness

>>8823965
That's Chalmers you're talking about. Dennet is saying there is no hard problem.

>>8824024
That was my argument, no need to be rude. I'm looking for an explanation of his position.

>>8824027
specific wavelength brings on a conformational change in a specific protein that gets integrated through a fuckload of pathways and gets translated as blue. you could see it as a signal i suppose.

>>8823948
Neural networks with interneuronal latency of less than about 400ms tend to exgibit a specific set of activities one might label as "waking up".

Dennett's got it right. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if half the people talking about this still think free will is a thing. Nonsensical concepts, both of them.

>>8824023
Just because I believe in material objects doesn't make me superstitious

>>8824059
Dennett is a compatibilist, so he believes in free will.

I find it pretty amusing that Sam Harris believes in qualia, but not free will, while Dan Dennett believes in free will, but not qualia.

>>8823948
Consciousness is biosemiotic evaluation of the mind. All life is minded in that it interprets meaning from external signs. Consciousness is the same kind of process, the external signs are the mind(if you aren't a radical externalist gtfo), it requires the ability to memorize experienence(remembering signs such as; the room you are in and the meaning of words you are using)
Most humans aren't even ecologically conscious so of course they think it's a problem. This also btfo homunculi arguments

File: demiurge.jpg (9KB, 150x184px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 150x184px

Thinking Matter is basal will only lead to problems, culminating in the absurdity of the hard problem. Thinking Mind is basal will only lead to solutions, culminating in the resolve of Pleroma.

>>8824227
Shut up Christfag. Go back to /pol/.

>>8823948
Yes, there is no hard problem, because what's called the hard problem is really a mystery which is inaccessible to human understanding. Humans are organisms with brains, just like ants, fish, chimpanzees. Just like ants, fish, and chimpanzees have limits to their understanding, so do humans. The "hard problem" is one of those things that we can't understand in principle. However, we can come up with a theory about it, and we could understand the theory.

>>8825187
mysterion nonsense

kys

>>8825238
>thinking human understanding has no limits

>>8824227
Mother was smarter than I gave her credit for. Now she's gone.

>>8824029
animal drives are very easy to explain

>>8823958
No it's just a different interpretation of what we as organisms are. Not understanding whats being talked about reflects a complete lack of effort on your part

>>8823965
Not too bright this one

>>8823948
>There is no hard problem of consciousness
>There's not, there's not, there's not
Yes, there is.

>>8824042
>through a fuckload of pathways and gets translated as blue
>translated as blue.
You sure solved the problem there.

>>8824150
Of the two the former seems a trillion times more likely to me, yet the latter is a trillion times a better philosopher. This bothers me.

>>8824254
>Only Christians are idealists
>Christians are idealists
Retard alert

This thread is so stupid.

>he thinks symbols on tape can ever be conscious even if the tape is made of organic matter

Fucking kek.

>>8824042
>translated as blue
Cool, how does it encode "blue" then? Who is it showing the translation? No computer in existence stores the color blue.

>>8827244
honestly I don't understand how people convince themselves that neurons can produce consciousness but electronic circuits can't.

File: dan_dennett.png (39KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 800x600px

D A N
E
N
N
E
T
T