Sentience doesn't exist. Prove me wrong.

>>9056253
>expects a proof for a question about semantics

define sentience.

sure can not really well

>>9056253
Does the hard problem of consciousness basically prove science is fundamentally wrong about something?
Cos sentience definitely does exist. In fact it's the only thing that definitely exists. If science can't handle it then wtf is it even doing?

>>9056253
If sentience didn't exist you wouldn't ask me to prove you wrong. :^)

>>9058517
he would but he wouldn't know he was doing it

>>9056261
fpbp

>>9056253
fuck off brainlet retard

File: brain shit.png (703KB, 2664x1996px) Image search: [Google]

703KB, 2664x1996px

Fuck sentience here is something better. Here is a quick nice thought.

WHEN you look at the brain, it is divided by functions that evolved on top of it each other. 1 are commands of basic life functions. Your heart beating, digestion, breathing, that kind of thing. Then 2 evolved, it's the so called reptilian brain. Shit like territoriality, perceiving hostility, threats etc. 3 is the so called monkey brain, it's where notions of social hierarchy, feelings of love for family etc happens. Then 4 is what makes us human, the ego, the so called sentience.

Now, when you look at the brain, it's pretty clear these parts are consecutive, they are organized in a way, it's evolution, the brain got larger and larger like this, and it looks like it's curving on itself like a spiral, but this spiral is incomplete. Just look at the shape of the brain. It makes me think that there must be a 5th stage, something else to this, it must be cool if there is and maybe we'll get there with computers and shit. It's just a thought, really.

No but really, sentience exists but only does so for evolutionary reasons, it's an illusion. People who are really smart managed to survive and spread more their genes now all humans are really smart downside is we use this smartness to realize we are something. I don't think there is anything special to our minds like soul or any of that pseudo-science crap like quantum immortality. It's the truth.

>>9058520
Kek

>>9058610
>evolutionary reasons
But evolution is literally blind to sentience unless materialism is false.

>>9058646
>But evolution is literally blind to sentience unless materialism is false.
What?
Let me try explaining again.
-changes in DNA that makes your brain be bigger than it actually is
-brain has more neurons
-thus more neural connections
-can now compute things it previously couldn't
-can now compute "i must eat to survive" instead of just "must eat"
-brain being bigger means its smarter and can do these things
-since its smarter it also survives more
-thus it spreads
The "i must eat to survive" is where consciousness started. Sentience. It's an illusion.

>>9056253
>I think therefore I am
I can prove it to myself, but not to you.

>>9058695
I used to unironically firmly believe in solipsism but then started going to Philosophy forums and saw that other people who I initially thought were just like NPCs also commonly asked the same kinds of questions. It makes me think that everyone who looks like a human such as myself also is conscious. Just because you can't perceive someone's consciousness doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>>9058703
yep, but obviously it's impossible to prove anyone else is sentient. I'm glad you changed your mind because obviously I and everyone else is sentient, but a skeptic is justified in believing in solipsism.

>>9058705
>obviously x
>belief in not-x is justified
Maybe if x is obvious this shows the not-xers are doing something wrong.
>>9058663
Materialistic evolution can work on brains but it can't work on sentience. Sentience would have to get matter to do something it wouldn't normally do for it to possibly affect anything including evolution.

>>9058727
>Materialistic evolution can work on brains
Which is why it works on sentience.
>Sentience would have to get matter to do something it wouldn't normally do for it to possibly affect anything including evolution.
Nice special snowflake syndrome! What makes you think that sentience is not something matter can create? Are you suggesting it's something "immaterial" or maybe even "spiritual"? Do you also use geometric cosmologicalism as an argument for humans to be the center of the Universe?

>>9056253
I'm self aware, so your statement is easily disproven, as far as I care.

>>9056253
Sentience? As in the capacity to feel or perceive? I didn't think that one was up for debate. Fairly easy to confirm in even basic life forms.

Usually when we have one of these stupid threads, someone uses the term "consciousness" or at least "sapience", in one of the more spiritual or philosophical senses of the terms.

Now I could assume that's what you meant, but I'll bite it as presented and ask, how does one disprove sentience, without simply waving all reactions as simple consequence of determinism? (Which, even if that was the case, would do nothing to remove the fact that things react to stimuli.)

>>9058737
>What makes you think that sentience is not something matter can create?
Didn't say that though I do believe it. I said it's something evolution can't work on unless materialism is false.

The problem is causal closure in materialism.
Say matter creates sentience. When it does it's either still obeying laws of physics or it's not. If it is then sentience has no effect on any process in the material world including evolution.
>immaterial
Makes more sense than saying it's material.
Please describe how sentience is or arises from material.

>>9058780
>>immaterial
>Makes more sense than saying it's material.
>Please describe how sentience is or arises from material.
Oh I see. I am arguing with someone who thinks consciousness is immaterial.
Well, [math]was[/math] arguing.

File: woj.png (363KB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 5000x5000px

>>9058816
>mocks immaterialism
>can't say what's wrong with it
>can't justify belief in sentience arising from material

>>was
>runs away like a little brainlet

>>9058859
So many points to go over, where do I even start...?
First of all, let me adress the structure of your post. You're using a fucking wojak image, representative of all the post Gamer Gate cancer that destroyed 4chan for good. That image is supposedly transparent and in solid colours, but you saved it as a png and, on top of it, it's a fucking 5k[math]x[/math]5k image with fucking 363kb, like why even the fucking shit do you need that. It shows that not only you're 4chan cancer, but internet cancer in general since you've clearly never heard of internet etiquette, you don't know you're not supposed to contribute to potential server overflow not even in the slightest. You use Reddit spacing and you make complete misuse of greentext. This itself is so much bullshit in such a small post that even the most anti-ad-hominem philosophers out there would consider an exception solely for the purposes of calling out your complete idiocy.

>>9058859
But now to you are actually suggesting.
This very simple post of yours contains the word, expression and concept belief. My friend, this is the science board, not the paranormal or religion board. If you have a "belief" in something, you belong in boards like /x/ or /his/, not in the fucking science board. "Belief". Holding a "belief" that something is true, false, real, unreal. What a fucking joke. As if that was not enough, the whole concept of immateriality is unfalsifiable by its very definition, there's no material way to get to something immaterial, which is all the more reason why you're just spouting out pseudo-scientific pop-sci bullshit you know nothing about and all the more reason this belongs on /x/ or /his/, not on this board, you pathetic idiot with the brain power of a mushroom. Even if we ignore the fact it's unfalsifiable, even if we ignore you choose to believe things rather than test them, the idea of immateriality is still contradictory to the idea of an immaterial consciousness because of a number of paradoxes, contradictions and other problems that would arise from this. A few examples. If consciousness is immaterial, why does it seem to be confined to a material thing - the brain? If consciousness is immaterial, how does it even connect with the material world? If consciousness is immaterial, why is it bound by the laws of the material world? Isn't immateriality contradictory to the fact consciousness exists within an Universe that is fucking material? And if it's a truly immaterial thing like a spirit, why be confined to the feeble human body? Couldn't it just wonder around like a ghost, spirit or god?

>>9058859
Even if you do have an answer to all these questions, a simple Occam's Razor would rule out this pathetic piece of shit attempt of a "theory" which is really just plain outright mysticism as non-viable because it implies so much shit that it would be just easier to assume the truth, which is there isn't an immaterial world and we are indeed just indeed sad lumps of organic matter. I could continue to analyze this pathetic idea that is the immaterial consciousness into oblivion, I could twist it in ways you would never recover from it, brainlet, but 4chan's character limit is really annoying and I have better things to do with my life, unlike you. So just face it fuckwit, you're not special. Life is meaningless. It's nothing but misery and suffering. There isn't a god waiting for you in Heaven when you die in pain like the animal you are. Now stop being an embarrassment to yourself, this board, your family and friends (if you have any, and I won't say "to your girlfriend" because I know you don't have one anyway, fucking loser).

>>9058859
If you truly are an adept to this theory, try proving it by shooting yourself in the head. Let's see if you genuinely believe this shit or if you're just another idiot with existential delusions.

File: woj2.png (870KB, 10000x10000px) Image search: [Google]

870KB, 10000x10000px

Oh look you came back.
>>9058924
>muh green wojak png
bitch deal with it
>>9058929
>believes beliefs are a joke
>believes in unproven paradoxes
>>9058933
>thinks occam's razor is a physical object
>has better things to do than type out pages of character limited buttrage
>types them out anyway
>>9058936
>kys
dude get a grip

You still haven't explained how sentience arises from material. Obviously you can't because it doesn't but it would've been nice if you had something that at least sounded plausible.
If you can't square sentience with materialism the Occamist thing to do would be to stop assuming you can, and since we 100% definitely know sentience is real that means materialism isn't.

>>9058743
I certainly don't know that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain
Y'all heard of this?
I think sentience ceases to exist as we "zoom" in further and further into subfunctions of the human brain, if you get my gist

>>9056253
Define exist.

>>9058933
Occam's Razor is a heuristic, not a method of proof.

Just passing by :)

>>9056253

Why would anyone care to prove anything to someone who isn't sentient? I don't prove to my food that I have the right to eat it.

>>9059506

This is true of literally everything. See a glass of water>>>zoom in>>>see nothing but molecules: OMG WHERE DID THE GLASS OF WATER GO?!?!?!

>>9056253
i think, therefore i am