/sci/ — Consciousness is a non-scientific phenomenon

File: images (8).jpg (24 KB, 570x538)

>>16990533 (OP)
>"I" is absolute in regard to the subjective experiencer
It's still subjective tho, there are no absolutes, you have to wake up the accident wasn't your fault please stop dreaming and wake up, please wake up.

>>16990533 (OP)
Uh ok, but you can still be smart about it and not stupid though. What makes more sense, some mythical essence called a soul that nobody can agree on how it works, where it goes, what it is, etc. Or just a representation of the physical brain which makes sense considering the "soul" has experimentally been verified to have a 1:1 connection with the physical brain. There's countless evidence and an person who has a massive brain injury literally changes permanently as a person. Lol.

>>16990564
correlation does not equal causation

>>16990564
>What makes more sense, some mythical essence called a soul that nobody can agree on how it works, where it goes, what it is, etc. Or just a representation of the physical brain which makes sense considering the "soul" has experimentally been verified to have a 1:1 connection with the physical brain.
Well the former, definitely. Not that there are no arguments for the latter that make sense on the surface, mind you, but they all rely heavily on epiphenomenalism or eliminativism, which is the exact opposite of an intuitive explanation for consciousness/the subjective 1st person experience we all (allegedly) experience.

It couldn't come from the elementary particles, or the force back would interfere with the observation.

>>16990533 (OP)
it is a product of brain function, this is easily proven by the fact that there is no such as a consciousness without brain function to go along with it

File: 1755799796134866.jpg (120 KB, 770x600)

>>16990533 (OP)
le scientific framework/method is a meme anyway
>>16990583
how would you know? le consciousness can only manipulate reality through a brain
if it existed without a brain to manipulate then how would you know it was there?
>>16990581
nonsensical

>>16990594
>nonsensical
A framework couldn't be built upon itself, or it would lose meaning. Time of the observer would have to be separate from the artifact.

>>16990533 (OP)
consciousness does not exist.

there is only awareness, a nature shared by all matter.

we observe the results of our actions, structures of awareness purposefully constructed to be unpredictable as a defence against prediction, and we interpret this as free will (those with a sharp mind will notice that the two things are, in fact, equivalent)

>>16990583
>fleshy bits that just happens to exist somehow leads to subjective experiences
amazing how no one really questions this

There is no subjective experience, if you replicated the state of the brain and the environment at the time someone had an experience they would have the same experience.

Experience is only subjective in the sense that you can't become someone else's brain, and there are so many variables that go into it that it's unlikely for two people to have an exactly identical experience. It's as magical as fingerprints.

>>16990594
>how would you know? le consciousness can only manipulate reality through a brain
if it existed without a brain to manipulate then how would you know it was there?

I see youe point but that again breaks
>causality is not corelation rule

If we set consciousness or brain as primary we break the rule for we have no insight into what happens before (if anything does). I think that more troublessome option is that it is case of corelation. Because if it is case of causality, at least we know starting point. This way we know there might be something benethe both but dont know what it is.

>>16990573
How can you prove a soul exists nigga? Punk ass bitch

>>16990632
>There is no subjective experience, if you replicated the state of the brain and the environment at the time someone had an experience they would have the same experience.
Source: "Trust me, bro!"

God damn soientists are retarded.

>>16990533 (OP)
should not you try to make sense? I think you should.

>>16990610
It has been questioned which is why we know the fleshy bits are responsible for thought, you still didn't explain why you think that's not the case and didn't show even the slightest evidence towards something else.

>>16990806
Meanwhile you're here trying to beg the question to push for whatever cult belief of the month you want to shill.

>>16990533 (OP)
>Using a scientific framework to calculate your "I" is nonsensical because "I" is absolute in regard to the subjective experiencer
Consciousness is not the "I", thoughbeit.

>>16990533 (OP)
There is zero evidence for the existence of consciousness, so yes technically its non-scientific because science cannot hardly address something that has not even been shown to exist.

>>16990878
>be unconscious
>don't experience anything
>be conscious
>experience things
Thanks for playing

>>16990882
Subjective experience is not scientific evidence.

>>16990884
Anon, but its not that SE is evidence for something, we are tallking about existance of SE it self.

The fact that people say SE is not valid for objective truth is argument for existance of SE, the very thing people ask evidance for.

>>16990843
>It has been questioned which is why we know the fleshy bits are responsible for thought
No, that doesn't explain why it leads to subjective qualia retard.

>>16990887
What is "why" in this context? We know subjective conscious experiences are directly related to brain function and you can't have those experiences without brain function. You seem to be begging really hard for a religiously anthropomorphic explanation of the "why" despite not even describing what you mean.

>>16990888
That is exactly questiom that brought me depression after 8 years of dwelling in HPC.

>>16990845
Explain the exact mechanisms of how one would be able to navigate through life with dual subjective awareness of your exact copy.
>whatever cult belief
You believe in ESP, even though you pretend otherwise.

>>16990890
You haven't shown any evidence for or requirement of any sort of dualism happening.

>>16990888
>What is "why" in this context?
How subjective experience can arise from non-living matter.
>We know
Kys
>despite not even describing what you mean.
I just did.

>>16990891
>dualism
But you literally believe that if you had an exact copy of you right here right now that you would be able to pilot both.

>>16990894
>How subjective experience can arise from non-living matter.
Do you mean active brain function? Can you show what you describe as subjective experience happening without living matter?

>>16990894
But you are assuming here that it is something that arises and not something that is fundamental.

How do you know that rock does not have some form of non-antropocentric experience?

>>16990896
When was that stated? You seem to be jumping through some argument flowchart only you are aware of without really reading anything that's written.

>>16990897
>Do you mean active brain function?
Great, so when I'm looking at a brain, that means I'm directly experiencing what qualia looks like firsthand!

>>16990902
How did you jump to that bizarre conclusion? Describe the thought process here.

>>16990902
>>16990896
Hard to believe in consciousness when there are actual humans making posts as retarded as these.

>>16990902
Experiencing qualia...
Qualia is experience anon.
Your questiom makes no sense. You are loosing your mind in wordplay because of assumptions. In this case assumption of entiry such as soul experiencing qualia as separate thing.

>>16990899
>How do you know that rock does not have some form of non-antropocentric experience?
That's just panpsychism, which admittedly makes more sense than emergentism/eliminative materialism.
>>16990900
If you say "they would have the same experiences", that directly implies they share the same qualia. Obviously this is complete nonsense.

>>16990906
Nowhere did I state that, and even the other anon that talked about "same experiences" did not describe whatever you are strawmanning, you aren't making any sense because you don't really seem to have a point.

>>16990906
>That's just panpsychism, which admittedly makes more sense than emergentism/eliminative materialism.

Yes but anon no theory has any sense from standpoint of other theory because thwy operate on different kinda of ontological assumptions!

It is like writing a script for a movie in which flight is not possible and calling the movie where script allows it stupid.

>>16990903
>>16990904
>>16990905
>if consciousness is the physical substrate, then that means brains are consciousness
>therefore every time you observe a human brain, you are witnessing that person's qualia
You're literally too retarded to follow along this conversation.

>>16990909
Anon you did not even read pappers regarding formulation of HPC. And you will tell me i am retarded? What are you? Some kond of ragebait bot?

>>16990909
You breaking down into hysterical idiocy to distract from the fact that you can't show even the slightest bit of evidence for the questions you're begging doesn't change the fact that you're still begging a question.

>>16990907
>Nowhere did I state that
How am I suppose to know you're a different poster?
>and even the other anon that talked about "same experiences" did not describe whatever you are strawmanning
Yes, I'm well aware he denied subjective experience outright. However, he still implies their experiences are "identical" with zero further elaboration.
>you aren't making any sense because you don't really seem to have a point.
It's been established /sci/ users have the reading level of 5th graders, yes.
>>16990912
>HPC
No one cares.
>>16990913
>you can't show even the slightest bit of evidence for the questions you're begging
>btw I don't have to justify my own premises
This really is the retard board.

>>16990914
Mofo you want to tallk about consciousness and dont even care about HPC?

>>16990914
>How am I suppose to know you're a different poster?
By not making assumptions, not like it matters anyway since your strawmanning is retarded and pointless regardless of who you're replying to, which you continue doing.

Describe what you mean by qualia and why brain function would be unable to carry out such a function. We do know that brain function is directly related to experience, unless you show otherwise. You have a lot of ground to cover before you can even try shilling your religious beliefs, and no another hysterical strawman won't convince anyone.

>>16990915
If you assume computers are consciousness then it's relevant. I have no reason to assume so.

>>16990917
Anon trully i am asking you now. Are you delusional or are you raigbaiting?

>>16990916
>By not making assumptions
It's literally the most reasonable assumption that a person you're arguing with is speaking on behalf of the original post(er), whether or not you agree with the finer details. Go to reddit if you're so obsessed with identifying yourself.
>not like it matters anyway since your strawmanning is retarded and pointless regardless of who you're replying to, which you continue doing.
How am I 'strawmanning' a moronic argument when the person is the one who made it?
>errmmm subjectivity doesn't exist...
>but you also can't go into other people's brains!!!
These are the sort of people defending eliminative materialism in the thread.
>Describe what you mean by qualia and why brain function would be unable to carry out such a function.
How do objects produce subjects? The hard problem of consciousness, in general. This is a question that neuroscience alone is not able to tap because it's not actually describing the phenomenal experience that goes with consciousness, only physical mechanisms.
>We do know that brain function is directly related to experience, unless you show otherwise.
Maybe, but how it interacts with consciousness is not 100% a 1-to-1.
>You have a lot of ground to cover before you can even try shilling your religious beliefs, and no another hysterical strawman won't convince anyone.
See? This is just pure anti-intellectualism/naive realism. Figures like David Chalmers aren't "religious nutjobs" for questioning the modern day dogma of consciousness.

>>16990922
I think its Saturday and you're enjoying your break from high school.

>>16990924
>How am I 'strawmanning' a moronic argument when the person is the one who made it?
You are strawmanning because you are the one creating moronic arguments that no one made to begin with by intentionally misinterpreting them. This is blatantly obvious and you can't worm yourself out of being dishonest and irrational in any way other than apologizing for your shitty behavior and acting better next time.

>the phenomenal experience that goes with consciousness
You seem to be categorizing "feeling" as something apart, a different entity from brain function. Now show this happening, or else you're just making a blind assumption.

>>16990924
The myth of qualia is quite literally an ancient dogma of consciousness that has never been even remotely close to being proven, how are you somehow blind to your obvious hypocrisy?

>>16990930
>blah blah blah you're wrong because niggers tongue my asshole
Got it, what else?
>You seem to be categorizing "feeling" as something apart, a different entity from brain function.
I never said this btw.

>>16990926
I doubt that you think.

>>16990932
>prove something that cannot be demonstrated to other people, yet is entirely self-evident
Yeah no shit.

>>16990933
>I never said this btw.
You said it right here:
>How do objects produce subjects?
You are describing a "subject" is something apart from the cognitive change that happens in your brain, but there is zero evidence for any sort of dualism happening to begin with.

>>16990937
Dualism can be demonstrated by showing subjective experience happening without the brain functions that carry out such an experience. If you cannot demonstrate that then there's absolutely no reason for a dualistic theory to exist to begin with, it's superfluous.

>>16990936
Oh! And you're also probably a jeet too.
>>16990938
>You are describing a "subject" is something apart from the cognitive change that happens in your brain
I'm asking how "subjectivity" can emerge given enough time and complexity you dumb faggot.

>>16990940
>Dualism can be demonstrated
Are you for real with this shit?

>>16990941
Subjectivity is evidently a brain function since we know consciousness comes and goes naturally depending on brain activity, do you have a problem with that?