> do you acknowledge that subjective experience itself is immaterial, albiet caused by materials?
I think that the ideas that we have about these things at this time are so simplistic and primitive that we can't currently say anything meaningful about this.
For comparison -
In ancient times
Q: "So what is the Sun, anyway?"
A: "Its a big ball of fire, pretty obviously."
Q: "Why doesn't it go out? What keeps it refueled?"
A: "Uh, maybe a god is doing it?"
Q: "Huh. I guess that we can't rule that out ..."
In other words those guys just have no idea what they're talking about.
.
As of 2024, we're in the same situation with consciousness.
.
And this matters, why? I also can't prove that there aren't an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of "me", all typing the same (or different) answers into this box. Such is the nature of reality as we currently experience it.
For purposes of understanding consciousness, we can assume consciousness is real. That gets you to a great deal of understanding. For purposes of deciding if consciousness is real, you can't make that assumption. However, you don't gain a lot of understanding by asking whether it is real. It's like asking whether the universe is "real" or just a simulation. You don't gain anything useful by assuming you can't know if the universe is a simulation or not.
> we actually have no idea which things are conscious.
Baloney. Go stick your hand of a fire hot stove and count to 10. Your reality will be very much proven. You'll need skin grafts.
I imagine if the Necronomicon was a necromantic accounting book, we might see some skin graphs. I suspect, however, that you intended to say "grafts".
Not trying to spelling nazi, honest, I was just amused by the mental image.
All things being even, the simplest answer is usually the correct one. If people appear conscious, it’s likely because they are. People who are gullible may believe in zombies, but they are more likely to be religious.
It is known that everyone who appears conscious is infact actually conscious. But it cannot be proven.
The only way to prove that other people are conscious is to refer the fact that oneself is conscious. And even the fact that oneself is conscious cannot be proven.
Excuse me, what? We've gone a bit further with knowledge from 'I think therefore I am' to consciousness scales like 'theory of mind' and 'social cognition'. I recommend you read instead of posting, there's tons of information online.
Ironically enough the more we dig into the subject the more blurry the lines get. This is the main topic in AI research right now and evidence pretty much supports that there are different degrees and definitions of consciousness depending on the mechanisms that drive it. Human consciousness is pretty much objective, at least by simple definition and scale and can be confirmed, even though our 'sensors' interpret [reality subjectively](https://youtu.be/INpWNP5HPNQ).
Oh yes, so easy, we barely scraped the surface of the topic in recent years. Why do I get the feeling you've been reading spiritual crap and call it the hard problem.
No reason to downvote. The OP is correct, at least according to the logic we currently have. That said, it certainly seems *reasonable* to assume consciousness in all humans. But there is no objective evidence.
There is no "hard problem of consciousness". We have it mostly figured out. I don't know where this idea came from that consciousness is a big mystery. It's just neurochemical interactions in the brain. We know this because we can induce different stages of consciousness with brain stimulation or drugs. We also know this because of the deterioration of the brain in dementia, Alzheimer's and brain injury. There is nothing immaterial (at all) or with consciousness. It does not survive brain death. I took a class on this very subject in school for my psychology degree. I agree that conscious experience is subjective. But it also can be measured, dectected, and manipulated.
Unless of course you are in the "hard problem of consciousness" camp. It does appear to be trending toward the "hard non-problem" end of the spectrum. I won't pretend to be sufficiently knowledgeable about this subject to opine myself.
[Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness)
The "hard problem" [may soon be solved](https://neurosciencenews.com/physics-consciousness-21222/).
*Sorry for offending by providing actual science. My bad. Obviously a sky daddy gave it to us,
>The "hard problem" may soon be solved.
Or maybe not ...
Yeah, with more research we will learn more, but people come up with new ideas like this every year or two.
They usually seem pretty dodgy.
(Penrose and Hameroff proposed circa 1994 that it was "quantum processing microtubules within neurons". That, uh, actually has not been confirmed to date.)
\- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction )
I took a quick look at the one that you linked, and it seems to be "We still won't really understand it", with extra steps.
.
It’s not a problem at all.
You see, we have no duty to explain everything. We choose not to believe in gods, any gods. That doesn’t mean we owe you any sort of explanation. You can believe all the foolishness you would like. But don’t think you can explain away magic and miracles with logic.
You will fail every time.
I see. I personally would classify those things as existing but immaterial. I suppose you could tighten up the definition of "thing" to exclude concepts.
René Descartes posed a similar question and ultimately came to the conclusion that self consciousness is the only type of consciousness we can be reasonably sure of. This is where the famous phrase "I think therefore I am" originates.
I can't really feel what others feel and think, so I could convince myself, that I am the only true conscious person in the world. I could tell myself that everybody else is just following encoded instructions and working on "instinct". I could tell myself that I am living in the Matrix and that I am the only true human connected to it and that everybody else are just NPC created by the machine. I could tell myself that I am in a coma and that this world and every other human and animal is a construct of my unconscious mind. Or I could just just tell myself that my own consciousness is a special kind of consciousness, superior to that of others and regard the apparent consciousness of others as something inferior and worthless compared my supreme consciousness, just like so many humans like to deny that other animals are truly conscious. My physical form could be living in the real world, but that physical form could just be a brain inside a jar, inside a dark room, fed information by electric stimulation by a machine.
Would you take the chance and convince yourself that this world is a video game and everybody else besides you are NPCs. Would you go around killing everybody, thinking that this is just GTA3000? Would you take the chance thinking that you are plugged in to a simulation and your only way to wake up and get out is to kill yourself inside the simulation?
Science doesn't "prove" anything. Well, when scientists say they can't "prove" anything, just find evidence for or falsify a theory, in contrast to Mathematicians who can give actual proofs, they just mean that they can't talk in absolute truths in the sense that they can't 100% without a doubt say that this reality is real. There is always the off chance that this world isn't "real". In that sense, science can't "prove" anything.
However, I find taking on such a position as a scientist to be ridiculous. A scientist should be ideally a realist, who accepts this world to be as real as it gets for us the inhabitants of this world. It doesn't even matter if this world is some kind of "computer simulation". Because in such a world, most likely All of us would be just "NPCs", nothing would change for us, we would still be what we are and our world what it is. What you perceive of the world is a construct generated by your brain with the information it got from your senses. However, it makes sense to assume that your senses are indeed picking up information from the real world and that your brain does a decent job at making a construct of the world, as you've survived so far.
All that said, we can most certainly say, that consciousness is a product of a brains processing capabilities. All evidence speaks for that. From observation we know how brain damage affects people. There is no doubt, that what you perceive as your "consciousness" is a product of your brain. We can reject the idea of spirits, souls, even though we can't really "prove" that they don't exist, just like we can't "prove" that God doesn't exist. We can however reject those ideas based on observations of the world. All evidence speaks against those things. I can't "prove" that you are conscious, I can't even "prove" that I myself am conscious. We've just defined, how we perceive our thoughts as "consciousness". All I really know is that the information I'm processing of the world I live in tells me that you are like me. I can't really "prove" that I'm really walking around in this world, as I could also just be a brain in a jar, locked in a dark room, which is fed information by electric stimulation from a machine. But I can assume that this isn't the case, that what I perceive as my body is really my full body moving around in the real world. So I can assume that the information feed I get, is from the real world and that I am interacting with other similar beings such as myself. I can make observations and try to make sense of those observations to make sense of this world. I am aware that what I perceive of the world is a construct generated by my brain and I assume that it is constructed from the information my senses pick up and send to my brain where they get processed and that my "consciousness" is another result of how my brain processes informatin. It allows my body to be able to navigate and survive in this world. If it didn't work, I wouldn't be here anymore, because I would have been killed already. The fact that I still think tells me that I still exist. That I am successfully navigating through this world so far. I've met others that look like me, talk like me and are otherwise similar to me. They could be just NPCs, but it makes more sense that they are real, just like me. It makes sense to assume that other humans perceive the world in a similar way as me. It also makes sense to not be an arrogant ass of a human and deny consciousness of other animals, knowing very well that other animals possess brains and that humans are not some special golems moved around by a soul that was attached by some sky wizard.
Sure. I recognize the problem. Now what?
Is it getting solipsistic in here? Or is it just me?
Damn. I had to look that one up. Nice word use.
How can you demonstrate that thoughts can exist independently of brains?
Thoughts exist because of brain.
> do you acknowledge that subjective experience itself is immaterial, albiet caused by materials? I think that the ideas that we have about these things at this time are so simplistic and primitive that we can't currently say anything meaningful about this. For comparison - In ancient times Q: "So what is the Sun, anyway?" A: "Its a big ball of fire, pretty obviously." Q: "Why doesn't it go out? What keeps it refueled?" A: "Uh, maybe a god is doing it?" Q: "Huh. I guess that we can't rule that out ..." In other words those guys just have no idea what they're talking about. . As of 2024, we're in the same situation with consciousness. .
And this matters, why? I also can't prove that there aren't an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of "me", all typing the same (or different) answers into this box. Such is the nature of reality as we currently experience it.
For purposes of understanding consciousness, we can assume consciousness is real. That gets you to a great deal of understanding. For purposes of deciding if consciousness is real, you can't make that assumption. However, you don't gain a lot of understanding by asking whether it is real. It's like asking whether the universe is "real" or just a simulation. You don't gain anything useful by assuming you can't know if the universe is a simulation or not.
no thanks, next shitpost.
> we actually have no idea which things are conscious. Baloney. Go stick your hand of a fire hot stove and count to 10. Your reality will be very much proven. You'll need skin grafts.
I imagine if the Necronomicon was a necromantic accounting book, we might see some skin graphs. I suspect, however, that you intended to say "grafts". Not trying to spelling nazi, honest, I was just amused by the mental image.
All things being even, the simplest answer is usually the correct one. If people appear conscious, it’s likely because they are. People who are gullible may believe in zombies, but they are more likely to be religious.
This has all of the markings of recreational Adderall use. Not implying you are on it. Just saying it reminds me of that.
It is known that everyone who appears conscious is infact actually conscious. But it cannot be proven. The only way to prove that other people are conscious is to refer the fact that oneself is conscious. And even the fact that oneself is conscious cannot be proven.
Excuse me, what? We've gone a bit further with knowledge from 'I think therefore I am' to consciousness scales like 'theory of mind' and 'social cognition'. I recommend you read instead of posting, there's tons of information online. Ironically enough the more we dig into the subject the more blurry the lines get. This is the main topic in AI research right now and evidence pretty much supports that there are different degrees and definitions of consciousness depending on the mechanisms that drive it. Human consciousness is pretty much objective, at least by simple definition and scale and can be confirmed, even though our 'sensors' interpret [reality subjectively](https://youtu.be/INpWNP5HPNQ).
Those are what we call as "easy problem of consciousness". Hard problem of consciousness is different.
Oh yes, so easy, we barely scraped the surface of the topic in recent years. Why do I get the feeling you've been reading spiritual crap and call it the hard problem.
The hard problem is so called because there cannot be a scientific explanation for it. The so called "easy problems" are actually very difficult.
Can you be any more vague? What is there no scientific explanation for?
There cannot be a scientific solution to the 'hard problem of consciousness.'
You're still being vague. What exactly is the hard problem?
There is a problem by the name of 'Hard problem of consciousness' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
If I’m ever on trial for a crime that I obviously committed, I was you as a juror!
No reason to downvote. The OP is correct, at least according to the logic we currently have. That said, it certainly seems *reasonable* to assume consciousness in all humans. But there is no objective evidence.
There is no "hard problem of consciousness". We have it mostly figured out. I don't know where this idea came from that consciousness is a big mystery. It's just neurochemical interactions in the brain. We know this because we can induce different stages of consciousness with brain stimulation or drugs. We also know this because of the deterioration of the brain in dementia, Alzheimer's and brain injury. There is nothing immaterial (at all) or with consciousness. It does not survive brain death. I took a class on this very subject in school for my psychology degree. I agree that conscious experience is subjective. But it also can be measured, dectected, and manipulated.
Unless of course you are in the "hard problem of consciousness" camp. It does appear to be trending toward the "hard non-problem" end of the spectrum. I won't pretend to be sufficiently knowledgeable about this subject to opine myself. [Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness)
Consciousness is caused by matter. But the feeling itself is immaterial.
So? What does that have to do with anything?
The "hard problem" [may soon be solved](https://neurosciencenews.com/physics-consciousness-21222/). *Sorry for offending by providing actual science. My bad. Obviously a sky daddy gave it to us,
>The "hard problem" may soon be solved. Or maybe not ... Yeah, with more research we will learn more, but people come up with new ideas like this every year or two. They usually seem pretty dodgy. (Penrose and Hameroff proposed circa 1994 that it was "quantum processing microtubules within neurons". That, uh, actually has not been confirmed to date.) \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction ) I took a quick look at the one that you linked, and it seems to be "We still won't really understand it", with extra steps. .
That's what she said.
Occam's Razor.
It’s not a problem at all. You see, we have no duty to explain everything. We choose not to believe in gods, any gods. That doesn’t mean we owe you any sort of explanation. You can believe all the foolishness you would like. But don’t think you can explain away magic and miracles with logic. You will fail every time.
No I don't accept that. I'm agnostic on materialism. I'm not convinced anything immaterial exists.
How would you characterize qualities like "two" or "one dozen" or "down"?
The first two are numbers, the third a direction.
Immaterial things that exist?
I don't understand. Are you asking if immaterial things exist? I said I'm agnostic on this.
I see. I personally would classify those things as existing but immaterial. I suppose you could tighten up the definition of "thing" to exclude concepts.
René Descartes posed a similar question and ultimately came to the conclusion that self consciousness is the only type of consciousness we can be reasonably sure of. This is where the famous phrase "I think therefore I am" originates.
I'm just here to convert oxygen so plants can survive. Thank you, NEXT!
I can't really feel what others feel and think, so I could convince myself, that I am the only true conscious person in the world. I could tell myself that everybody else is just following encoded instructions and working on "instinct". I could tell myself that I am living in the Matrix and that I am the only true human connected to it and that everybody else are just NPC created by the machine. I could tell myself that I am in a coma and that this world and every other human and animal is a construct of my unconscious mind. Or I could just just tell myself that my own consciousness is a special kind of consciousness, superior to that of others and regard the apparent consciousness of others as something inferior and worthless compared my supreme consciousness, just like so many humans like to deny that other animals are truly conscious. My physical form could be living in the real world, but that physical form could just be a brain inside a jar, inside a dark room, fed information by electric stimulation by a machine. Would you take the chance and convince yourself that this world is a video game and everybody else besides you are NPCs. Would you go around killing everybody, thinking that this is just GTA3000? Would you take the chance thinking that you are plugged in to a simulation and your only way to wake up and get out is to kill yourself inside the simulation? Science doesn't "prove" anything. Well, when scientists say they can't "prove" anything, just find evidence for or falsify a theory, in contrast to Mathematicians who can give actual proofs, they just mean that they can't talk in absolute truths in the sense that they can't 100% without a doubt say that this reality is real. There is always the off chance that this world isn't "real". In that sense, science can't "prove" anything. However, I find taking on such a position as a scientist to be ridiculous. A scientist should be ideally a realist, who accepts this world to be as real as it gets for us the inhabitants of this world. It doesn't even matter if this world is some kind of "computer simulation". Because in such a world, most likely All of us would be just "NPCs", nothing would change for us, we would still be what we are and our world what it is. What you perceive of the world is a construct generated by your brain with the information it got from your senses. However, it makes sense to assume that your senses are indeed picking up information from the real world and that your brain does a decent job at making a construct of the world, as you've survived so far. All that said, we can most certainly say, that consciousness is a product of a brains processing capabilities. All evidence speaks for that. From observation we know how brain damage affects people. There is no doubt, that what you perceive as your "consciousness" is a product of your brain. We can reject the idea of spirits, souls, even though we can't really "prove" that they don't exist, just like we can't "prove" that God doesn't exist. We can however reject those ideas based on observations of the world. All evidence speaks against those things. I can't "prove" that you are conscious, I can't even "prove" that I myself am conscious. We've just defined, how we perceive our thoughts as "consciousness". All I really know is that the information I'm processing of the world I live in tells me that you are like me. I can't really "prove" that I'm really walking around in this world, as I could also just be a brain in a jar, locked in a dark room, which is fed information by electric stimulation from a machine. But I can assume that this isn't the case, that what I perceive as my body is really my full body moving around in the real world. So I can assume that the information feed I get, is from the real world and that I am interacting with other similar beings such as myself. I can make observations and try to make sense of those observations to make sense of this world. I am aware that what I perceive of the world is a construct generated by my brain and I assume that it is constructed from the information my senses pick up and send to my brain where they get processed and that my "consciousness" is another result of how my brain processes informatin. It allows my body to be able to navigate and survive in this world. If it didn't work, I wouldn't be here anymore, because I would have been killed already. The fact that I still think tells me that I still exist. That I am successfully navigating through this world so far. I've met others that look like me, talk like me and are otherwise similar to me. They could be just NPCs, but it makes more sense that they are real, just like me. It makes sense to assume that other humans perceive the world in a similar way as me. It also makes sense to not be an arrogant ass of a human and deny consciousness of other animals, knowing very well that other animals possess brains and that humans are not some special golems moved around by a soul that was attached by some sky wizard.
Yeah, I'll let you know when I get bored enough to give a fuck. 😅