Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:40:08 UTC No. 16116654

>>16116647
>pic
>getting rid of banks is ... le bad
I knew it. The anti-consciousness shill/spam threads are paid for by Blackrock and the WEF.
I will not eat the bugs. I will not live in the pod. I will own a lot.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:44:08 UTC No. 16116660

>dude TRIG lmao
it's literally just geometry
no need to make up mystic terms you fucking pseuds

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:47:39 UTC No. 16116662

>>16116660
define qualia without inventing mystic terms

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:53:05 UTC No. 16116667

>>16116647
>it's literally just consciousness
it do be like that

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:55:41 UTC No. 16116670

>>16116662
You're a filtered NPC

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 11:25:09 UTC No. 16116698

>>16116662
Explain existence without inventing mystic terms.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:04:45 UTC No. 16116738

>>16116670
>ad hominem
>>16116698
>whataboutism

I accept your concession.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:10:28 UTC No. 16116744

>>16116654
>HNNNGGGGG PRIVATE PROPERTYYYY
>wait no not like that
You WILL eat the bugs and you WILL own nothing and it WILL be your own fault

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:29:14 UTC No. 16116764

>>16116744
>those evil communists want to take away your private property
>therefore you must support a system where all private property is owned by Blackrock and you are forced to live in eternal poverty
Fuck the false dichotomy. Islamic economics is the solution.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:34:14 UTC No. 16116770

>>16116764
>haha yesss I WILL own a lot
>wtf other people already own a lot, that's not how it's supposed to work???

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:37:37 UTC No. 16116773

>>16116770
There are enough resources on this planet for everyone to live in moderate wealth. The only problem is that 99% of the resources have been hoarded by a small group of ultrarich psychopaths who refuse to share.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:39:13 UTC No. 16116775

>>16116773
Yeah, that's what happens with private ownership.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:53:43 UTC No. 16116800

>>16116773
>Sharing is for commies!
>wtf no one wants to share with me!

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:57:21 UTC No. 16116803

Science cannot tell me that I have no subjective experience of the world, because it would be wrong. I think therefore I am.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:15:09 UTC No. 16116824

>>16116800
I'm doing my part by sharing my wife.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:21:56 UTC No. 16116835

0/10 post. saged

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:44:19 UTC No. 16116865

>>16116803
What does that have to do with qualia?
It's literally just consciousness.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:52:33 UTC No. 16116873

>>16116647
>>16116865
>X is just Y
>muh reductionism
>noooo, I hate cognitive complexity
>only one gender, one race, everything is the same
>stop calling it poopoo, it's actually anal peepee
>don't force me to distinguish concepts, nooooo
>fuck definitions
Behold, the newest stage of anti-intellectual idiocracy. Soon they will mock us for knowing how to wipe our own ass. I guess that's also too intellectual for OP.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:55:21 UTC No. 16116878

>>16116662
(You)r EXPERIENCE is SUBJECTIVE to (You).

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:57:56 UTC No. 16116880

Whenever I have a wank, my faptop is experiencing the images when I flip through my 2TB of AI-generated furry porn. And you can't prove otherwise.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:04:44 UTC No. 16116884

>>16116647
"Consciousness" is sometimes used in a more functional sense. Like you could have a robot that might have states that would be analogous to being asleep vs "conscious", or two modes of thinking analogous to system 1 and 2 thinking in humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow where the system 2 would be more "conscious" type of thinking.

This all is distinct from the question of inner subjective experience, feelings etc. and there "being something that is like to be that thing", to use an expression that probably triggers some people. Qualia is explicitly about all of these. Where as if we had a robot exhibiting the more functional sense of consciousness or self-awareness (in the sense of having a self-model), it wouldn't be clear whether it also had qualia or not. Plus qualia's a nice short word. Consciousness is a bit of a misnomer for inner subjective experience anyway, like in most contexts outside of philosophy we wouldn't call a person who is sleeping and dreaming "conscious", even though they are having subjective experiences.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:06:00 UTC No. 16116887

>>16116873
>"qualia exists!!!"
>ok so what does that word mean and how exactly does it differ from consciousness?
>"UMMM... UR DUMM!!!"
absolute state of (((qualia))) retards

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:09:50 UTC No. 16116888

>>16116884
>umm robots can be conscious, but don't have qualia!
>but sleeping human has qualia! even though it is not conscious...
lmao that's just an arbitrary description of the words, and doesn't really explain the fundamental difference of qualia and consciousness.
why would I even agree to those statements?

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:10:04 UTC No. 16116890

>>16116887
>blind man keeps getting filtered by the concept of colors

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:10:07 UTC No. 16116891

>>16116803
>I think therefore I am.
>the part that thinks is the part having a subjective experience
so what happens when you arent thinking? you cease existing?

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:11:41 UTC No. 16116892

>>16116890
>anon keeps insulting because he is unable to answer a simple question
Many such cases in pseudoscience.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:15:11 UTC No. 16116895

>>16116887
> how exactly does it differ from consciousness
The term qualia is used to describe the FACT that your experience (the conscious state of 5 senses available to humans communicating with a brain that create a coherent experience where the observer is (You) is SUBJECTIVE which has implications such as if all of our collective worlds are subjective then what the fuck is reality if not a collective best guess and that's spooky because we can't really know what real is.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:20:41 UTC No. 16116901

>>16116895
>The term qualia is used to describe the FACT that your experience (the conscious state of 5 senses available to humans communicating with a brain that create a coherent experience where the observer is (You))* is SUBJECTIVE
So you invented a whole new term just say "hurr durr you can't know nuffin"?
Lmao.

It's LITERALLY bringing nothing new to the table.
It LITERALLY means exactly the same as the word "consciousness".
And I'm gonna prove it right here with a challenge:

Provide one (1) example of a sentence that would lose meaning if the word "qualia" in it was replaced by the word "consciousness".

If you fail to do so, you prove once and for all that "qualia" and "consciousness" mean one and the same thing.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:23:58 UTC No. 16116904

>>16116901
>The term qualia is used to describe the FACT that your consciousness is subjective
All that screeching and you've done zero thinking. Why even bother posting on here? I can demonstrate qualia is a term that describes the state of consciousness as subjective because it's the definition of a term can you demonstrate consciousness is subjective?

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:24:37 UTC No. 16116905

>>16116878
That's a statement. Qualia is a noun. Nouns cannot have statements as meanings.

Perhaps you meant "your experience that is subjective to you", in which case it literally means the same thing as "experience", because your experience is already subjective to you by definition.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:26:45 UTC No. 16116909

>>16116905
>Nouns cannot have statements as meanings.
Define a word without a statement. Any word will do.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:30:30 UTC No. 16116913

>>16116904
New nouns are invented to create a subset of meanings from other words. Qualia is literally just a statement pretending to be a noun.

Just say "consciousness is subjective", you autist. Inventing a new word for "subjective consciousness" implies that "objective consciousness" exists, which is in contradiction to your very definition of "qualia".

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:32:48 UTC No. 16116917

>>16116909
>Define a word without a statement.
You're confused. I never said "nouns cannot be defined USING a statement", I said "nouns cannot have statements as meanings".
Since you seem barely literate, let me give you a simple example:
>apple: fruit which grows on an apple tree
this is a definition of a noun
>apple: fruit grows on an apple tree
this is not a valid definition of a noun

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:34:55 UTC No. 16116921

>>16116913
Because we can't fucking know. It's an admission of ignorance. You speak in absolutes, that's shit science.
>>16116917
>You're confused.
One of us is because meaning is what's communicated in a statement which is the definition of defining a term so if we extrapolate your distinction without a difference is larping. Stop doing that.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:47:46 UTC No. 16116938

>>16116647
i do not belive in killing people
op is right and killers only make profit for home owners and job providers, who need replaced immigrants

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:48:38 UTC No. 16116940

>>16116662
What I am currently experiencing. Done.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:48:55 UTC No. 16116941

>>16116921
>Because we can't fucking know
Meanwhile:
>>16116895
>The term qualia is used to describe the FACT that your experience
So which one is it? Do we know or not know?

>meaning is what's communicated in a statement which is the definition of defining a term
Qualia is a noun. Nouns refer to things. Nouns don't refer to statements. Defining nouns as statements make no linguistic sense, because we use nouns to make statements.
If you define qualia as statement
>consciousness is subjective
then the statement
>qualia has properties X and Y
becomes
>"consciousness is subjective" has properties X and Y
which is completely meaningless.
Nouns can only be defined using other nouns and statements, e.g. "qualia is consciousness which is subjective".

Defining qualia as "subjective consciousness" either implies that there *is* such a thing as objective consciousness, or means exactly the same as "consciousness".
So which is it?

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:50:05 UTC No. 16116944

>>16116940
That's literally just the definition of consciousness.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:59:07 UTC No. 16116965

>>16116941
>So which is it?
>Because we can't fucking know
This one.
>So which one is it? Do we know or not know?
Within the scope of the term qualia we do.
>Qualia is a noun. Nouns refer to things.
Yes, the thing being the instance of mind as a subjective entity.
>Defining nouns as statements make no linguistic sense
You need to make a statement to define anything which is what communicates meaning. So the notion of
>Nouns cannot have statements as meanings.
is retarded. You can't have meaning without a statement and without meaning a noun doesn't exist.
>which is completely meaningless.
An ability to abstract is important. If you run your fingers through your hair (assuming not bald) is that experience not a property of consciousness is subjective tm?

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:05:54 UTC No. 16116982

>>16116965
Learn to read, retard. I've literally asked three times if you define "qualia" as "subjective consciousness" or not. Until you answer, there's no point in even answering your "muh statement is a noun" babble.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:07:12 UTC No. 16116985

>>16116982
Too stupid to have conversation. 10-4. Epic own, anon. Good job.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:19:17 UTC No. 16116999

>>16116944
Yes.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:30:25 UTC No. 16117020

>>16116985
>can't answer a simple yes or no question
Yes, you truly are too stupid to have a* conversation.

>>16116999
Then why invent another word for it?

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:43:06 UTC No. 16117035

There are some things that cannot be reduced. If someone fails to understand intuitively what 1+1=2 means then no further explanation will help that person. Same goes for qualia. The concept should appeal instantly to intuition. If it doesn't then no attempt at a seemingly rigorous definition and no effort of examples or analogies will help that person.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:55:59 UTC No. 16117050

>>16117020
>epic grammer get
>can't into a thing that's been stated several times
The wonders of midwit.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:05:50 UTC No. 16117064

>>16117050
>defines word in a linguistically nonsensical way
>refuses to elaborate or discuss
holy chas

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:10:00 UTC No. 16117071

>>16117035
>hurr durr you're supposed to intuitively understand this random word I just made up

The statement "1+1=2" can be explained in millions of ways to help a person gain intuition, and to help them understand how it's different from the statement "if you have $1 and I give you $1 you will have $2".
If it couldn't, it would be a completely meaningless statement.

Why can't qualia?

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:12:00 UTC No. 16117077

>>16117071
As expected, you failed to understand.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:15:35 UTC No. 16117082

>>16117064
>refuses to elaborate or discuss
>>16116878
>refuses to elaborate or discuss
>>16116909
>refuses to elaborate or discuss
>>16116921
>refuses to elaborate or discuss
>>16116965
What do the words elaborate and discuss mean to you? If you can't grapple with the subject matter no matter what I say is going to have the same outcome. Why bang my head against the wall? Demonstrate capacity for understanding by being able to separate qualia and consciousness as the distinction has been stated several times. If you can't steelman my point it means you don't understand it. For example, your argument is that qualia and consciousness communicate the same idea because it is a fact to (You) that consciousness is subjective to an individual, and you don't see a reason to invent new words that say subjective subjective thing because 1 it's a tautology and 2 it creates a distinction that implies an objective consciousness can exist.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:22:39 UTC No. 16117090

>>16117020
>why invent another word for it?
why not?

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:13:03 UTC No. 16117151

>>16117077
As expected, you state the obvious and refuse to discuss or elaborate.

If you don't plan on giving any new input, feel free to leave.

>>16117082
>What do the words elaborate and discuss mean to you?
Let's start with a direct definition of "qualia" that is linguistically valid and is just a straightforward sentence and not a paragraph of schizo word salad.

>>16117090
Because simple is better than complicated.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:17:17 UTC No. 16117161

we are actually at the phase where NPCs are arguing against qualia. Lmao. It's like the people who can't see apples in their mind can't even see apples in front of them.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:20:53 UTC No. 16117166

>>16117161
It's literally just a fancy word for consciousness used by pseuds who want to seduce astrology chicks.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:35:15 UTC No. 16117187

>>16117151
>steelman my argument
>schizo word salad.
epic

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:37:58 UTC No. 16117192

>>16117187
>won't provide a coherent definition of a word
>demands the other person to steelman his """arguments"""
Nah, man. If you won't put a minimum amount of effort to provide us with a common ground we can start with, I sure as hell will not engage in deconstructing your arguments, as you will just pour more and more bullshit in order to tire me out.
See Brandolini's law.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:46:23 UTC No. 16117210

>>16117192
>provide us with a common ground we can start with
My contention is the common ground is out of your depth because what you're asking for is already in this thread.
>>16116895
>used to describe the FACT that your experience (the conscious state of 5 senses available to humans communicating with a brain that create a coherent experience where the observer is (You) is SUBJECTIVE
>>16116904
> I can demonstrate qualia is a term that describes the state of consciousness as subjective because it's the definition of a term
>>16116921
>we can't fucking know. It's an admission of ignorance.
>>16116965
>Within the scope of the term qualia we do.
>the thing being the instance of mind as a subjective entity.
> If you run your fingers through your hair (assuming not bald) is that experience not a property of consciousness is subjective tm?

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:47:51 UTC No. 16117214

Consciousness does not exist.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:59:14 UTC No. 16117248

>>16117210
Not a single coherent definition in the form of
>qualia is a _____ such that _____
has been found. Just a bunch of schizo babble.
>hurr durr qualia is a FACT that...
No, it isn't, you retard. It's a word that, according to you, means something akin to consciousness, but not really. DEFINE IT.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:01:15 UTC No. 16117252

>>16117214
What is this guy's actual position?

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:02:10 UTC No. 16117254

>>16117252
I don't know. But I measured his momentum.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:04:24 UTC No. 16117261

OP has been doing his retarded repetitive trolling for 7 hours straight. Way to spend your Sunday, dipshit.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:15:22 UTC No. 16117281

>>16117248
Okay, I am bored of this now. You have been filtered or are pretending to be retarded. Congratulations, or sorry that happened.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:16:33 UTC No. 16117284

>>16117214
Conciusness is quality, I highly doubt you understand it, however you should probably consider ending your life.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:31:12 UTC No. 16117306

>>16117254
gek

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:53:03 UTC No. 16117329

Qualia is a semantic problem that is irrelevant to meaning beyond the inanities of verbal niggers. If this upsets you then consider yourself a vigger.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:54:13 UTC No. 16117330

>>16117329
Qualia is literally the opposite of a semantic problem. Its difficulties come from the inability to process consciousness into language.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:56:57 UTC No. 16117334

red is red for most people. we should also be able to qualia new colors

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:58:00 UTC No. 16117336

>>16117330
“Qualia” turns into a semantic problem the moment literalists bsod their minds comprehending it, such as yourself. This is why qualia in any form of conversation suffers and becomes non-conversation, viggers cannot escape the bound of semantics.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:52:52 UTC No. 16117399

>>16117281
>still unable to provide a coherent definition of "qualia"
Feel free to stop posting, you're obviously a pseud incapable of serious discourse.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:18:07 UTC No. 16117421

>>16116647
>virtual particle

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:36:28 UTC No. 16117747

>>16116647
>thinks about it
Wow smelly hippy man Im sorry youre not even vaccinated, trans, or Jewish how the FUCK can I take you seriously?!

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:37:56 UTC No. 16117750

>>16117035
Well said.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 01:27:00 UTC No. 16117790

>>16116901
>Provide one (1) example of a sentence that would lose meaning if the word "qualia" in it was replaced by the word "consciousness".
Analytic spook. Nice try

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 02:40:10 UTC No. 16117867

>>16117071
>The statement "1+1=2" can be explained in millions of ways
So many ways that you cannot give a single example.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:00:34 UTC No. 16118216

>>16117867
1. Imagine you have one apple in your hand, and then someone gives you another apple. Now, you have two apples in total. That's what "1+1=2" means - combining one apple with another gives you a total of two apples.

2. Consider a scenario where you have one toy car, and your friend brings another toy car. Now, you have two toy cars in total. This illustrates the concept that when you add one toy car to another, you end up with two toy cars, which is represented by "1+1=2".

3. Picture a situation where you have one dollar bill in your wallet, and then you receive another dollar bill as a gift. Now, you have two dollar bills in total. This demonstrates that adding one dollar to another dollar results in a total of two dollars, which is represented by "1+1=2".

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:13:13 UTC No. 16118229

>>16118216
Same shit 3 times. Also wrong and bad.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:38:58 UTC No. 16118262

>Also wrong and bad
False.
>Same shit 3 times
Also false.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:40:45 UTC No. 16118263

>>16118229
Nice move of the goalpost, nigger. You asked for AN example.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:10:52 UTC No. 16118326

>>16117248
>>>16117210
>Not a single coherent definition in the form of
>>qualia is a _____ such that _____
>has been found. Just a bunch of schizo babble.
>>hurr durr qualia is a FACT that...
>No, it isn't, you retard. It's a word that, according to you, means something akin to consciousness, but not really. DEFINE IT.
BASED qualia is peak bullshit.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 13:43:16 UTC No. 16118578

>>16118263
Then why give 3? Compensating?

I’m not actually that other guy and I don’t care, don’t reply sorry.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 14:54:25 UTC No. 16118665

>>16118578
Why not?
And yeah go fuck yourself I'll reply to whoever I want.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 15:01:14 UTC No. 16118677

>>16118216
But I don't have an apple.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 15:50:32 UTC No. 16118755

>>16118677
I don't give a fuck about what you have.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 22:17:48 UTC No. 16119921

>>16116662
where is your nose? (theres your nose! / i dont have a nose)
where is your computer? (theres your computer! / i dont have a computer)
where is your experience? ( [Q1: exercise left to the reader] / i dont have an experience)

whatever your answer, compare it to the previous answers and consider the difference :)

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 22:23:02 UTC No. 16119927

you know what it's like having a computer or not. you know what it's like having consciousness. but you have no experience of non-consciousness. since the consciousness itself is what allows you to be aware of it. you can't be aware of not being conscious

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 22:26:38 UTC No. 16119934

>>16117035
>There are some things that cannot be reduced.
Is there something that is not qualia?

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Apr 2024 05:17:53 UTC No. 16120405

>>16119921
not a definition

>>16119927
meds

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Apr 2024 05:20:27 UTC No. 16120408

>>16116647
Are serious druggies of the pot and acid class peaceful people?
I mean, do they share everything freely at least among themselves, and dont feel envy or jealously?

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Apr 2024 05:22:14 UTC No. 16120410

>>16120405
Who said it was a definition?
You cant be aware of not being conscious.
Thats not a definition

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Apr 2024 05:23:05 UTC No. 16120411

>>16120410
I asked for a definition and you replied to me

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Apr 2024 23:28:07 UTC No. 16121586

>>16116647
If we get rid of all banks, nobody will cook acid for you, because you need erlenmeyer for that.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 02:51:12 UTC No. 16121818

>>16116901
>Provide one (1) example of a sentence that would lose meaning if the word "qualia" in it was replaced by the word "consciousness".
Qualia is a part of consciousness. They're always trying to define it with reference to particular experiences like "redness" instead of something more universal like "being".
>The part is more than the sum of its parts.
All wholes are parts of something bigger, so you can get rid of "whole" if your goal is to make your audience work harder.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 03:28:59 UTC No. 16121840

>>16120405
i'm >>16119921, the other guy who replied is not me. the definition is trivial for experience-havers, so i gave a brief exercise to help you think it through. if, after giving it your best shot, you're still perplexed, then i wouldn't worry about it because presumably you aren't experiencing any perplexment.