Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:56:45 UTC No. 16247139

>>16247137
When an NPC tells you he is an NPC, believe it.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:58:34 UTC No. 16247143

>>16247137
One of the most important discoveries of this decade is the fact that a majority of the population are NPCs.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:03:06 UTC No. 16247144

>>16247137
>When did hardcore dogmatic materialists/reductivists start insisting that qualia don't exist?
the materialism stand has been debated for centuries, so pinpointing an exact starting point or specific period when such insistence became prominent is challenging, as it has evolved over time with various philosophical and scientific developments. But the perspective really gained traction in the latter half of the 20th century as cognitive science and neuroscience advanced

>Is it that difficult to accept that there are some things that our current understanding of neurology and physics genuinely cannot explain?
On the contrary, it seems that their argument is exactly the opposite: everything is explainable and therefore the subjectivity of "qualia" does not exist.

>Is this also where the retarded "upload your consciousness into the cloud" meme comes from?
I think it logically follows from their basal argument that yes, if it can be "explained" it can be simulated, etc.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:07:18 UTC No. 16247150

>>16247144
I don't buy it.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:10:25 UTC No. 16247154

Allowing midwits into computer science was the biggest mistake. Turing wanted to formalize how a machine can do arithmetic. And then retards mistook this for a metaphysical description of the entire universe, as if all of reality must be computable, including consciousness. Ironically, Turing himself already disproved this with the halting problem.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:23:52 UTC No. 16247166

>>16247137
reminder:

idealism is a reasonable view to maintain, but not the "i have free will, i create reality, i can do anything!!!" garbage that too many self-proclaimed idealists promote.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:55:07 UTC No. 16247190

>>16247137
If you were to actually sit down and try to read a book on these topics you couldn't do it. Before you read a page the urge to go on 4chan to btfo the redditors would be too strong.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:06:37 UTC No. 16247207

>>16247150
As an agnostic solipsist, my stance is neutral on the matter.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 11:36:52 UTC No. 16247272

>>16247137
>Is it that difficult to accept t
why do you care about the opinion of others about this? This isnt a democracy where you need votes to win something

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 11:59:23 UTC No. 16247284

>>16247137
Rather AI has qualia

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:03:12 UTC No. 16247285

>>16247137
I still have no understanding of what qualia are

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:05:03 UTC No. 16247286

>>16247285
Capacity to reference the internal to the external

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:08:12 UTC No. 16247288

>>16247286
what a shit definition

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:09:35 UTC No. 16247291

>>16247288
Are you mad that you can't disprove such a definition

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:14:19 UTC No. 16247296

>>16247144
>things that our current understanding of neurology and physics genuinely cannot explain?
"our current understanding" has nothing to do with this. Qualias are -by definition- a-phsysical, so they cannot be explained nor refuted through physical means, no matter how much neurology advances.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:17:59 UTC No. 16247300

>>16247296
>Qualias are -by definition- a-phsysical
begging the question.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:18:03 UTC No. 16247301

>>16247285
>I still have no understanding of what qualia are
It's literally synonim of "feeling".
Everything you feel (colours, sounds, emotions, etc.) is a qualia.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:36:24 UTC No. 16247316

>>16247137
It's simply a clawing of modern scientism, trying to wrestle any power out of philosophy's hands, to concentrate it in their domain. So no one who isn't part of their clique will be able to have insight. They either don't understand qualia (99% of them) or are complete brick walls like Dennett who were biased from the outset. For most casual observers who are used to pushing back against "religious woo", they think that qualia is just another battle on that front. It's pure retardation. Also some HPC philosophers explain things in a completely retarded way, like using language implying that there are "quales" as if I possess multiple "quales" in my consciousness or some shit, opening it up to a bunch of arguments not worth having, bundle theory etc. This is maybe because the color scientist problem has language that implies this, when it's actually about knowledge gained by qualia, the knowledge of the color red isn't a "quale" known as "red"
>>16247285
Qualia is the reason why you actively experience reality rather than being entirely chained to causality. It could seem like the final output, qualia is being able to witness the output of your sensory experience.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:38:18 UTC No. 16247320

>>16247285
feels ARE reals

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:39:20 UTC No. 16247322

>>16247300
>begging the question.
fallacy

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:40:21 UTC No. 16247324

>>16247316
>Qualia is the reason why you actively experience reality rather than being entirely chained to causality.
sounds like religious mumbo jumbo

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:41:26 UTC No. 16247326

>>16247316
>It's simply a clawing of modern scientism, trying to wrestle any power out of philosophy's hands, to concentrate it in their domain. So no one who isn't part of their clique will be able to have insight.
sounds like projection

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:50:33 UTC No. 16247333

>>16247324
Anon, you're telling me that you just don't experience reality? You aren't experiencing what it's like to look at this image board, the feeling of a keyboard? You're just a non-experiencing zombie being? Sounds unintuitive as fuck, I'm not ready to go full retard
Unless I'm the main character of life or something.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:51:39 UTC No. 16247335

>>16247137
Ignore the schizos / ignore every post above this post. If we reject solipsism then we must accept that an unobservable phenomenon exists.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:52:54 UTC No. 16247337

>>16247335
>Ignore the schizos
>Just says something normal retarded and not schizo retarded

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:55:37 UTC No. 16247341

>>16247337
>retarded
Explain the gap between your understanding and my understanding or apologize.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:58:26 UTC No. 16247344

>>16247341
Not like you did the same, fuck off faggot

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:50:43 UTC No. 16247409

Qualia don't exist, they just feel like they do

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:59:02 UTC No. 16247413

>>16247409
>Pokémon do not exist
What does the word Pokémon refer to? To something that exists...
>...but not really!
How does something that really exists differ from something that does not really exist?

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:28:56 UTC No. 16247449

>>16247296
>"im right because i define myself to be right. take that materialists!"
Retard

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:32:58 UTC No. 16247452

>>16247296
like I said, I have no beef in this matter.
>>16247207
NEWTON'S FLAMING LASER SWORD, talking abuot this is a waste of time, frankly.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:40:56 UTC No. 16247464

>>16247137
there are too many retards that confuse describing the way something behave with describing what it is.
I fault the atheist movement of the last century got drunken on beating christrannies and brainwashed itself into thinking they've solved everything. hence when you question something outside the scope of science that cannot be solved by the scientific method, their solution is literally ignore, deny the question, pretend it does exist at all, deflect the question, or use red herring to mislead and pretend to answer the question with something else instead. the science is infallible and we will do every trick in the book to protect it. literally churchgoers behavior.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:45:24 UTC No. 16247470

>>16247464
>with describing what it is.
Nothing "is" and 100% of anything regards to perception. Being is a superstition. I hate having to even use the verb To Be in the english language, it forces you to think in superstitions

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:47:22 UTC No. 16247476

>>16247464
Your post shows that all the retards obsessed with le qualia are just crypto christcucks and religiotards

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:49:52 UTC No. 16247480

>>16247464
you sound like a new age yoga chick with less crystals

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:56:56 UTC No. 16247492

>>16247333
They are just NPCs. This onion starting coming apart with the people who can't subvocalize, then the aphantasiacs who can't see. We are witnessing the next wave of zero wit zoomer bots that don't even experience sensations. The programming is coming apart because of our observations of these phenomenon. The simulation used to just non-code these critters, but now it is unable because they all face self-referential crisis from this data channel. So now they go around projecting their excessively bleak non-existence.
>you dont see an apple!
>you cant see colors!
>qualia doesnt exist!
They fail to recognize that their manifest in the mind of the psychic and pneumatic are predicated on qualia. Only an NPC could make such a stupid argument and directly contradict the manifest.
There is no point in conversing with NPCs, but I come to these threads just to point to the signs that point our brothers away from these agents.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:59:46 UTC No. 16247496

>>16247492
You come to these threads because that's what your cult leaders trained you to do

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:09:36 UTC No. 16247510

>>16247496
What cult leaders would those be?
This is the type of crap an NPC does to avoid self-referential loops. It just goes barking mad with a complete non-sequitur to get off the topic.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:12:17 UTC No. 16247513

>>16247510
Lmao, cultist seething because it was called out

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:16:44 UTC No. 16247521

>>16247513
>still hasn't named a cult or leader of said cult
The NPC does anything to get away from the self-referential problem. This is the source of its projection. Everyone must not have qualia because its programming dictates such.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:18:59 UTC No. 16247526

>>16247521
Go lick your masters anuses :^)

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:21:24 UTC No. 16247531

>>16247480
No he understands that science only describes how the things we observe correlate. Science describes that a particular structure of things is correlated with consciousness. Science does not answer the question why that correlation exists. The best answer materialists have come up with so far is ''self-reference''. That answer still leaves unanswered why a self-referential structure must be conscious.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:25:43 UTC No. 16247536

>>16247531
>Science describes that a particular structure of things is correlated with consciousness. Science does not answer the question why that correlation exists.
Science describes that a particular structure of a proton and electron is correlated with a hydrogen atom. Science does not answer the question of why that correlation exists

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:38:43 UTC No. 16247548

>>16247536
A hydrogen atom is of the same nature as a proton and an electron. If we reject solipsism then consciousness is not of the same nature as space, time or matter because then we must assume that others have an experience that we don't have access to. We can only observe correlations between their descriptions of their experience and their brain activity.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:48:31 UTC No. 16247559

>>16247137
If reductive materialists don't believe in qualia, they should have no objection to being brutally tortured.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:49:33 UTC No. 16247563

>>16247548
>of the same nature
That's just some entirely new thing you made up on the spot. No one who works with hydrogen atoms, protons, electrons uses words like this. "Of the same nature" is just a placeholder you're using for whatever you stubbornly and confusedly think makes consciousness so mysterious and unlike everything else, despite being shown why your analogy fails hydrogen atoms.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:50:53 UTC No. 16247566

>>16247559
That doesn't even logically follow. Might want to try again

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:54:17 UTC No. 16247570

>>16247566
The only reason torture is bad is because it produces extremely negative qualia, so if you don't believe qualia exist, you should have no objection to being tortured.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:57:40 UTC No. 16247572

>>16247570
>The only reason torture is bad is because it produces extremely negative qualia
Obviously someone who denies qualias exist will also deny this assumption

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:59:27 UTC No. 16247575

>>16247572
Then why would they say torture is bad, if they would still claim that, if there's no subjective experience that exists to experience its badness?

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:04:39 UTC No. 16247586

>>16247575
They can deny qualia without denying subjective experience

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:04:45 UTC No. 16247587

>>16247575
Torture, murder, rape... All crimes aren't bad and they aren't any more meaningful than goodness either so we can legalize everything and execute the perfect vision of society. In fact, alive or dead are just meaningless constructs. it's meh. just nuke the whole world now.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:05:54 UTC No. 16247589

>>16247137
Computers can't think so when people spend too much time pretending to be a computer they lose the ability to think as well

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:07:31 UTC No. 16247593

>>16247586
But qualia is what subjective experience feels like, subjective experience without qualia is an empty contradiction.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:09:41 UTC No. 16247602

>>16247563
>That's just some entirely new thing you made up on the spot.
I agree that was a bad move. Let's try a less confusing analogy to your hydrogen example: a house. We can observe building materials in a particular pattern and call that configuration a house. We can observe a brain but we can not observe an observation.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:11:32 UTC No. 16247612

>>16247593
No, qualia is an alleged property or component of subjective experience which is allegedly supposed to show that subjective experience isn't reducible to physical processes. You can deny such a loaded term as qualia while not denying subjective experience. If you want to redefine qualia to be just subjective experience, then they can just agree that qualia exists and say that is reducible to physical processes.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:23:02 UTC No. 16247633

>>16247602
If you've found the brain processes which correlate with conscious observations and you define conscious observation in physical terms as just those processes, then by observing those processes you would be observing conscious observations too.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:30:47 UTC No. 16247640

>>16247633
Likewise we can observe code and learn the structure of a videogame yet the images and sounds of a videogame remain unobserved that way. Basically Mary's Room / Knowledge argument.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:37:35 UTC No. 16247649

>>16247640
>Likewise we can observe code and learn the structure of a videogame yet the images and sounds of a videogame remain unobserved that way
Sure, and that's not a problem for physicalism because learning the structure and knowing what the video game looks like would correspond to different brain processes

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:46:02 UTC No. 16247670

>Ctrl+f "panpsychism"
>No results
Shaking my head. Panpsychism is the most parsimonious explanation for the arising of consciousness, minds are conscious because consciousness itself is a property of all matter.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:16:09 UTC No. 16247722

>>16247649
You're looking how a computer produces an image on a screen and take for granted that there's any awareness at all. Why can we not be zombies?

>>16247670
>consciousness itself is a property of all matter.
Yes.
>Panpsychism
No. Instead: non-religious dualism.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:37:35 UTC No. 16247764

>>16247492
OK nigga but Daniel Dennett isn't a zoomer and doesn't have aphantasia. Leave me out of the elitist nigger shit.

bodhi at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:25:47 UTC No. 16248062

NPCs are real

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 21:02:54 UTC No. 16248131

>>16247764
In general, I don't care what atheists say because they never offer explanations for some basic assumptions. They want reason and they want fizzy brain chemicals. They want causality and they want the big bang. But if you ever approach this topic with them, they quickly deflect to nonsensical blabbing about correlation.
Anyways, where does Denett make his most compelling argument against the existence of qualia?
1. hurrdurr materialism
2. Sensual experience arises from physical stimulation.
3. Network phenomenon describes the qualitative sphere.
4. In principle, we can or should be able to measure neural activity which means there is no isolated subjectivity.
All four of which are substantially flawed.
Obviously materialism is dogshit.
Memories show sensual experience can arise outside of stimulation.
Network phenomenon seems interesting, but it isolates awareness to neurochemical and electrical pulses in the mind. There is no reason to believe in such a spook. Life exists in the smallest possible realm of reality and grows from there. Consciousness must do the same.
Even in the event where consciousness is just an electrical ghost, network conditioning is completely impenetrable to modern science, which can't even generate an iota of life without starting with living systems.
But suppose that we could measure all neurochemistry and factor in all complexity of every neuron, including DNA, every energy store, its entire existence - this of course done under perfect lab conditions from super-super tech atomic neural mesh. And it is an ideal inert mesh where measurement does not impact any elements of the system. Basically, give everything to these mouth-breathers.
They finally land on the point that every network and experience is going to be some standard deviation of conditions. The result? Every qualia for every person is different. This is the upshot. To arrive at the same conclusions shitposters did 10k+ years prior in the goon cave.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 21:52:50 UTC No. 16248240

>>16247764
did we know whether or not he had aphantasia? he's dead so we can't ask him now.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:09:35 UTC No. 16248266

>>16248131
>Even in the event where consciousness is just an electrical ghost
A reductionist does not even believe that electricity produces a ghost.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:38:05 UTC No. 16248316

>>16248131
1. in the absence of a solid materialist model of cognition/consciousness/intelligence (we STILL legitimately don't have one), it's just an assertion.
2. also struggles to handle imagination and understanding. rearrangement of recalled stimuli is provably insufficient for design - it precludes not only the provable capacity for original thought, but any conceptual understanding and modification. even at its most reductive, it can't explain how "understanding" arises without essentially attributing it to external stimulus - it's very nearly claiming the universe "understands" itself and THAT is what is "sensed", which just moves the problem around.
3. is based on the same assumptions as 2. - the "purely input processing binary network" models of cognition. these ideas were tested experimentally with primate language learning studies (inputs alone should have been able to confer language to non-speaking but large-brained animals; birds should, in the materialist input processor view, NEVER be able to possess linguistic processing advantages over primates), but those projects failed completely.
4. is the reductive Behaviorist+Materialist assumption of a direct and EXCLUSIVE link between neural signaling (i.e. action potentials) and all cognitive function. it was, in essence, the assumption that cognition was fully replicable by networks of binary signalling. the trouble is, no complete model of what determines the firing of a single neuron from input action potentials alone has ever existed, outside of the few neurons (motor and sensory, outside the CNS) that we know ONLY function as binary signal relays.

Dennett's entire philosophy essentially boiled down to never adapting to the evolution of neuroscience after the 1990s, which is where a lot of materialists found themselves after latching on to the first "brain = binary computer" theory they came across. it's no coincidence how close that is to the compsci midwit understanding of the subject.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:42:24 UTC No. 16248327

>>16247150
>>16247296
you see, here is the problem: there in only once thing you can be sure to exist: your "qualia" or perception. But then you're claiming that it is different from the physical, and yet no one here, or ever, has observed "the physical".
To claim that there are two things is a faith belief.
I see one thing, and one thing only, of that I am sure, but I cannot say that nothing else does or does not exist either. And that's all there it to it.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:43:35 UTC No. 16248331

>>16247324
>reality
Tell me about this "reality. Is it in the room with you now? kek