🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 22:03:20 UTC No. 16454059
Please tell me that our consciousness is more than just our brains.
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 22:04:09 UTC No. 16454061
>>16454059
Consciousness is a meaningless Platonic idea, nothing more.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 00:29:22 UTC No. 16454228
Read Itzakh Bentov and discard all other posters
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 01:01:28 UTC No. 16454258
>>16454059
>Please tell me that humanocentrism is wrong
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 01:03:20 UTC No. 16454260
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 01:05:19 UTC No. 16454261
>>16454059
>please tell me a brain exists without any vectors of my consciousness
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 01:12:20 UTC No. 16454264
>>16454059
Your consciousness is literally the only actual thing in the universe
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 01:22:48 UTC No. 16454275
>>16454059
Ron Hubbard would tell you it's not even part of your brain. Your brain is just machinery to host the mind (which is also not you) to steer the body.
Now, coming from a materialist tradition I'd usually reject that. When I read about, say, "terminal lucidity" (despite irreversible neurological degradation as in Alzheimer's and no known redundancies in the brain some people restore their memories and abilities for a few hours/days before they die) I cannot fully dismiss the idea.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 01:33:39 UTC No. 16454292
>>16454059
Conciousness is tension between what you see now, and how you can model things forward and backward in time based on what you see.
Conciousness can't be self referential without a historical idea of what it was before, and what it would be in the future.
Unless consciousness and self awareness are not the same thing.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 01:36:34 UTC No. 16454295
>>16454059
>Please tell me that our consciousness is more than just our brains.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 01:43:07 UTC No. 16454299
>>16454059
It's not even the whole brain. It's like a sub-process running in the brain to create the context of unified being. Although this doesn't mean it can't also be a quantum radio to the universe or something, idk.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 02:02:10 UTC No. 16454318
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 02:35:52 UTC No. 16454343
>>16454059
I can't. Anyone that says otherwise is spouting schizo babble. All that exists in this universe is particles and that complex system of neurons we call consciousness is generated by the particles in our brain. No brain, no consciousness.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 04:17:36 UTC No. 16454431
>>16454059
Consciousness is phenomena. Everything else is just unjustified phantasies
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 04:44:56 UTC No. 16454450
>>16454059
Ok, your consciousness is a system that encapsulates your entire nervous system and all of its subsystems, not just your brain.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 04:48:00 UTC No. 16454454
>>16454260
>How can you be a materialist/physicalist and still believe in the notion of “self” in the first place?
Because they can directly control their own body with their own thoughts, but other bodies require more than mere thought to influence which is obviously to anyone who isn't some amorphous bot in a a mainframe somewhere.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 04:49:07 UTC No. 16454455
>>16454275
Terminal lucidity is just a form of spontaneous lucidity which occurs regularly in alzheimer and dementia patients.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 05:02:17 UTC No. 16454466
>>16454059
Its a conceptual term used to describe various functions of the brain, and particularly as it relates to a sense of a mental simulation of a working brain. I say "sense of a mental simulation" and not "mental simulation" because the two are very very very different.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 06:42:13 UTC No. 16454525
>>16454059
consciousness is real but free-will isn't
wrap your mind around that
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 06:49:31 UTC No. 16454533
>>16454260
Your cells are constantly being replaced but they still bare some relation to their past copies
If there was zero constancy, we wouldn't be able to predict things with genes about a person, but we can
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 07:26:18 UTC No. 16454545
Its simply the space in which all things appear.
Its seemingly infinite but has a horizon.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 07:40:30 UTC No. 16454554
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 01:18:04 UTC No. 16456493
Sadly yes op, sadly yes.
bodhi at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 01:25:19 UTC No. 16456504
>>16454228
>Itzakh Bentov
this is the dude that died in the plane crash in Chicago?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 02:04:10 UTC No. 16456536
>>16454059
Because your entire body is what is aiding your brain. If you were a brain without a body, you wouldn't be "floating" around thinking about stuff. You'd be only potential, with no actualization. To deny the body's role in consciousness, is to reduce us to something that we're not.
If you reject this, explain why we have the enteric nervous system in our digestive system, and how it influences how we think and feel.
We're more than just our brains in our skulls, and only a fool would think otherwise.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 02:11:52 UTC No. 16456541
you don’t look like that.
ywnbaw
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 07:43:12 UTC No. 16456724
>>16454525
To say we don't have free will is the most retarded thing I keep seeing if people can have debates and have their opinions changed then that's free will
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 08:41:38 UTC No. 16456751
>>16454059
Well... Not yours.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:04:16 UTC No. 16456788
>>16456724
if one thinks that the world is in any way deterministic then free will doesn't fit into that.
a changed mind is a mechanistic response to stimuli
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:09:08 UTC No. 16456790
>>16456788
It doesn't even make sense in a non-deterministic world. A will that just randomly happens isn't a will
Barkon at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:44:32 UTC No. 16456804
>>16456790
Who said consc-choice is random, it's based on statistics.
Barkon at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:46:21 UTC No. 16456806
Determitards can't deny themselves.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:54:20 UTC No. 16456810
>>16456804
You have choices. The brain does some statistics and gives you some decent ones you could pick.
Now there are two options.
Always go with the best choice. That's deterministic.
"Freely" pick one of the best choices. Why would you not pick the choice that your brain has determined as the best? What's the reasoning. Do you just pick a worse choice becase uhh ????. That's random and not a will. It's an action coming out of nowhere without explanation. How can that be your will?
Barkon at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:58:11 UTC No. 16456811
>>16456810
It doesn't mean you don't lean towards the best option. This is why you struggle to explain yourself. It's just plain dumb.
Barkon at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:59:12 UTC No. 16456812
>>16456810
Kill yourself.
U wrong.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:59:50 UTC No. 16456813
>>16456811
>>16456812
Concession accepted
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 11:03:07 UTC No. 16456816
heil king barkon
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:14:24 UTC No. 16456945
>>16456810
>You could pick
That's free will and people make shitty decisions all the time
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:29:33 UTC No. 16456961
>>16456945
You always make decisions that appear to be the best in some way. You don't just make a bad choice for no reason if your brain tells you that there's a better one available. Therefore you don't freely choose anything.
Now you could make a bad choice to demonstrate that this isn't true. However, in this case the satisfaction of refuting my argument has a higher priority than the negative impact of making a bad choice.
Also I'm using "you" in a loose sense because I don't want to reinvent language. There's no central controlling entity in your head, there's only an entity that's under the illusion of control.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:36:05 UTC No. 16456973
>>16456961
>You don't just make a bad choice for no reason if your brain tells you that there's a better one available.
Again this is bullshit because people do retarded stuff all the time. Its how people take risk too.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:42:54 UTC No. 16456982
>>16456973
People do retarded stuff because in that moment the immediate positive effects have a higher priority for them and not just because a free will randomly decided something completely independent of cause and effect.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:45:16 UTC No. 16456988
>>16456982
Retard
Agreed?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:48:33 UTC No. 16456997
>>16454059
We can talk about it but first gentelmans define keywords.
Define what do you mean by conciousness
Also are chemical/physical processes inside brain still considered brain by our definition?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:49:47 UTC No. 16457003
>>16456988
You made that post because the dopamine boost of calling me a retard makes you feel better and not because of your free will btw
The same goes for me of course. Even pointing that out squeezes out a bit more dopamine
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:54:03 UTC No. 16457014
>>16457003
Wrong. Again.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:54:05 UTC No. 16457015
>>16457003
Not him but basically our brains just want the best for us and thats why we have no "free will"?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 15:00:07 UTC No. 16457027
>>16457015
Doing things that increases your chances of survival and reproduction feels good.
Without those rewards you wouldn't even find the motivation to leave your bed anymore. So much for free will lol
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 15:02:29 UTC No. 16457032
>>16457003
I don't think everyone is just some dopamine junkie who wants to be stimulated all the time. There's something more to it because you make it sound like we're robots or something. To say we don't have free will is ridiculous because we do have to pick a career, not everyone is forced to pick the same career, not everyone is forced to eat the same food, not everyone is forced to listen to the same music, the same candidate for a president, etc
There are definitely things we have control over
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 15:04:05 UTC No. 16457034
>>16457032
Well actually for the last one I could be wrong but people can have so many different outcomes in life basically.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 15:06:31 UTC No. 16457038
>>16457027
If you didn't say something stupid, he wouldn't have called you a tard. Which you are, and I'm saying this as a negative reaction to your retarded post by choice because yes I enjoy it and it gives me dopamine, but that is something I lean towards doing and can deny it if I want.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 15:12:55 UTC No. 16457051
>>16457027
I honestly think free will is the wrong term to use here it's more like something that drives us but we tell it what to do.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 15:14:40 UTC No. 16457056
>>16457032
>not everyone is forced to pick the same career, not everyone is forced to eat the same food, not everyone is forced to listen to the same music, the same candidate for a president, etc
That's because we don't all get the same input. The brain learns what's good based on experience.
>>16457038
>and can deny it if I want
But you didn't do it because all the other options were less satisfying. The moment a better alternative pops up, you'll choose that one.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 15:29:57 UTC No. 16457080
>>16457056
>That's because we don't all get the same input. The brain learns what's good based on experience.
Yes and this is where I say we have free will because we all do different things to benefit us. When people talk about us not having free will their retarded because what their really talking about is how to do we operate. Yes we all have a drive to live and make decisions to benefit our lives that's just common sense. Some people find joy In life through all sorts of different things but niggas wanna get all philosophy and act edgy saying "we don't have free will".
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 15:31:10 UTC No. 16457082
>>16457080
Typos my bad
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 15:37:20 UTC No. 16457090
If people don't have free will then how gay and straight people exist?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 15:46:06 UTC No. 16457104
>>16457090
So computer programs have free will because they have bugs?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 15:46:54 UTC No. 16457105
>>16454343
>All that exists in this universe is particles
imagine coming to /sci/ of all places and typing that shit.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 15:57:44 UTC No. 16457115
>>16457104
Funny joke but again when people say we don't have free will it's bullshit because we have the freedom to do what we like and what we don't like. Try look at how we operate and frame it as if we're slaves to dopamine or something.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 16:02:37 UTC No. 16457120
>>16457115
A true case of not having free will is being a slave to someone or being put at gun point. But even in those cases you might have people who are into being dominated or are suicidal so they don't mind getting shot. So to say we don't have free will is bullshit.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 18:36:25 UTC No. 16457279
>>16454059
Your conciousness is trapped in a meat sack.
We dont belong to the material world like animals do.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 19:03:50 UTC No. 16457294
>>16454059
>just our brains
Let me guess, you need more?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 19:21:22 UTC No. 16457314
>>16454059
ya man i think its pretty clear that it does when u read books about idealism, plus this book makes an insanely persuasive case for it https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09W4RQBF
check out sam parnia too
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 20:10:02 UTC No. 16457339
>>16454292
>>16454292
>Conciousness is tension between what you see now, and how you can model things forward and backward in time based on what you see.
That seems like a reasonable assumption but it overlooks the fact that you first need to be conscious to come to such a reasonable assumption. When you stop comparing past, actual, potential, ideas and sensations then there is no you to verify whether or not the comparisons have truly stopped. Still consciousness continues in such a mindless no-self state.
>Unless consciousness and self awareness are not the same thing.
Bingo.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 20:11:32 UTC No. 16457343
>>16457105
ikr, that kind of shit is for /x/. tell him where's he's wrong.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 20:24:31 UTC No. 16457352
>>16454343
>Schizo babble
"Schizo" is letting jewish academic institutions telling you you don't subjectively exist lol
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 20:25:44 UTC No. 16457357
>>16454059
Look up Ian Stevenson who makes a very strong case for reincarnation.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 20:33:20 UTC No. 16457366
>>16457352
> subjective
> influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts
I don't think even you know what you are trying to say.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 20:38:05 UTC No. 16457368
>>16457366
"Consciousness is not real" isn't a fact, retard. You hallucinated yourself into believing you're not a sentient actor.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 20:41:08 UTC No. 16457371
>>16457368
No one has said consciousness isn't real. It's that you seem to think it's caused by magic, while rational people think it's very complex physics and biology.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 20:45:52 UTC No. 16457374
>>16454525
Instead of looking at life in terms of single, discrete human beings, think of it as the sum total processes of all genetic replication across the entire genetic lineage of the entire evolutionary tree. As individual sentient human beings, we can influence which combinations of DNA make up successive generations. We are like cells in the human body, but can rebel against our default programming.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:12:08 UTC No. 16457398
>>16457371
It's certainly not currently known physics
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:20:23 UTC No. 16457407
>>16457398
Not really. It's still all interactions of known particles. The reason it's not all easily understood is the almost unimaginable level of complexity involved. We don't understand current AI, many of the models are 'black-boxes', and the complexity of the networks involved in those is utterly trivial compared to the brain.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:24:53 UTC No. 16457413
>>16454318
>>16454554
>Consciousness is actually le heckin magicarino unicorn farts and good vibes
>I am le smart.
>(is actually only just smart enough to achieve an impressively stupid level of self deception)
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:35:07 UTC No. 16457420
>>16457407
On one hand I believe that all brain processes can be explained by the known laws of nature but I then really don't see how they could produce subjective experience
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:37:27 UTC No. 16457425
>>16457420
By its very definition anything subjective is a human construct. It is the brain trying to understand itself or the world.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:55:55 UTC No. 16457451
>>16457425
>It is the brain trying to understand itself or the world.
Why doesn't it just do that instead of creating some internal space where I see colors and shit? This seems to be impossible to describe with an algorithm. How do you write an algorithm that creates the impression of a color?
It doesn't seem to have a purpose and yet I can't deny that it's there.
Give every person on earth instructions on how to act like a neuron. Let them simulate a brain. Does this create another being that can see colors in an internal space?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 22:08:18 UTC No. 16457466
>>16457451
Because it uses the tools available to it. A large part of our brain is involved in visual processing. Why wouldn't it be be able use it to create visual signals that didn't originate from the eye? There have been studies where they scanned the brains of people who said they did (or lacked) an inner monologue. They found that in those that did have an inner voice parts of their auditory nervous system was active.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 01:06:35 UTC No. 16457620
>>16457339
I mean when I did a ton of LSD and lost my short and long term memory, I wouldn't say I wasn't conscious. I didn't lose my memory of losing my memory though, which is an odd position, but if I was incapable a tracking time at all, as opposed to just having fucked chronoperception, and if I couldn't remember it in hindsight, then would I have been concious, or unconscious?
I used to sleepwalk as a kid also, and would wake up in boarding school in random places. Was I conscious then?
Whether I or you were/are conscious is always a past tense judgement.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 03:54:59 UTC No. 16457751
>>16454059
Your spine and the rest of your nervous system also plays a part