🧵 Is epiphenomenalism unavolidable?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 04:27:23 UTC No. 16456648
We are naturally inclined to believed that our conscious thoughts lead to our actions. But a contemporary scientific view of the brain, where electrical signals lead to thoughts, nullify this. In this view, what we perceive as thoughts are actually the mechanical hum of decisions already made in the brain (epiphenomenalism). In other words, electrical signals create thought, which we then perceive as our own rational logic, while that logic isn't actually ours, but rather predetermined by these biological processes.
This is profoundly disturbing, as it suggests that our perceptions of ourselves as rational actors is entirely misguided; our consciousness doesn't represent a Self, but the sound of an engine shifting gears.
Can we avoid this?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 04:34:49 UTC No. 16456651
>>16456648
FUCK i forgot this image had boobers in it. Have mercy jannies
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 04:40:22 UTC No. 16456655
>>16456648
If consciousness were just epiphenomenal, then how do you explain the fact that our brains are observing and talking about it?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 04:51:34 UTC No. 16456661
>>16456655
This is purely a question of what comes first, no?
The brain seeks to look inward, so it does, and the "sound" generated by that action is my and your conscious consideration of epiphenomenalism.
The alternative, which I hope is supportable, is that a separate "self" which we call consciousness makes that decision, then the brain compensates afterward.
The trouble is that I can't justify this without bringing in the religious language of a "soul" or some immaterial force which would meet the definition of a soul.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 04:56:00 UTC No. 16456663
>>16456648
>this is your brain on materialism
Lol midwit. If materialism is true then you are refuting yourself by believing in it because meaningful language and knowledge claims are impossible.
I see why soientiest are scared shitless by epistemology and philosophy - it destroys their world view.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 04:57:26 UTC No. 16456665
>>16456661
the only thing you are, and I'm sure some buddhist would say not even that, is the experience of right now including yourself. think of yourself as God peaking into the world through every single living thing.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 04:57:59 UTC No. 16456666
>>16456648
Explain how electrical signals produce qualia
There aren't any qualia in Maxwell's equations
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 05:01:17 UTC No. 16456669
>>16456661
brain receives stimuli -> brain produces conscious experience -> brain reacts to conscious experience
It’s important to remember that the brain is not a single function object. It has multiple parts with different functions. It’s natural to ask why we even have consciousness in the first place, but it must play a role, it’s obviously not superfluous, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to talk about it. My theory is that by converting sense data into a conscious experience, we can more easily remember/retrieve information. So I think the “brain” and the consciousness produced are constantly interacting with each other. If suddenly I became an “NPC” and lost the ability to experience qualia, I don’t think my brain could continue to function normally.
Basically consciousness is a very efficient mental tool and for that reason artificial intelligence will not rival human intelligence for a very long time
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 05:02:53 UTC No. 16456670
>>16456663
Under materialism, the truth of a belief is only “refuted” by natural selection. False beliefs tend towards death, while true beliefs tend towards survival. So that’s the only justification necessary. Whatever works, works. Cope and seethe.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 06:30:24 UTC No. 16456708
Free will manifests itself on the quantum level. Case closed.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 07:10:52 UTC No. 16456712
>>16456661
>oh no not the woo
>>16456655
Gut instinct already comes up in a pretty heavy flaw in OPs thesis.
It doesn’t really explain introspection. There’s a much weaker version of OPs argument to be made that thought does exist but is „unconscious „ before it is then registered.
However the biggest issue with OPs claim is that it postulated a Cartesian theatre which is at the very least adjacent to substance dualism.
This in turn is even weirder because it would imply there is a „self“ apart from the brain but also that this self is entirely superfluous
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 07:20:38 UTC No. 16456716
>>16456648
>But a contemporary scientific view of the brain, where electrical signals lead to thoughts, nullify this
We do not know how the brain works or why we have consciousness or how consciousness arises.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 16:48:32 UTC No. 16457163
>>16456651
boobas are echchi not hentai so chill out