Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 06:39:21 UTC No. 16631535

>>16631530
>Are there any good secular, materialist, physicalist explanations of consciousness
>good
No.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 06:46:59 UTC No. 16631539

>>16631535
Does the least bad one involve a multiverse?

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 07:02:26 UTC No. 16631542

Finally, a thread made by a braindead poster!

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 07:04:56 UTC No. 16631543

>>16631542
Explain why

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 07:08:46 UTC No. 16631544

>>16631543
Because only a braindead person can have such an obviously false premise

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 07:09:38 UTC No. 16631545

consciousness as an emergent property of matter/energy.

so as the universe expands and evolves, gases turn to solids, solids give rise to single celled organisms, etc. this process unfolds until monkeys with the right hardware (large brains, thumbs for tool use) consume the right catalyst (psilocybin mushrooms? a lightning strike bringing fire to the dark of night?), then consciousness emerges. no god or multiverse necessary

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 07:11:47 UTC No. 16631546

>>16631545
You think pigs aren't conscious? Do you even know what the word conscious means?

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 08:49:17 UTC No. 16631586

Consciousness: the ability to have a subjective experience
Subjective: mind dependent

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 08:50:23 UTC No. 16631587

>>16631546
i'm ok with the pigs but i don't think you are conscious

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:05:30 UTC No. 16631589

>>16631530
But conciusness doesn't collapse wave function, detector does.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:19:48 UTC No. 16631597

>>16631589
The detector is in a superposition until you observe it

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:24:41 UTC No. 16631601

>>16631545
Subjective experience arising from the currently known laws of nature seems completely impossible. We can't even imagine a mechanism that could create the most primitive subjective experience

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:40:07 UTC No. 16631604

>>16631597
Delusional schizo

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:43:05 UTC No. 16631605

>>16631604
Explain why I'm wrong. The formalism of quantum mechanics doesn't give you the answer btw

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:46:52 UTC No. 16631607

>>16631605
"Collapse" of a wavefunction is just an approximate description you are allowed to use when the system decoheres. It is not a real process which happens when your fucking consciousness looks at it. This is basic stuff which follows from the formalism of quantum mechanics so you are completely wrong to say that it doesn't give an answer.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:04:57 UTC No. 16631621

>>16631607
Let's put a small system and a big system of quantum objects in a box.
Bring them into contact so the small system decoheres. What happens is, that until we open the box there won't be a collapse. The two systems will be an entangled mess.
Decoherence can't cause a collapse because it's just a bunch of unitary interactions governed by the Schrodinger equation. Measurement is unitary. You looking at the mess is unitary. At no point it gets explained where exactly the collapse (non-unitary) happens.
That's a big problem which is still unsolved, also known as the measurement problem.
Now that doesn't mean that consciousness causes collapse. It only means that we don't know what causes it. The most likely explanation is that the wave function was never real in the first place and we're just missing a piece of the puzzle.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:08:02 UTC No. 16631626

>>16631530
What, why would consciousness require multiverses or wave function collapse?

It's just a part of our brains that can observe and interrupt more basic processes. We must've evolved it because it's obviously useful to not just follow our immediate urges sometimes.

Even dogs have consciousness, evidenced by the fact they can control themselves to not eat a cookie right now, knowing doing that nets them more cookies later.

Your failure is assuming consciousness is something super special, arising from religious biases.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:10:51 UTC No. 16631628

>>16631530
Fine tuning and the anthropic argument https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-fine-tuning-argument-simply-works?utm_source=publication-search https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-best-argument-for-god?utm_source=publication-search

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:15:14 UTC No. 16631630

>>16631628
Prove the existence of a multiverse
>>16631626
Consciousness is the conformational morphology of matter spread over the multiverse. time is an illusion, all possible combinations of matter and energy exist and the linking between them is governed by morphological resonance (how similar two moments are to one another determines how far apart they are in time,) while our brains have dependencies upon physics as we know them in order to lock us into this mode of physics (which is itself emergent as well along the same principles.)

Your brain changes size, shape, connections, neuron count, physical conformation, chemical gradient distributions, etc with every single thought. Those distinct states mapped over entropy as a sort order (what time actually is, it's just a sort order we're locked into across the set of "all combinations of things) form your sense of continuity.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:16:51 UTC No. 16631634

>>16631621
>At no point it gets explained where exactly the collapse (non-unitary) happens
Can you not read? I said the collapse is just an approximate description but you are still demanding that it should be treated like some actual process which takes place at some special time. It is as stupid as saying that "at no point it gets explained when exactly ponds turn into lakes".
>That's a big problem which is still unsolved, also known as the measurement problem.
It's only unsolved for the morons who still don't understand basic quantum mechanics a century after its discovery, like philosophers and mysticism-slop-consuming popsci fans who created a fake pop-industry around this non-existent problem.
>It only means that we don't know what causes it.
Wrong, we know exactly what "causes" it. It's just decoherence. Your denial of basic physics does not mean there's any unsolved problem.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:18:35 UTC No. 16631637

>>16631530
God is rare.
Satan is common.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:29:04 UTC No. 16631651

>>16631530
Consciousness is just the implementation of reality (with the laws of physics being the documentation): it's what hosts categories like space and time for events involving matter to take place. It makes no sense to explain consciousness using categories that depend on it to exist in the first place.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:57:11 UTC No. 16631685

>>16631634
>the collapse is just an approximate description
An approximate description of what? What is the approximation?

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:21:28 UTC No. 16631755

How is consciouness special? Even single celled bacteria are programmed to react to stimuli and that's hardly noteworthy, but suddenly when the system is "big" you go
>NOOOOOOOOOOO IT MUST BE MAGIC SKY MAN WHO DONE DID IT
Are computers also magical? How about a single transistor? What's the boundary between 1 transistor and 50,000,000,000 that becomes magic?

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:25:47 UTC No. 16631758

>>16631755
Because it's qualia
Because of Mary's room

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:28:20 UTC No. 16631761

>>16631758
You can have brain dead retards that can't speak, wipe their own ass, or do anything but can still see and react to their environment.
Literally every animal that is even remotely like us with a sufficiently complex brain has qualia, citing it for "consciousness" is like citing "having a body." It's more basal than anything related to self awareness.

Why are quantum mystics and the religious so genuinely retarded all the time? >>>/x/

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:42:17 UTC No. 16631776

It's fundamentally impossible to explain qualia in a materialistic world.
You can have the most complex computation ever but that doesn't lead to a subjective experience. Or if it does, we don't know why.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:07:58 UTC No. 16631792

>>16631776
Why wouldn't it?
You have one brain, in one skull, with sensory organs attached via nerves to the one brain, why would you not expect "one subjective experience?"
Your brain also literally physically changes when you learn or grow or adapt to a new situation, so even if all brains started the same they'd quickly become their own thing upon any interaction with the world which is basically guaranteed to be unique.

Any other belief makes no sense and has a heavy burden of proof.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:22:50 UTC No. 16631804

>>16631792
>why would you not expect "one subjective experience?"
Because it's just particles moving around according to the laws of physics. There's no reason to assume that it would lead to a subjective experience. It's even worse than that, we don't even know how that could possibly happen. Like we don't have a shred of an idea.
If you build a massive brain where humans take the place of neurons and act according to certain rules to simulate a brain, would that brain have a subjective experience?

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:28:30 UTC No. 16631808

>>16631804
Sure, why not? You rebuild a brain exactly with all the minute details of weights and neurons, ask it a question, and it'd be totally indistinguishable from your neighbor next door.

bodhi at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:19:09 UTC No. 16631866

>>16631755
>Even single celled bacteria are programmed to react to stimuli
>he says without realizing the implications of said statement
retard

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:43:42 UTC No. 16631884

>>16631808

Cargo cult physics!

>Sure, you build a landing strip just like the Americans built, and cargo will begin coming to the island again :3

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:46:53 UTC No. 16631889

>>16631884
If you build it JUST like the Americans built with advanced communication systems, radio, and infrastructure then you probably do have the ability to call and order goods and services such as intercontinental cargo delivery via plane.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 17:09:36 UTC No. 16631904

>>16631866
Computers can complete complex tasks without consciousness (presumably).
Your body completes its most complex tasks unconsciously. Think about this: Do you consciously coordinate your muscles when you walk? Do you know how to retrieve a memory or does it just pop in? Are you consciously doing the calculation of depth perception of your visual field?
No, you don't do any of that. You're just thinking about trivial stuff like what to eat for lunch. And the best part is that even these thoughts are automatic and completely determined by other causes

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 07:37:40 UTC No. 16633527

>itt morons who took Schrodinger's cat seriously instead of a joke as originally intended

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 07:48:24 UTC No. 16633532

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 09:26:59 UTC No. 16633591

>>16631530

>Are there any good secular, materialist, physicalist explanations of consciousness

lol no

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 09:27:59 UTC No. 16633593

>>16633532

indian maya undermines knowledge

>>16633527

silence, moron. read up on the quantum eraser experiment.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 09:28:17 UTC No. 16633594

>>16631530
Have you heard of this new fresh thing "solipsism"?

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:45:52 UTC No. 16635421

The only logical conclusion is reincarnation, when you die, your spirit goes into another living body, it may be a flatworm, it may be a Human, but you will never know of your past lives

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 05:04:56 UTC No. 16635724

>>16631530
Will you define consciousness first?

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:26:30 UTC No. 16636284

>>16635724
You are worth half of all life on the Internet.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 21:27:51 UTC No. 16636550

>>16631545
N- Putting random words out of his ass that he saw online in a pop sci article without knowing the context

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 00:15:57 UTC No. 16636830

>>16635724
Sure, consciousness is the thing that was put in to Humans by god, that the other animals do not have

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 00:20:18 UTC No. 16636837

>>16636830
Already falsified.

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 00:22:27 UTC No. 16636841

>>16631530
Physicalism is false and the universe is mental. All that exists is the consciousness field, also known as God. This fact is self-evident if you meditate hard enough.

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 00:31:37 UTC No. 16636853

>>16636841
Shadow infection killing everything which disagrees, regarding my evolutionary hypothesis.

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 12:16:11 UTC No. 16637190

>>16631530
There isn't even a good materialist explanation for yesterday my nigger

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 14:02:23 UTC No. 16637249

>>16631530

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 14:24:53 UTC No. 16637263

>>16631530
>Are there any good secular, materialist, physicalist explanations of consciousness that don't involve a multiverse?
It's quite easy to prove that there isn't one.
I imagine a cube with my eyes closed. If materialism is true, everything must be made out of particles and that includes the cube I'm imagining. So cut open my brain and find the image of the cube.
>but the image is just an interpretation of electrical signals in your brain
If I see the image and materialism is the entire truth then the image must be made out of particles. There's no other way. There can't be something that's not made out of physical stuff.
>but computers
The material image in the case of a computer is the pattern of photons that gets emitted by the screen.

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 14:35:27 UTC No. 16637270

>>16631530
Doesn't neural network satisfy you?
Doesn't all the evidence show that it's what it's all about?

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 14:37:09 UTC No. 16637272

>>16637263
This is probably the dumbest thing that has ever been posted on this board

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 14:39:44 UTC No. 16637277

>>16637272
I thought it was dumb at first but when I thought about it more, I realized that it's true. If you can't find the image in the material world, it has to be immaterial.

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 15:39:29 UTC No. 16637310

>>16637277
>If you can't find the image in the material world, it has to be immaterial.
Arguing with believers is like playing chess with a pidgeon..
You saw the image in your mind, your mind is material, and thus that image is a manifestation of a material world. But lo and behold, rejoice! It makes your god material, he at least exists distributed amongst billions of minds one way or the other.

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 15:57:08 UTC No. 16637334

>>16637310
You can't explain the image in a material world, simple as. But even assuming that you could, then you still can't explain the existence of an observer with subjective experience

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 16:08:59 UTC No. 16637362

>>16637334
I can explain many things. It doesn't mean that you would be able to understand the explanation though.

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 16:21:52 UTC No. 16637394

>>16637362
If you see something in your mind, then there has to be a physical process that takes your brain state and constructs the image using a physical substance. How else could something appear in a material universe?
It's not enough that the image is encoded in your brain state just like an image lying in the memory of a computer is not enough. It has to be converted to an image on the screen by physically constructing it.
In your brain something mechanical has to do that construction as well in a purely physical world.
I'm genuinely curious how you would explain that.

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 16:40:47 UTC No. 16637418

>>16637394
>there has to be a physical process that takes your brain state and constructs the image using a physical substance
The neurons are physical substance.
Do you imagine images on your computer physical or do you consider computer working on soul and god's grace?
The actual neural processes it takes for the image to be present in your mind are probably not yet explored, but the images of computer are the closest analogy, and if you can see something insufficient with it, please let me know.

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 17:21:18 UTC No. 16637451

>>16637418
>The neurons are physical substance.
But the neurons don't look like the image. I know this sounds stupid but in a material world, to have the appearance of that image in your mind, it has to be made out of something physical. Like it actually has to be particles in the form of the original image. How else would it work? You can't construct the image in a virtual space and then look at it with your minds eye, because that space is not material. You can't have a mechanism that interprets the data and then puts glowing points on a mental screen because that screen can't exist.
There can only be atoms and molecules bouncing around without any subjective experience whatsoever.
>Do you imagine images on your computer physical or do you consider computer working on soul and god's grace?
They exist physically as instructions to light up the screen in the right places. The creation of the image on the screen is a physical process where particles form a certain pattern.
Presumably the image in the brain exist as instructions to light up the right places in awareness/consciousness too (whatever that means). I think we agree that there's not actually a miniature image physically in your brain but that's exactly the problem. You can use as many data interpretation mechanisms as you want, at some point the image has to be a physical arrangement of particles, otherwise it couldn't appear or be presented to an observer.
We know with absolute certainty that this image is appearing in our consciousness and yet it can't be found anywhere in the physical world. This is unlike a computer because of the fact that the image actually appears in consciousness as an actual image.
I feel like I still can't really bring the point across but I can't explain it better.
Also stop assuming that I'm a religious schizo.

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 17:27:11 UTC No. 16637454

>>16631530
If you take consciousness to be true, then physicalism doesnt make sense. Neither does secularism, or materialism. These are not part of consciousness discussions and infact are mere byproducts like God, demons, fairies, tables, chairs, etc. If you consider consciousness seriously, then you need to let go of nonsensical attachment to physicalism/materialism, they dont have any grounding powers.

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 17:40:12 UTC No. 16637462

>>16637454
I agree, I am part of the consciousness cult too.

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 17:48:22 UTC No. 16637465

>>16637451
>But the neurons don't look like the image. I know this sounds stupid
And you are. The GPU's transistors don't look like the image that appears on the monitor either, so therefore by your logic the monitor holds the graphics and the GPU is... just there for some reason who knows?
>at some point the image has to be a physical arrangement of particles, otherwise it couldn't appear or be presented to an observer.
It is a physical arragangement of particles, we can in fact use MRIs to read your brain and reconstruct what you are seeing or dreaming. The neurons in your visual cortex, and electrons and chemicals powering them, are what the image is made of.
The following sentenses after this are just assertions which are dead wrong, and preseneted without evidence. If you think everything you imagine literally exists somewhere out there in the universe, you are no wiser than a literal child. Most people grow out of their delusion.
>Also stop assuming that I'm a religious schizo.
Yeu are one, you assert something exists which makes no logical sense and which we have direct evidence against. That's faith, and faith is religious.
You're also too dense to comprehend other viewpoints while still vehemently denying them, which gets us to the schizo part.

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 17:54:03 UTC No. 16637468

>>16637465
>and preseneted without evidence
The evidence is your experience, unless you're an NPC. It's always incredible how people manage to deny the only thing they will ever know for certain

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 17:55:46 UTC No. 16637471

>>16637451
Question: suppose you could stimulate your eyes' nerves exactly like looking at an image in a VR headset, but there was no headset, just two needles that connect directly to your GPU and your eyes. At no point could an outside observer ever see what is stimulating your eyes.
What would you see?

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 17:56:51 UTC No. 16637472

>>16637468
>but i can't find it in the physical world!!!
Imagine admitting you don't know where your visual cortex is on the Science and Math board.

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 18:01:56 UTC No. 16637475

>>16637471
I would see the image. Is your gotcha that the image doesn't exist in the real world? That's why I used imagination in my example, which is basically the same for this purpose

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 18:04:48 UTC No. 16637479

>>16637475
If the GPU was broken somehow, I think you'd agree that the image wouldn't come through correctly. Obviously the GPU makes up the image, the physical structure of the thing creates visuals. I'll take that for granted and ask the next question.
If your brain was broken somehow, most specifially your visual cortex, what happens?

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 18:07:47 UTC No. 16637480

>>16637479
>If your brain was broken somehow, most specifially your visual cortex, what happens?
I suppose vision and visual imagination fails completely. You don't even see black, the visual sense is completely gone.

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 18:12:14 UTC No. 16637487

>>16637480
Not exactly right, you can lose for example only the right side of each visual field, as I have experineced personally in the past.
But you're right, damaging the physical brain does affect vision or whichever part gets damaged.
So now the true question, when does the image go from fake to real? In your view when the GPU is running but not connected into your eyes there is no image, when it's connected to your eyes but not your brain there is no image, and when it's connected to all three there is an image. Remove any one part of this three part setup and the image becomes literally nothing, where does it go?

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 18:23:30 UTC No. 16637494

>>16637487
I guess you need electric activity in the visual cortex to get some visuals. How that activity becomes the image is a complete mystery just like how the seeing of the image somehow becomes a self-affirming truth with qualities that can't be expressed in language. It's crazy

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 18:31:34 UTC No. 16637501

>>16637494
Spewing bullshit pseudophilosophy isn't an argument. "Self-affirming truth," dude do you actually mean anythitg by that or are you just trying to sound smart when you mean to say "I have visuals and can't explain it"
>i don't know, therefore magic
God of the gaps hasn't been convincing for a long time, at least to those who aren't desperate to believe what isn't backed by evidence.
Here's another example, colorblindness. If you could circumvent the eye for the nerve, you could stimulate colors never before seen by that person. Color vision is a purely mechanical and chemical setup, and if you lack certain chemical receptors you just don't get them. Why? Certainly you could just imagine seeing a redder red.

Basically, your argument boils down to a shrug and a therefore, which is meaningless. You can't explain anything, and the prediction you made that things must look like what images they generate is so old and so stupid even greeks stopped believing it long ago. Good luck understanding a GPU when you look for the AK-47 physically inside of it.

Have a nice day.