/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11621162
>Why is scientism like this?
A bias for natural determinism. Until there's a mechanical, physiological reason for consciousness, academia in the natural philosophy department is going to do its best to deny its existence.

>>11621191
>a mechanical, physiological reason for consciousness
Already exists. If and only if your brain isn't functioning then you don't have consciousness. Anything beyond that doesn't meaningfully contribute to the debate.

>>11621222
>double negative
I apologize, please reprimand me sternly.

>>11621191
>>11620416

>>11621191
"natural determinism" is the same as "materialism" or "physicalism"... they're ONLY used by armchair philosophers and goofy believers in the supernatural.

IN fact, that's LITERALLY the definition of anything that's NOT "materialist"... supernatural.

>>11621241
A lot of these threads lately.

>>11621241
This is not a counter argument, it's actually very stupid
The fact that conscious experience can be tested for and manipulated consistently shows it must exist.

>>11621191
Determinism is falsified pseudo science

>>11621253
There is no such thing as "supernatural", if something exists but does not have material ontological existence, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means reality is not entirely material.
Asserting a priori that materialism is true is brainlet shit. You must prove it. And so far, it is not proven - Not even close. In fact, the opposite is much more strongly implied to be true.

>>11621222
That's a logical leap, a chair has a function, does it have qualia while fulfilling its sitting purposes too?
The difficult question surrounding consciousness isn't consciousness itself but the inability of most people to approach the problem with any sense. This is what 100% of all discussions about consciousness revolves around. Most people do not notice but...you instantly got lost in logical idiocy.
Why is that?
Why can't you analyze this phenomena properly?
Why can't you use problem tree analysis to begin solving this question?
I wonder...because it's not a hard problem if you apply basic logical reasoning and analytical methods.

>>11621341
>The fact that conscious experience can be tested for and manipulated consistently shows it must exist.
But it does not give it a special nature.
When someone says consciousness they mean not just a phenomena but a specific interpretation of a phenomena.

If consciousness is physical, which is to say a direct physical experience which is the movements of matter around your brain (not caused by, but IS), then the lack of consciousness we might compare a person to - a conscious person and an unconscious person, in fact have PHYSICAL differences between them.

To imagine lack of consciousness then, to contrast to consciousness to make the statement that it is some distinct special thing, can not be done, because you can not imagine a lack of consciousness with out imagining a PHYSICALLY different human.

Because we are thus incapable have a physically identical conscious and unconscious person, because we can not show that being unconscious produces an experience, there is no reason to assume that our experience of being is somehow special and not simply a property of the configuration of physical elements that make it up, as there is no example of this same physical configuration being not conscious

>>11621404
You're spewing word vomit. The logical connection between brain functioning and consciousness is a matter of fact. Nowhere did I imply that functions in themselves are consciousness generating.

>>11621499
So your stance is that physical occurrences that resembles that of a brain but is not contained within a biological brain will not generate consciousness.

You're saying that certain specific physical occurrence are required, such as, they must occur within the confinement of a biological brain.

For you to know, there are no known physical laws that works differently within a brain compared to outside the brain.

This leads to one possible conclusion, consciousness requires unknown physical laws.

That's a good one.

>>11621591
My stance is that you are having a conversation with yourself, stimulated by vague associations triggered by features of my post. This is a form of masturbation and I refuse to be your whore.

>>11621610
Well there's no point having a conversation with you, so don't blame me, besides telling you you're wrong and haven't given this a single correct thought, is true.

" If and only if your brain isn't functioning then you don't have consciousness" is wrong unless you invoke mysticism but you're too dense to understand what you're parroting.

>>11621162
Thats a misrepresentation of Sam you are doing here

>>11621648
You have not responded to a single thing I wrote. Conversation was never an option, you fucking schizo.

>>11621162
Why don't science people just accept the existence of an alien entity called soul/consciousness living inside your body? I mean the car can't drive itself. Why would the body be able to drive itself? When the soul/consciousness leaves the body, the body becomes dead. God gave us consciousness and put it in our body. Anyone saying consciousness is just a process and not an entity that resides in the body is a fool.

>>11621222
t. brain

>We’ve established that all thinking happens through neurons - a long time ago too.

This requires a "yes, and..." The "and" part is that of sensory experience of the world. Our cognition cannot be removed from its association from our bodies - not just our brains, not just our nervous systems, but the rest of our body which influences our nervous system. Our bodies in turn cannot be removed from being embodied in the world. As a result of this our cognitive activities aren't confined to the body, but are extended and in co-evolution with the environment.

Moreover, the world (Earth) cannot be removed from the web of mutual influences spanning the entire universe! To truly know a "thing in itself" requires knowing ALL of its relationships between it and everything else that has existed and exists, and also will exist AND will never exist, but can possibly exist (potentiality.) If one requires knowing a "thing in itself" to 100% certainty is required for knowledge at all, then one is stuck in an impossible situation: one must be omniscient to know anything at all. But if perfect knowledge of a "thing in itself" from all possible perspectives isn't required, then one merely needs to understand what they are doing (process) effectively enough to be slightly more effective than randomness, rather than to get the right answer. From this foundation of the slightest epistemological efficacy, additional efficacy in interacting with the world (for the purpose of surviving and thriving) can grow upon this.

>>11621191
scientists don't hide their head in the sand when confronted with something they can't explain, they say "i don't know" and then try to use science to scrape away the ignorance.

>>11621241
Why did you think everyone had to read the ramblings of a p-zombie?

>>11621874
Actually they say "maybe the question is wrong?" and dismiss the issue

>>11621357
>There is no such thing as "supernatural", if something exists but does not have material ontological existence, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist
Yes it does.

why does /sci exist?

>>11621222
>>11621499
A brain still functions when someone is unconscious or otherwise loses consciousness, though, otherwise there wouldn't be dreams and you would need a ventilator to nap.

>the car can't drive itself
Self driving car, autonomous vehicles can
>Why would the body be able to drive itself?
Why would the consciousness be able to drive itself?

>When the soul/consciousness leaves the body, the body becomes dead.
Not there are plenty of disorders that take away a person's self awareness and environmental awareness and a person can live with dementia for years after their personality and awareness have been completely stripped from their minds.

>>11621676
>Why don't science people just accept the existence of an alien entity called soul/consciousness living inside your body?
Why one consciousness, why not several?
Why not assign a consciousness or daemon to each hemisphere of the brain and every independent function performed?

>>11623168
Forgive him for only understanding phenomena and not noumena as it is not an intuitive understanding.

>>11623168
>Yes it does.
No it doesn't. There is nothing about material that has ontological priority or ontological monopoly. Why would you claim this?

>>11623439
What do you mean? No one understands noumena, no one can understand a thing in itself, ever.

>>11621235
>double positive negative
yeah, yeah