I love Hegel and Kierkegaard and Camus and Sartre. I am mostly being jovial by saying philosophy is all semantic bullshit, but I do believe the "hard problem of consciousness" is literally just semantic bullshit.
People say science doesn't belong in philosophy... To me theorizing where "consciousness" comes from is putting philosophy into the realm of science.
Subjective experience, at least how I think it occurs, is literally just those brain waves functioning.
Theoretically we could take brain A in a jar, take it's exact conscious state, and apply it to Brain B in a jar and see what "qualia" transfers over.
Maybe this is just my compsci brain but I literally do this all the time with computers...
Let's assume we had a raspberry pi sitting under a tree somewhere running Pong for the last three thousand years. Every scientist that has ever looked at that machine had thought it was magic, but we can clearly see otherwise through retrospect. We can capture the actual ones and zeroes being moved between different pieces of copper. We can take those ones and zeroes and figure out exactly what they're for.
We can do this because we are the creator of said ones and zeroes, but to those scientists the last three thousand years, it is basically consciousness.
Without the spec doc you can never truly learn what that computer is doing... People would argue that while it may be playing pong it's true goal is to deceive the viewer into thinking it's doing nothing but playing pong. A P Zombie of a raspberry pi.
We can never capture the subjective experience of that machine... Whatever the hell that means... So we can never know what it's actual goal was, without retrospect.
A P Zombie theoretically has no data running within the copper but I don't think that is literally possible at all, which is why I think P Zombies are nonsense.
Yeah philosophy is goofy af it's all semantic arguing past each other. That was my entire point. Theoretically if we actually had something concrete to say we would be making a lot of sense to each other, but instead this entire thread was mostly spent yelling past each other.
Idk at the same time I definitely got bullied into gender abolitionist beliefs and veganism on this site so while it may seem fruitless I believe the cracks eventually form into something more substantive down the line.
I read Capital (in laymen form) when i was in my teens and have internalized it into my later years. Sure I could've internalized it better, but "look toward some form capital" as some form of disbelief has worked for me for many years.
Googling "If Marx was correct about LTV then what prevents marketing people from getting paid" is basically Vol 2. I don't need to have read all several volumes of Capital, for the some reason. Marx didnt have Marx when he was writing capital: for the human condition, Capital is blatantly correct. At least to myself that is true.
Yea I drank too much for a Thursday. Sorry. I appreciate your critique though. you've been the only person that has provded a substantive counter argument. Is that my proclivity toward the unknown rationality? Who knows. Either way I appreciate what you bring to the table. Without you Id right all the time and i've had killed myself like 10 years ago.
Anyways, great job. I know personaally that giving your true opinion about epiistemic philsophy (is that the right term?????) can feel self flagettlating and self defeating, but I appreaciate it. So thanks, man. Maybe when I am more sober( whicj i was like 5 hours ago) i can provide more substantive arguments ). And again, you probably think I am a dunce, I dont dispute that. I have never had the ability to grow into anything but a dunce
hey man, I am too drunk, too incorherent. Sorry for maybe questioning your world view? Sirry for being incogerebt, Wghat I possess is surely not useful long term an d activerly detrimnetal. The fact that I can acknowledge that while drunk maybe proves the point? Maybe the fact that I can prove the point while drunk proves the point that what we are experiencing (what I consider to be consciousness)is maytbe inhorent is PROOF that consciousness isnt real. Its all real time. Anyways I am sorry. either to my past self for proving me wrong, or my current self for arguing with myself
TOO DRUNK AT THIS POINT TO READ PAST MEANING (CONSCIOUSNESSES MANIFEST) BUT THE GENERAL SENTIMENT I POSSESS IS THAT WHILE YOU POSSIBLY MAY BE CORRECT THE IDEA THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS FUNDAMENTALLY NON EXISTENT, OR EXISTENT, THIS LEADS TO SEMANTIC DECONSTRUCTION OF WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS POSSIBLY IS.i
Hell, two weeks ago I was prone to the belief that consciousness is fundamental. After reading various reddt comments I have (false logically?) conceded that consciousness is NOT fundamental but emergent, but I will concede I have MAYBE NOT provide an honest to goodness argument for. what consciousness actually is or what it means to be a conscious entity. But my problem is inherentlly with what it means to be unconscious. To what it means to be part of the universe. And I will admit, this is definitely a *Redditor construct. While drunk, I realize Redditor is a very specific type of event. Almost entirely ATHEIST while I attempt to be AGNOSTIC in the waking world. I literally feel atease with what you are saying to me. Not simple passing, where I accept that that what you are saying is completely FALSE but accepting that what you are saying is FALSE with me my CURRENT beliefs. I beleve, and honestly believe that all entities, possess the abiility to change due to LOGIC and think that the internal contradiction I may possess may be entirely interal and not systematic. I am sorry if what I was seems non contradcitpryh, because typically I imagfine myself within your shoes.
Ultmately, while drunkm and honest, my current belief, raw and unfilitered, is that consciousness is the simple acknowledgment of conciseness, and that maybe what I am interpreting is simply a reduced pipeline due to my procivitty to what would be conisdered :"aspergers".
I honstlyh think aspergers is TOO RAW and too analytical for what we call experience.\
ANYYWAYS:
CONTRARY TO DRUNK
I think what youre saying is aweosome. too analyitical. I imagine a human in 2000 years is the sum of my experience, great analysis pls great experience. right nowi am not that so i hold hope that what youj believe ios true, which is funny, i dont even believe what i say is true as in impactful to the soul .
I FUCKIUNG LOVING HEXBEAR.
I AM SORRY FOR BEING CRINMGE I HAVFE BEEN ON REDDIT FOPR SO LONG AND HAVE SINCE BEEN BANNED FOR BEING BASED?? NOT BASED ENOUGH BASED ON BRIAN/ TRUE BASED
look dawg i was part of the miasma that founded hexbear.... I was literally BANNED FROM /r/chapotraphouse on the night that THE SUB was banned for threats against some president.... I HAVE BEEN AN ADMIN ON THIS VERY SITE!!! to say I am reddit.com is to say hexbear is reddit.com... which is true. Thats historically accurate. But that doesnt mean youre CORRECT so FUCK YOU!
Oh. So you did actually read it, you were just lying and pretending you didn't.
Gottem.
No it doesn't, and you've presented no argument that it does.
Consciousness, as it seems to function, is a means to model your internal and external data into a single experience that will help you dictate further success in getting your fuck on.
The P Zombie with my exact make and model right next to me would never consider that me stabbing him in the dumb redditor skull will allow me to get MY fuck on in place of HIM, yet there is evolutionary advantage to me doing so. For him to acknowledge that would be to exhibit what I would define as consciousness.
I did. Its wrong. It explains no FUNCTIONAL reason for me to be arguing with you right now instead of getting my bump and grind on. We can theorize a robot that does 1:1 what I do in real life,. That doesnt mean I was written in fucking c#
No. I didn't. For fucks sake, just fucking read other people's words for once, instead of being so arrogant.
Name one color you've never seen but can perfectly imagine.
I can't even perfectly imagine red. "Perfectly imaging" red does a lot of fucking heavy lifting. Again, you're describing an impossible task DUE TO SEMANTIC ISSUES.
PERFECT RED ISNT REAL. AHHHHH!!!!
Ok. So? Why does that particular programming make it conscious. And once again you're asserting that all life is conscious.
Conscious life clearly has an advantage over unconscious life. If there is no DISTINCTION between conscious and non conscious life WHAT are you asking me to DESCRIBE?
Once again: because they are behaviourally identical to you.
What part about their homeostasis dictates that responding to you is necessary to achieve a fruitful life?
Ok. Just straight up admitting you don't know shit and you're proud of it. Just a hillbilly afraid those damn scary books.
DAMN STRAIGHT. And you're just a city slicker too afraid of them country Jays that have too experience with the real world... many such cases.
I beg of you: descibe to me a P Zombie that is a physical clone of me that doesn't have my mental state. Describe to me how that P Zombie is uniquely different from the version of me that you froze of me 20 minutes ago. Where does the distinction lie? You say theres no consciousness, I say theres no way for that to be? Again, me arguing on hexbear is the OPPOSITE OF FUCKING. I should be FUCKING right now. I am getting the OPPOSITE of DICK.
I dont even know what we are arguing about man. I am probably one of the most dogmatic marxists you can find, I just dont think dogmatism is virtuous so I try to avoid it in my arguments. I love hexbear, nowhere else on the internet would I have this conversation and it reminds me of my demsucc days lol
What do you mean? Can you see your nose at all moments? If not, illusion is filling in the gap to provide a biological advantage to those who do not. A snake biting you within the FOV of your nose is bad. Making a fake snake where your nose is (based on previous snake data) seems logical.
I love Hegel and Kierkegaard and Camus and Sartre. I am mostly being jovial by saying philosophy is all semantic bullshit, but I do believe the "hard problem of consciousness" is literally just semantic bullshit.
People say science doesn't belong in philosophy... To me theorizing where "consciousness" comes from is putting philosophy into the realm of science.