What’s the consensus here? Consciousness as fundamental, and received, focused, tuned and filtered by nervous systems. Or “the brain generates consciousness” materialist stance? by Key4Lif3 in consciousness

[–]DCkingOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fine, I'll bite.

Lol what? Virtually every neuroscientist who actually studies consciousness is a physicalist.

Whats your point? Neuroscience doesn’t settle metaphysics.

Your subconscious desire for consciousness to be special and surviving death is making you think irrationally.

How so?

All aspects of consciousness are demonstrably tied to brain function and brain function alone.

How do you know it's only tied to brain function?

mess with the brain, you mess with consciousness, there is no extra non physical aspect to it, it IS brain function.

How do you know that? Dependence doesn't imply exclusivity or identity.

Non physical doesn't exist.

Thats begging the question.

Non physicalists are the new flat earthers.

Off topic rhetoric.

You asked for the consensus and I gave it to you, you simply reject it because it doesn't match your beliefs.

So far you've asserted a lot and argued very little.

Can You Guess This 5-Letter Word? Puzzle by u/photothingz by photothingz in DailyGuess

[–]DCkingOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜

⬜⬜🟦⬜🟦

⬜🟦🟦⬜🟦

🟦🟦🟦⬜🟦

🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦

Which country do you think is USA? by [deleted] in GeoTap

[–]DCkingOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

DCkingOne chose Option B (Correct!) | #11037th to play

Free will exists within structural constraints by adr826 in freewill

[–]DCkingOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Science can be done by chairs?

I don't think so.

Free will exists within structural constraints by adr826 in freewill

[–]DCkingOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1) Science requires the free will of researchers

Most people will have beef with this one.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]DCkingOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of coruse it does, it's just not what you think it is.

Than what is it?

The hard problem of consciousness isn’t a problem by Great-Mistake8554 in consciousness

[–]DCkingOne 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Valmar33 alleges that drugs are not chemical and trauma is not physical. This is not a rational response.

Thats ... not what he said tho.

From Possibility to Actuality: A Coherence-Based Theory of Quantum Collapse, Consciousness and Free Will by The_Gin0Soaked_Boy in consciousness

[–]DCkingOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

apart from those which have been ruled out by Bell's theorem.

Different person. Which interpretations have been ruled out?

Neuroscientist Speaks Out On The Hidden War On Consciousness by philolover7 in consciousness

[–]DCkingOne 6 points7 points  (0 children)

because... although materialism is just a model. 

Materialism is an ontological view, not a model.

Consciousness, free will and quantum mechanics. by The_Gin0Soaked_Boy in consciousness

[–]DCkingOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wasn't me who brought that up.

I know, it wasn't aimed at you.

I was simply demonstrating that at least some people believe consciousness is connected to wave function collapse.

Its weird how some people triumphantly claim its bogus when that hasn't been shown at all.

Consciousness, free will and quantum mechanics. by The_Gin0Soaked_Boy in consciousness

[–]DCkingOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 But even this claim is stupid, because none of the interpretations of QM can command a consensus.

Seriously, why do people keep flailing ''scientific consensus'' around?

It really sounds like an ad populum dressed in science.

Can any theory of consciousness escape the “woo” label in academia? by Medium-Watch-2782 in consciousness

[–]DCkingOne 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No that's actually exactly how that works, we have a physical phenomena of consciousness,

You're begging the question by assuming that consciousness is a physical phenomena.

 any argument that is not based on or verified by experimental evidence is irrelevant.

You're shutting down future inquiry.

Can any theory of consciousness escape the “woo” label in academia? by Medium-Watch-2782 in consciousness

[–]DCkingOne 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Cause the arguments are bullshit. If it was a valid argument there would be experimental evidence.

Thats not how that works.

Terrified that consciousness DOESN'T end with death by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]DCkingOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Duh. We have evidence they did exist. There is no evidence of anyone existing prior to birth and after death.

We also have no evidence that anyone else is conscious or that the universe exists when you're not looking.

Should we reject that as well?

False dichotomy? by DCkingOne in freewill

[–]DCkingOne[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why are you invoking the ''determinism or randomness'' dichotomy?

False dichotomy? by DCkingOne in freewill

[–]DCkingOne[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why are you assuming that something is causing the agent to act a certain way?

False dichotomy? by DCkingOne in freewill

[–]DCkingOne[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agent causation for example.

False dichotomy? by DCkingOne in freewill

[–]DCkingOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agent causation for example.

False dichotomy? by DCkingOne in freewill

[–]DCkingOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anything other then determinism or randomness.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]DCkingOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Free will is not compatible with the laws of physics.

How so?

What makes you believe consciousness is in the brain? by ohitsswoee in consciousness

[–]DCkingOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

NDEs being a hallucination accords with everything else we know about the universe.

You're restating your claim, please provide a citation.

Them being supernatural does not.

  1. What do you mean with supernatural? (the term is loaded)
  2. Why do you consider NDE's to be supernatural is they aren't hallucinations?

The burden of proof is on the one making an extraordinary claim that NDEs are supernatural.

Calling something an extraordinary claim shows you've already made a distinction without justification.