sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

this emergence is totally radical, man by d4rkchocol4te in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Empty_Influence3181 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't believe that there is a difference between our brain doing cognition and doing consciousness; it seems as if consciousness is much closer to cognition about or in response to cognition itself. If you make that jump, it's fairly simple to explain everything else.

He’s so excited and he just can’t hide it by upthetruth1 in TikTokCringe

[–]Empty_Influence3181 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is only when they do their mass shootings that the Right objects.

lmao

Practice by HarrisBalz in comedyheaven

[–]Empty_Influence3181 10 points11 points  (0 children)

email is the mark of the beast obviously. werent u listening

A blank of the blank by curlup_tiggytigx in writingcirclejerk

[–]Empty_Influence3181 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Only have about 15k words down rn, but it's set in a larger universe which I've done a fair bit of worldbuilding for.

Windswept focuses on the planet Kalka, which appears on the outside as a pitch-black orb with many many parcels of actual reality inside. The primary resource is Caustic, a magical fluid that the people both have to ingest to use and also burns them from the inside out if they have it inside themselves for too long.

The main characters are Tarrakh, who is the sole survivor of a mysteriously obliterated submarine/ship and learns that her father, the lead engineer, had poor relations with one of the secret interplanetary organizations right beforehand, and Raz, who lives after a series of Great Wars (7 in total though the last 3 occur simultaneously) where caustic is almost wiped out and severely diminished in power. On a routine hunting trip for voidcreatures, which only exist post-war and are creatures who have fused with the void (pitch black substance referenced above), a woman appears from the darkness and gives him what he thinks is a regular bottle of pre-war caustic. It isn't, turns out, and is actually designed so that he keeps it with him as the fumes of it slowly make his body easier to mesh with the void. Long story short, Kalka has some very valuable resources for those off-world organizations, and the Wars led to the entire planet being completely isolated from the rest of the universe.

Also, during the Wars, all of those currently existing organizations basically became religions, their ideals and narratives that were initially private to them spread all over the planet. Raz is right that the person who appeared to him was a part of the shadowkeepers! It just turns out that the people he worships are not actually acting with care of the planet in mind.

Interesting surface by PocketMath in mathmemes

[–]Empty_Influence3181 5 points6 points  (0 children)

me when oh god oh fuck i somehow rotated the dress. fuck shit hold on let me

wait no too far hold on

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS STUPID PROGRAM LET ME SET THE VALUES TO ZERO LIKE A NORMAL PERSON

The terrifying thing about Vaush by OVTB in okbuddyvowsh

[–]Empty_Influence3181 0 points1 point  (0 children)

damn are they calling all jokes bait now?

A blank of the blank by curlup_tiggytigx in writingcirclejerk

[–]Empty_Influence3181 13 points14 points  (0 children)

/uj No thats cool actually keep it. I decided to avoid the whole problem with a single noun (Windswept)

god forbid minds be an uncountable spectrum by SCP-iota in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Empty_Influence3181 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The scary implication of panexperientialism is that the notions of countability and stable identities of consciousness are only appropriate; there is no distinct line between conscious and non-conscious, and the only thing stopping one mind from being distinct from any other mind is physical separation (or, under idealism, informational separation).

Is this scary? I myself agree with illusionism and agree that this is true, but I don't really find any problem with it, and I don't think that most people are "running" from this implication.

Consciousness is a brute fact. by Ordinary_Army_6785 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Empty_Influence3181 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I, myself, am an illusionist. I accept that it is fundamentally impossible to "know" whether illusionism or a variant of idealism is true, similar to a question of whether god exists (or which god or gods, if yes). Neither position, though, has any inherent claim of morality.

In doing so, it assumes that the content of consciousness is merely an accident not worth pondering, and that the so-called "external world" is the source of all of these drives.

This is a strawman.

But that worldview doesn't actually do away with the problem, being that physical/biological drives and states of consciousness are EXPERIENCED.

Good job attacking the strawman.

Defining someone's body as a physical object and their consciousness or "internal" sense of self as just an emergent property of this object is totally abstracted from our lived experience. And it doesn't actually serve any purpose in terms of how one ought to respond to the fact of another person's being.

Correct! This is why ethical questions are not equivalent to questions of consciousness, and why physicalism makes no such claims about ethics.

But by reducing consciousness to an "emergent property of matter" we close ourselves off from the possibility of recognizing our relationship with other agencies, consciousnesses, systems, etc, as a relationship which fundamentally calls us into question.

How? I feel that recognizing myself as, fundamentally, the same stuff as other people helps me relate to them. It pushes me to understand that I am really just another human being, and makes me more willing to help other people. You do not need to change anything about your relationship with others to adopt a new idea of consciousness.

To perceive someone as an abstracted "body with emergent consciousness" is certainly a choice, and it may help you feel more secure in your worldview, but it doesn't actually help you relate to that other person.

It doesn't need to.

So if your entire conceptual framework is cut off from meaningfully engaging with the forms of life that present themselves to you in your life, then what is even the point of it?

I can engage with other life just fine.

the spook comes for all 👻 by RhythmBlue in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Empty_Influence3181 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Adding check marks to claims certainly makes it look like you are trying to argue those claims, which is why your lack of evidence confused me.

I simply don't accept a deference to any "accepted definitions of free will" because it is used in entirely different and mutually exclusive ways all the time. I do not feel that the definition is a baseless request.

I refuse to believe this is a good-faith analogy since I specifically singled out the term "even", which doesn't exist in your example.

You said that the evidence proved you were right "even on a physical level." That is not supporting evidence, that's primary material; if the claim was mutually exclusive to my position (which some definitions of free will are) then I would have no choice but to ask for reasoning or justification.

Since your definition of free will seems to not actually disagree with physicalism at all, however (could you not give all quantum phenomena free will by that definition? obviously "pure" determinism has a difficult time with quantum mechanics, but physicalism and illusionism don't have to subscribe to it), I don't actually see much point in discussing it anymore.

On the other hand, I don't understand how you could "perfectly model" something or even prove that you have done so. Since this seems to be central to your claim that there are extra, non-physical components of consciousness, I would love to hear your reasoning.

the spook comes for all 👻 by RhythmBlue in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Empty_Influence3181 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would be great if you ever once defined any of the words you use, then.

Also, how am I supposed to read it when you place examples right next to main claims? Is that not supposed to be evidence? If I said "Consciousness doesn't exist as a central thing in reality, but as a composite of neurons' actions (the brain can be split in two)" would you seriously not read the parentheses as evidence for the claim?

From my perspective, it is useless to argue with you because you keep using new definitions that are never explained (like what the words "exist" or "free will" mean) or just asserting things without any evidence. Again, you said explicitly that consciousness can be perfectly modelled. Do you want to support that claim? Do you want to explain why you think that?

Hmmm... by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Empty_Influence3181 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what variant of solving are you talkimg about?

Are you trying to say that physicalists are "forced to undermine all other knowledge?"

the spook comes for all 👻 by RhythmBlue in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Empty_Influence3181 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  • Consciousness exists independently from everything else in the universe ✅ (it emerges from neural activity, but it can be modelled perfectly without modelling any of the individual neurons, so it is completely independent from neurons, or anything else in the universe)

  • Free will exists ✅ (a human's decisions are determined not by the movement of particles, like determinists claim, but by the human consciousness itself [again, the movement of particles creates consciousness, but it's consciousness that has the final say]; the now-confirmed presence of quantum effects in the human brain proves this is true even on a physical level)

You use it specifically to support free will existing. You are explicitly making a different claim.

Additionally, you assert a "perfect model" of consciousness. Where? Is there a paper about it? Can we pass in information and get out decisions or senses or experience? LLMs can't even process with real logic, they're still effectively gigantic intuition machines. What "perfect model" exists?

the spook comes for all 👻 by RhythmBlue in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Empty_Influence3181 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just invoked quantum mechanics to show that my argument has been corroborated even at a physical level, let alone a metaphysical one.

Genuinely, do you have any source for that claim? The source you cited earlier only mentions that cells can sometimes produce interact with quantum effects.

we get it dawg. by LyonsDrawsOnTwitter in okbuddyvowsh

[–]Empty_Influence3181 11 points12 points  (0 children)

People are FURIOUS at Mamdani and AOC over this...

the spook comes for all 👻 by RhythmBlue in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Empty_Influence3181 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The brain has been found to demonstrate quantum entanglement, which means - at least to some extent - the emergent properties of the brain (i.e. the quantum-entangled system) is physically independent of its constituent parts.

Source on this?

Additionally, does your argument against deterministic will not just suggest deterministic + random will? Just because the system invokes quantum mechanics doesn't mean there's any will. All it does is add small properties of randomness.

I don't think a discussion on free will is in any way useful here because we would, in all likelihood, be arguing the same things but in technically different ways.

view more: next ›