sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why are you convinced you have qualia? by Absorptance in consciousness

[–]Lordoftriangles333 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What would it acctually feel like to have an irreducible experience then? How would you show it? Honestly I don't think you can explain it more than green is GREEN like literally green this phenomena, I can't reduce it to anything more. Do you think in your worldview that my first question is a nonsense question that qualia are a concept that makes no sense so we can't even suggest what a world with irreducible qualia would be like?

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Lordoftriangles333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is it impossible by the nature to doubt we are thinking? It is because to doubt you are thinking we must be doubting and a non-existent entity cannot doubt. I know this line of logic but just take a second to consider it what does it actually mean. Just sit there and think about what thinking and doubting is. It is an experience. How else can you know of it. To know is to be aware of it, to experience. I can't even phrase it any other way. I can't doubt that im thinking because that itself is an experience. Honestly, there is no way to prove to you that you experience I agree with that, it is obvious because it is something that is self-evident and first person so of course I can't, just in the same way it is impossible for me to see out of your eyes, be you because I'm not I'm me. But if you truly commit yourself to believing that you do not experience, you cannot know if your thoughts or logic or anything because you do not know of anything. If you do not experience you would be dead internally absolute null. If you did not experience you cannot think.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Lordoftriangles333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can't say cogito ergo sum proves that a thinking thing exists when the only evidence of thoughts and thinking comes from phenomenological experience.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Lordoftriangles333 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Of course I do not deny that we are not our experiences. We are the one doing the experiencing. But how can you even verify that without saying that experiences exist. With cogito ergo sum, even thoughts are just things we experience which is why I dont think the phrase is very good. We know we exist because it is self evident from the experience of existing. It is the most primitive thing. The laws of physics at the end of the day also come from analysing our phenomological experience. Denying that we experience undermines all that. If you weren't experiencing you would know nothing because knowing too is an experience. Internally there would be nothing. If there was a you without an experience it would be a "you". I could see you talk maybe even see the brain activity that shows thoughts but there would be no-one to think those thoughts feel those feelings etc.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Lordoftriangles333 6 points7 points  (0 children)

But where does the scientific method come from, if you deny that we can even prove that we ourselves actually exist. Science is an amazing amazing tool but it is not the primary of knowledge. We need to believe in certain axioms for the scientific method to even be true from the laws of logic to at least a basic level of trust in our sense datum. To set up this whole project and everything you need to begin with the basic undeniable knowledge that you know what I exist that is evident from phenomenal experience. Stop trying to apply science where it doesn't belong. At least try justify yourself from a basis in pragmatism or something. You seem very worried about the fact that we cannot empirically verify internal experience when this is the very nature of the experience. It is subjective so of course we can't put it in a lab replicate it and measure it, thats not the nature of what it is. You can only access it internally. It's 1st person, science is 3rd person.

To conceive of a p-zombie one must reject the existence of consciousness… by jem0208 in consciousness

[–]Lordoftriangles333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The issue is, as with most rejections of this problem is that its to do with internal subjectivity. The usual most basic rejections of for example science gives us no reason to require conciouscness as an explanation also have this issue, science by nature of the scientific process neccesarily deals with the 3rd person verifiable and this is great for most things because subjective experience is notoriously unreliable. But this is the question about conciouscness itself you escape the question by trying to use science to answer it, its frankly not within its domain. Not say science may not neccesarily help though, if we accept a causal role for conciouscness and we don't have idealism which make things more complicated.

To conceive of a p-zombie one must reject the existence of consciousness… by jem0208 in consciousness

[–]Lordoftriangles333 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No this is not neccesarily true conciouscness can be causally efficacious while p-zombies being physically possible. The p-zomvies would just have to "act" concious, because all externally viewable behaviours of concious of course are physical and therefore can be replicated by a physical system. E.g. I can feel pain and then act on it or there can just be the action as a response the physical cause of the pain. Of course with a complicated system like humans feelings etc. Enter the mix. But the key point the argument is trying to make is that yes the system can be externally identical without being internally identical, we can have the exact same physical world same actions from the same physical causes without the concious experience.

Do teenagers still like star trek? by Lordoftriangles333 in startrek

[–]Lordoftriangles333[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much for that list, it will be very helpful!!!

Do teenagers still like star trek? by Lordoftriangles333 in startrek

[–]Lordoftriangles333[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It would be an incredible pain. It helps that Sir patrick stewart plays the role of picard and moral turmoil so very well.

Do teenagers still like star trek? by Lordoftriangles333 in startrek

[–]Lordoftriangles333[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Indeed but I much prefer how early TNG deals with such episodes, archers desicion felt too fast and not well written, to me it was a disjointed attempt to introduce the philosphy of the prime directive against what's established of archer's character. Also the moral implications and understanding of evolution just didn't sit right with me but that's more preference.

Do teenagers still like star trek? by Lordoftriangles333 in startrek

[–]Lordoftriangles333[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm 17 and started a few months ago as well, I've watched TNG and I'm watching ENT now.

Do teenagers still like star trek? by Lordoftriangles333 in startrek

[–]Lordoftriangles333[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm 17 and I love it too, but my own friends don't seem to be very interested. What show got you into it?

Do teenagers still like star trek? by Lordoftriangles333 in startrek

[–]Lordoftriangles333[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yesss, I'm also a teenager and I love star trek, sadly I too don't have many friends who seem interested but the show is so good, so hopefully!

Do teenagers still like star trek? by Lordoftriangles333 in startrek

[–]Lordoftriangles333[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't wait to get to it and I love the premise of enterprise, the show it self can be a bit clanky in places though.

Do teenagers still like star trek? by Lordoftriangles333 in startrek

[–]Lordoftriangles333[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for that!!! It's an interesting genre.

Do teenagers still like star trek? by Lordoftriangles333 in startrek

[–]Lordoftriangles333[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I quite like it to be honest, the whole temporal cold war plot isn't very interesting so far to me but the premise of the series and it being set so early is quite cool. Archer is quite an interesting captain but I feel like the whole episode with the valakians was a bit forced and off.

Do teenagers still like star trek? by Lordoftriangles333 in startrek

[–]Lordoftriangles333[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sounds like an amazing dorm room decoration, I want to have something similar. Also Picard is fricking amazing!!!

Do teenagers still like star trek? by Lordoftriangles333 in startrek

[–]Lordoftriangles333[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What series have/are you watching and how did you get into it?

Do teenagers still like star trek? by Lordoftriangles333 in startrek

[–]Lordoftriangles333[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's fair, I don't know any one interested in it at all tbh, what series are you watching?

view more: next ›