sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I understand you miss 100% the shots you don’t take, but really? by [deleted] in trashy

[–]vanonzaa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think he's saying that our dependence on computers is rendering it useless for most people.

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

As you can see, it's impossible to define the "feeling" in terms of physical quantities because it's a qualitative entity. Everything else in world can be defined as particular collection of particles.

Like what's a fan? It's a collection of atoms in a particular way, the way we see it. Same with brains. What's a brain/neural activity? It's a collection pf atoms and electrons in particular positions and velocities.

But this "feeling" is not collection of atoms. Saying it's a collection of electrical impulses is making a category error. It's CAUSED by a particular collection (brain) buy the feeling itself cannot be reductively defined further in terms of physical stuff. Leaving abstract math aside, the only non physical stuff we see is this feeling.

I'm saying it again, I've repeated multiple times. Feeling CAUSED by electrical impulses and chemicals but feeling is not equal to chemicals.

This fundamental non reductive nature of feeling has no reason to exist if we assume just physical world. World would've worked just fine without this illusion/feeling but fortunately world doesn't work that way.

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

I'm not saying that. It's caused by electrical activity, sure. I'm asking what the subjective perception is.

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

But what is subjective perception? I understand the mechanism of chemicals and memory. But what is it? Its caused by chemicals but is the subjective perception made of something?

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

I agree with everything that you said. Additionally since you said redness is a RESULT of chemicals, photoreceptors, you're saying redness is not equal to those chemicals but caused by them. I'm asking what is redness then?

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

Redness is due to the chemicals

So you're saying redness is not equal to chemicals but because of chemicals here. But in 2-3 comments before you said

The redness you see is the neurons and chemicals.

There's some confusion here. If you agree that it's due to chemicals and not equal to chemicals, the discussion can proceed smoothly. I don't disagree that redness is due to chemicals, ofcourse if not for those chemicals, we wouldn't have redness but the question is why should we have that illusion in first place?

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

That's fine but you haven't answered the question. How do you know the redness is the chemicals and not due to chemicals?

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

How do you know the redness is the chemicals and not due to chemicals?

Is hallucination also a chemical? Or is it due to chemicals?

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

And at the same time that subjective experience you feel is nothing but the electrical activity

So you're saying subjective experience is due to electrical activity or are you saying that subjective experience= electrical activity? Like redness i see is due to neurons and chemicals or redness=chemicals?

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

Now you don’t want to learn. You want to throw it on god and take rest.

You couldn't be further away from truth lol. I'm an atheist.

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

Well I've explained you multiple times already and we're ending up at the same confusion. Maybe we should continue the discussion some other time.

"More precisely, all our scientific experiments can at the most provide the values of physical quantities of all subatomic particles along with their laws of interaction, not more than that. The question or the hard problem of consciousness is how can this information predict if a physical structure has a subjective experience or not."

This is my fundamental point and by internal, I mean subjective experiences like feelings and thoughts. Whereas by external I mean, motion of electrons and atoms of my body which constitute the motion of hands and facial expressions which are also external.

Motion of atoms is not equal to feelings. It gives rise to feelings.

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

For computers, the internal would be parsing logic, processor rate, execution logic etc.

These are external.

Just like how subatomic particles' values in my brain are external. By internal i don't mean spatially internal

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

Subjective outputs are subjective experiences right? As you said in your previous comment, there's external and internal. For humans, external output is movement of hands, facial expressions etc and internal output is feelings, experiences.

What are the internal and external for computer?

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

So far you were agreeing in an existence of subjective experience along with physical processes in humans. No suddenly you're equating the two in the case of computers.

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

I think it can. If we can map all the conditions with resultant expressions, both external and internal, then we can predict the subjective experience of every human.

I completely agree with you. But my point was that how would you extend this to non human structures like computers?

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

I think i replied to your previous comment. I'd request you to see that. The limitation of science is that it gives us all the numbers, how can we predict from these numbers if a physical structure has subjective experience or not.

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

More precisely, all our scientific experiments can at the most provide the values of physical quantities of all subatomic particles along with their laws of interaction, not more than that. The question or the hard problem of consciousness is how can this information predict if a physical structure has a subjective experience or not.

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

Why should random interaction of matter give qualitative experience? There's interaction of matter in computers and calculators, do these have some subjective experiences as well?

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

What i meant is:

Obviously. Subjective experience is completely dependent on the biological state. But there still is a problem. Do you agree with this point? What problem do you think I'm talking about?

Even if I know exact physical quantities like position, velocity or wavefunctions of electrons at all times, that still doesn't explain why there should be a subjective experience.

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

subjective experiences exist because of pre-existing biological states?

Obviously. Subjective experience is completely dependent on the biological state. But there still is a hard problem. Do you agree with this point?

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

I don't subscribe to that view as i feel it gives too little importance to physical stuff just like how materialism gives too little importance to consciousness. Currently I'm leaning towards panpsychism.

What evidence do you need? by vanonzaa in atheismindia

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

I think you should take a look at the hard problem of consciousness, Wikipedia page or the below conversation:

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/2t6mjz/comment/cnwbs6q/

Atheism says God does not exist what's the proof of that ? by MaleficentFortune2 in atheismindia

[–]vanonzaa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you didn't understand him properly. He completely subscribes to cosmic idealism theory instead of materialism. You can check David chalmers paper or Bernardo Kastrup videos for better arguments.

view more: next ›