So where does LULZ fall on this? LULZ were all configuration purist, material neutrals.
So where does?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
What's the difference between material neautral and material radical?
The circuitry example has electricity running through it, it happens quickly and is well suited to what it's doing. The pipes example much less so
Ah I see
>every position assumes the hypostasis of consciousness
I'm not on this chart
Let's hear your refutation of the cartesian axiom then
Though I'm personally more fond of where Sartre goes with the cogito, if I were talking to a stemlord pzombie I would refer them to Ayer's 1953 essay on the cogito. I'm not going to rehash it here because of you're genuinely curious you'll check out the article and if you're not it would be a waste of my time in any case.
I who think am mind and body. If thought were the cause of my being, thought would be the cause of the body. Yet there are bodies that do not think. Rather, it is because I consist both of body and mind that I think; so that body and mind united are the cause of thought. For if I were only body, I would not think. If I were only mind, I would have pure intelligence (God). In fact, thinking is the sign, and not the cause, of my being.
Yes you are if you post on LULZ.
if you define ourselves with the objects "an arrangement of fat and protein with electricity running through it" then you say we are a computer, but a computer can not be conscious or aware that it is conscious. only a human can program a computer to give the illusion its conscious of itself
any kind of thinking where your mind is separated from your bodily function. but this would mean your body can already function without your conscious, like when you're sleeping
The problem with these is they confuse mental activity with consciousness. The average person always have mental activity, but not always conscience. You must define your concepts first so we can agree on something before having this discussion...
consciousness is an illusion, it doesn't exit
>X is Y
>X doesn't exist
The second statement renders the first nonsensical.
>he thinks consciousness is housed
Dude, read the sutras.
Dude, develop schizophrenia.
Replacing one illusion with two simultaneous illusions both derived from illusority isn't an achievement.
LULZ thinks consciousness is instantiated because they're too stupid to have read ontology. Read the sutras or Heidegger. Personally I'd prefer to not have to read yet another German nazi redoing actual Aryan politics in a laughable joke form. I'd rather read invented stories about a mythical fat prince who never existed. And after I've finished masturbating to Goering porn I'd read the sutras.
Kek you pretentious pseuds. LULZ had way better discussion than all this pedantic one-up-manship despite supposedly being 'materialist bugmen'. Fucking embarrassing.
Holy shit I hope you are trolling because LULZ doesn't even understand what idealism and materialism are.
In any case, why would the idealist board have a meaningful discussing about a purely materialistic set of choices? We are all a Pure Ego, we are all individuals, there is no contradiction.
That's probably because LULZ has a 24/7 recurring consciousness threads and LULZ does not. Anyway consciousness is a problem of modern philosophy. LULZ prefers to wank over Plato and Nietzsche.
>Anyway consciousness is a problem of modern philosophy.
you don't even know what materialism is, wanker
Material purist configuration neutral but include animals
Possibly AGI will qualify at some point but I don't think its a given by any means. We might find that its impossible to develop
all things in the world house consciousness
Is the picture talking about fundamental experience / qualia or consciousness as in sustained awareness? The only conceivable purpose of this chart is to facilitate a reddit circlejerk where actual thinking is not allowed.
That doesn't mean anything. Nothing is explained or even roughly described.
Eukaryotic cells house consciousness
Questions pertaining to consciousness are nonsense. Next
We know certain parts rely on the mechanism in the brain. It's not possible to describe a mechanism for some parts like experience itself. The parts we can't describe further are like fundamental forces in physics. The elements we can't reduce to further parts are considered fundamental until more is known.
Material radical configuration radical, except I don’t believe that all things house consciousness because that makes it sound like there is more than one consciousness and still that matter is necessary for consciousness. I believe that everything that exist is being perceived by the same thing that exists whether the material is there to “house” it or not.
The worse scenario is always correct.
>philosophy of mind
>thread will inevitably be swamped by the 2-3 clinical autists who are eliminative materialists, and insist that because they have no conscious experience on account of extreme autism, no one else does either
Only human brains house true counciousness. None of this chart makes sense.
The only thing I’m certain of is that I’m uncertain about everything
>brain is consciousness
So fucking gay
I think a lot of scientists are double radical. There is this theory of universal consciousness I first read about on TRF, and I think a lot of hep-th guys agree with Lubos on most non-politcal topics.
I don't remember who authored this theory, it essentially said everything is conscious to a degree, and that typically consciousness - entanglement entropy. This consciousness function was called Psi, as in $Psi$ I remember that much.
Tononi's Phi. It's the only remotely plausible materialist theory of consciousness out there (though it is actually a form of dualism, and this remains fatally flawed)
As a scientist myself I regret to inform you that many if not most scientists are pretty much retarded, quite possibly myself included. Appeals to authority are of little value if the authorities you’re appealing to are incapable of successfully tying their own shoes
>I don't remember who authored this theory, it essentially said everything is conscious to a degree
said, it's a rare materialist view that actually relies upon solid logical thought. Giordano Bruno was the first I know of to argue this point. It's "logical" in that it doesn't violate the PPC by asserting that consciousness can appear in an organism without already being present in the materials that organism is made out of. What a lot of bugmen do in this domain is assert that consciousness just appears or materializes at a certain arbitrary stage of neural complexity, which lo and behold, violates basic logical principles, even though they never admit it (in that you can never have an effect, consciousness, which is absolutely different from its cause, the matter that support it).
>The material and immaterial can’t interact unless material and immaterial are the same thing
This is not true. They can interact if they are mediated by a higher, unifying principle. Look into non-dualism. The only caveat here is of course that the distinction between material and immaterial is ultimately illusory, so that in a sense you are right, material and immaterial are the same when viewed from the mediated perspective, but the consequences are far more significant than most would admit. (Which is that it's not simply the case that "matter" is real and the immaterial is just a kind of matter. Fundamentally both matter and non-matter are illusory. But in their respective domains, matter and non-matter are conditionally distinctive and can interact without being "the same").
>in that you can never have an effect, consciousness, which is absolutely different from its cause, the matter that support it
What is "absolutely" different? Please define this in a "non-arbitrary" way.
Do you deny that qualitative changes can happen after sufficient quantitative changes? The existence of bifurcation points in statistics, changes in state of matter at certain pressure/temperature combinations? Why does a chemical reaction between two reagents happen when a certain "arbitrary" temperature is reached?
You can think of consciousness as a latent "potentiality" (in the Aristotelian sense which I am not otherwise partial to) which is "actualised" at a certain quantitative threshold.
>What is "absolutely" different? Please define this in a "non-arbitrary" way.
Sharing no essential attributes. If an essential attribute of consciousness is subjectivity of a sort (for argument's sake), then this essential attribute must be present in that which it is produced from.
>Do you deny that qualitative changes can happen after sufficient quantitative changes?
No, it's only denied that the quality which appears wasn't already present in the matter which changed. The fact that water freezes at zero is already contained in the essential nature of water (subject to all other modifying attributes like salt content), the only change is in the appearance of the water, not its essential nature. To say that this qualitative attribute was created by a quantitative change is to confuse priorities, because it's the nature of the water which is what really causes it to freeze at zero, not "zero degrees" (which is just an arbitrary number, and there are plenty of non-water substances which won't freeze or change state at this particular temperature).
>The existence of bifurcation points in statistics, changes in state of matter at certain pressure/temperature combinations?
This is bringing in extraneous matter to the conversation. Pressure and temperature are not purely quantitative, nor are any subjects of statistical interpretation. That's just how we represent them. It's confusing measurement with reality. The easiest way to show how this is false is by examining the basic constituency of pressures and temperatures, which according to the standard explanation is particulate matter moving in different and random directions. But directional movement, in particular the direction itself, is qualitative, non-quantitative. And this is ignoring countless other facts, like that each compound has its own particular nature, that quantification is just abstraction from reality, and is therefore a red herring in discussions like this one.
> Why does a chemical reaction between two reagents happen when a certain "arbitrary" temperature is reached?
Because it's not arbitrary at all. The qualities of the matter have already prefigured what temperature will cause a reaction. Hence why you cannot just apply an absolute temperature between different molecules and expect a single number to account for a difference in every molecule's reactivity. The reason is that the meaning of that quantity is determined in advance by the matter.
>You can think of consciousness as a latent "potentiality" (in the Aristotelian sense which I am not otherwise partial to) which is "actualised" at a certain quantitative threshold.
Ok, but the people whose position I am representing don't acknowledge virtual or eminent causation, only formal causation. If virtual or eminent causes are introduced, it results in non-materialist implications like essences, which is the opposite of what they are attempting to argue.
>Sharing no essential attributes
Forgive me if I'm coming off as obtuse, but it appears to me you've merely shifted the semantic burden from the word "absolute" to the word "essential" by a mere rephrasing, rather than an explanation or definition proper.
>No, it's only denied that the quality which appears wasn't already present in the matter which changed.
This line of reasoning appears ontological. What is stopping me from making an arbitrary determination about the essentiality of any change or quality, either posited or observed in an entity? This is a hollow semantic model, basic Platonic dualism even, where any attribute is simply separated into an observed appearance and a formal, noetic identification of an underlying essential component.
>The easiest way to show how this is false is by examining the basic constituency of pressures and temperatures, which according to the standard explanation is particulate matter moving in different and random directions.
I would argue this line of reasoning is reductive in a way that arbitrarily privileges some measurements over others, reinterpets some quantities as qualities, rather than methodologically drawing any distinctions between those pairs.
>The qualities of the matter have already prefigured what temperature will cause a reaction.
Let me ask the following question then: which prefigured, essential qualities of the relevant entities determine that the more times a fair coin is flipped, the closer the ratio of heads to tails will approach 1:1 exactly?
>but it appears to me you've merely shifted the semantic burden from the word "absolute" to the word "essential" by a mere rephrasing
If you don't understand what it is to be an essential attribute, then I don't believe there is much I can do to help you. The essential attribute is that without which a thing loses its quiddity. If consciousness does not have the attribute "subjectivity", or whatever else is necessary to what we are referring to as consciousness, then it is not consciousness, but something else. If these essential attributes are not shared between two things, then there can be no conditioning relationship between them. There is no semantic burden here, it just requires that you understand the relevant definitions.
>What is stopping me from making an arbitrary determination about the essentiality of any change or quality, either posited or observed in an entity?
Reality. Of course it's ontological, anything non-ontological is, by definition, unreal and therefore not worth considering or discussing. To actually rebut your claim with an example, if you say that the essence of consciousness is that it has two legs, then you've merely redefined a word, and the essence of consciousness still remains what it was. "Two-leggedness" is now merely a synonym for consciousness, and we would need a new word for what was formerly known as consciousness. The essence remains unchanged, possibly for the simple reason that there are distinctive things which remain coherent and unified in and of themselves. Like consciousness, like a water molecule, like a tree. They all have specific essential attributes which differentiate them from what is not them.
> where any attribute is simply separated into an observed appearance and a formal, noetic identification of an underlying essential component.
This is how reality works after any sufficient degree of observation. A water molecule, insofar as it is really a water molecule, will always possess the same qualities. Things don't just change without a prior reason, nor do they behave in a way that's contrary to their pre-existing nature.
>I would argue this line of reasoning is reductive in a way that arbitrarily privileges some measurements over others
You can argue whatever you want, but if you don't provide reasons for it, there's no reason I will consider it a valid rebuttal.
>rather than methodologically drawing any distinctions between those pairs.
If you want a methodology, there is plenty of literature on exactly this topic. My post cannot give you an exhaustive explanation or methodology.
>which prefigured, essential qualities of the relevant entities determine that the more times a fair coin is flipped, the closer the ratio of heads to tails will approach 1:1 exactly?
None, because statistical laws aren't actual laws, they are just chance tendencies, which might foreseeably be completely disrupted at any time.
>The essential attribute is that without which a thing loses its quiddity.
A thing's "quiddity" is identical to the thing itself by definition. The assertion that (to rephrase) "consciousness is consciousness by virtue of what is necessary for consciousness" is tautological.
What I mean by "ontological" is, in a narrower terminological sense, in reference to the ontological fallacy, according to which any entity can be said to be real by virtue of the concept of the entity itself. "Reality" can be defined to include the contents of the mind as well as the contents of the world outside the mind, and without further distinction, they exist on the same footing. Anything that can be spoken or conceived of, including self-contradictory statements, is true and "real" by virtue of existing either as a concept in a mind that is a subset of broader reality.
To cut to the chase, when you speak of "reality" and "essential attributes", you are conjuring algebraic constructs onto which you shift the semantic burden pertaining to the entities you are trying to explain. You are attempting to solve for x by introducing a new variable y, which defines x. They merely rephrase the problem in a new framework. This approach can be useful, but only as a step of a broader operation.
>This is how reality works after any sufficient degree of observation.
This not how reality is explained. One does not explain the phenomenon of water by observing water, defining it as water, and then defining all as of yet observed and unobserved qualities of water as constituents of its quiddity. This is a purely symbolic operation. It is a necessary first step, but it explains nothing.
>chance tendencies, which might foreseeably be completely disrupted at any time.
This applies to all "laws" that are not simply analytic propositions, which I have gathered is what you mean by "actual laws".
I'm inclined to say consciousness is housed in the brain, but it can't be verified empirically since it's immaterial.
If it’s immaterial then how is it “housed” in matter? Every option in the OP assumes materialism. The material and immaterial can’t interact unless material and immaterial are the same thing, that’s why you have to be either a neutral monist or a pure idealist or pure materialist.
Can you spare a few moments to hear about our metaphysical Lord and savior, dual aspect monism?
And yes op's chart is actually a great filter. Anyone who finds their position represented on it is an idiot who ought to remain silent or retreat to LULZ to circle jerk with fellow illiterates
meh i'm an infinity aspect monist. nothing is special about extension and thought except they are two forms we happened to evolve to be able to cognize.
Deleuze solved this problem already
Configuration Purist/Material Purist. It's the only statement of which you can be unequivocally certain and it doesn't necessitate mastabatory hypotheticals. LULZ is the board of "simple as."
What makes you so certain other brains are conscious? It's a "mastabotry hypothetical" you happen to like.
Mine is. Simple as.
Matter is conscious because my matter is.
Hypotheses non fingo. Simple as.
>Hypotheses non fingo
You are putting forward a hypothesis you brainwashed reddit retard. You chose one that's completely indefensible and makes no sense because it comforts you. You deliberately conflate the parts of experience we understand with the parts we don't so you can maintain your delusions.
>You are putting forward a hypothesis
Nope. It's an observation.
>You chose one that's completely indefensible
I chose the most defensible option available (i.e. OP's chart).
>makes no sense
My brain is largely responsible for my consciousness. Makes perfect sense to me.
>because it comforts you
I don't find it comforting. It's just true.
> You deliberately conflate the parts of experience we understand with the parts we don't so you can maintain your delusions
My post was 5 words. Simple as.
>Nope. It's an observation.
Nope. Notice how many things you can get wrong in so few words as a brainwashed retard. You have no clue what "consciousness" is or if it's local to anything. You're confusing your preference for how you would like things to observations. Your chosen explanation doesn't even model anything, it just pretends there isn't a question. The simplest assumption in all fields when there's no apparent local mechanism is always universality, The assumption that triangles don't work the same on the moon introduces unnecessary complexity, like you're doing with "consciousness".
>he assumption that triangles don't work the same on the moon introduces unnecessary complexity
That's an example of what I meant by "mastabatory hypotheticals." You're reading an awful lot into simple posts, anon. Simple as.
You can't even distinguish between simple and complex. You think "simple" means what you're already conditioned to believe.
Assume universality and then add exceptions as they come like in all other fields, don't start with a complex list of exceptions based on nothing. What is the actual list? You never elaborated because it's so "simple". When precisely does the fetus/baby brain become conscious? What about animals? What do you base any of this arbitrary shit on?
>Hypotheses non fingo. Simple as.
I'm a thinking thing. You are not. Simple as.
How do you know all these things? Why is there no apparent thought process? Repeat your unchallenged conditioning and punctuate it with a slogan again, it will surely be convincing this time, maybe if you record yourself chanting it.
You're projecting, anon. Simple as.
Say something retard. Simple as. 1 is not 2 no matter how many times you say it is and claim it "simply is".
"Simple as." Simple as.
You're the definition of the npc meme. You can be programmed to believe anything because you don't feel the need to justify any of it to yourself. The conditioning is the holy "simple as", that which simply is, the Yah-weh.
Where is the phenomena? To explain it would you start with the assumption that it only happens in the brands of metronomes you have access to? Would you assume this wouldn't happen if the physics were simulated in a computer?
>filtered by spontaneous emergence
Complexity theory. Simple as.
You have never produced a thought in your life. Simple as.
how do you know that it's your brain that is conscious though? you know that you are conscious, but you don't know that that is coming from the thing that lies spatially behind where your faculty of vision seems to be located. all you know is that a causal connection between the actions of other organisms and their brains has been observed.
I fall on the "we don't know".
>the same arrangement as a human brain
So animals aren't conscious?
Anything but Material Configuration correctist is a fucking idiot. ONLY this square has been proven.
>ONLY this square has been proven.
What are the parameters of the experiment that proved this? It's proven so show the proof retard.
I'm material radical, configuration neutral, but I do not subscribe to the retarded description in your chart.
To be clear: something understandable as "consciousness" can and does arise on any substrate that is capable of self-governance (in the sense of Cybernetics). It just so happens that we have only seen this consistently and lastingly occur in brains, but that doesn't mean it couldn't or hasn't arisen elsewhere.
If it can't handle the bants then it ain't consciousness. When cats start shit posting call me, until then I'm skinning and eating their young.
Yes this does mean I eat american children.
Material/configuration radical; consciousness is real, everything is conscious, and whether something is conscious or not doesn't matter. Consciousness isn't a byproduct, parasite, or mistake, but a fundamental 'glue' that keeps systems in check: locking them into the mode of life by making them fear the loss of their consciousness.
I am the only consciousness and you are only automatons acting as if you had one
I am an automation acting as if I am conscious and you are all actually conscious. Prove me me.
What is this chart even supposed to represent? What intent is it made for? Without context this is nonsense and there is no real, useful choice to be made.
Configuration purist (or maybe neutral) and material radical.
In terms of configuration:
We can only know for sure that we ourselves possess consciousness. As you get further away from yourself, however, your certainty decreases. It is highly likely that other people, who have very similar biology to our own, also possess consciousness. Dogs and cats, also likely conscious. Birds? Probably. Ants? Bacteria? It’s impossible to say.
In terms of materials:
There is no practical difference between electricity running through meat, electricity running through metal, and water running through metal. A mechanical computer is impractical, sure, but it’s not fundamentally different.
In general, I think these sorts of things are a waste of time. The boundary between barely conscious and not conscious is not a line you can find, and it’s arbitrary anyways. Same goes for living vs nonliving, and other such things.
I don't know