Why are living beings born into the specific bodies we were born into?

Why are living beings born into the specific bodies we were born into?

Why was I not born as a rat in London in 1833 that died after 2 days? Why were you not born as a bug in 60 million BC?

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >living beings born into the specific bodies
    >Implying consciousness exits independent from the body/brain
    No

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Even so, why are you yourself? Why do you have your unique first-person perception of reality? Why do I have mine?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because your consciousness is being created in your head, not mine and vice versa.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          there is no soul, we are but fleshy automatons exposed to knowledge never meant to be uncovered by feeble animal brains, now we have to make sense of this accursed existence and the endless uncaring void we reside in
          your consciousness is a lie, simply a glorified net of electric impulses and hormones assuring your continued existence
          the caveman in each of us screams
          >grug no understand, grug no comprehend, grug scared

          I wouldn't say consciousness is a lie, or just being created in my head. Because what I do with my consciousness affects what happens in other beings' consciousness as well (at least those that exist in the same plane of reality that I do.)

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          You still can't answer why I inhabit my own particular consciousness. You can't answer why anyone inhabits their own consciousness. To claim otherwise, you must either misunderstand the problem or deliberately ignore it to produce an easier answer.
          Why is it that anyone experiences their own first-person perception of reality? Surely the universe could operate as if everyone were the "observed" and not the "observer", or put another way, if everyone was third-person and no one had a first-person experience.
          Yes, I know there wouldn't be an observer to observe anyone in this scenario but surely you grasp what I mean?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You still can't answer why I inhabit my own particular consciousness
            its called circumstances buddy pal guy, your personality isn't a divine creation lent to you by god, its the product of the shitty environment your parents gave you. every single habit, thought pattern, opinion etc you develop are one way or another the result of your previous experiences

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Really trippy to learn I’m walking through the streets and interacting with people who don’t understand this

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            What you're describing as perspective is an illusion that is the byproduct of the brains processes. You are a shard of a greater consciousness, but because things like memory storage and sensory input happen at the physical level, every brain has separate memories and nervous systems. You feel like you're only you because the brain you're using to process these thoughts doesn't have access to any other brain's system. The part of you that's collective to all living things necessarily isn't within the realm of living things, or material reality at all. You're not a rat in the 1800s because the brain you're confusing for yourself isn't one of a rat.

            It's like a piece of software that makes up a system across many interwoven computers, and one instantiation of that software on one particular machine is asking "why am I this computer and not that one?" The answer is that the software is ON both computers but it IS NEITHER of the computers, it is software, something not made out of matter, but patterns that exist independent of any computer that might be running it.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >You feel like you're only you because the brain you're using to process these thoughts doesn't have access to any other brain's system.
              But why of all the brains in the world, why did I get access to this one?
              Why isn't a different consciousness inhabiting my brain right now?
              Or perhaps there are multiple, or even infinite numbers of consciousnesses experiencing my life right now?

              >You're not a rat in the 1800s because the brain you're confusing for yourself isn't one of a rat.
              But why isn't it one of a rat? I feel like there's no answer to this within our plane of reality.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >But why isn't it one of a rat? I feel like there's no answer to this within our plane of reality.
                Yes, it's impossible to explain a seemingly causative process you can't observe.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                So, you have to assume it's somehow predetermined, but I couldn't tell you how.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well, I'd say the primordial reality is a free mix of being and becoming, an analytical posterior, that is every object self-defines its actions and vice versa. In material reality, everything retains its own part of this quasi-consciousness, but you need a brain to actually experience this. However, that's more woo than scientific, and I'm aware it doesn't really satisfy the question.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >illusion
              WHO is being affected by the illusion here?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You are the illusion.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      So you believe you are ground beef

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        NTA what? Do you mean like meat bag meme? For people who claim to hate reddit so much you think and talk just like they do.

        No one is meat or ground beef, when you’re talking or interacting with a person you are doing so with an unfathomably complex being of electricity primarily located behind your forehead to above the back of your throat.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >an unfathomably complex being of electricity
          That sounds like pagan magic. But what is a being? There's just electricity and chemicals, no "being". Who cares that there's some current running through the ground beef? What difference does that make?

          You’re talking to a person who has never taken any formal classes in neuroscience/physics at a high level. Such people really shouldn’t be able to pollute the informational commons with their nonsense.

          We aren't talking about science at all

          There’s no reason to think the “problem” of consciousness hasn’t been solved. The current work on consciousness hasn’t been falsified.

          You don't believe that for any reason you just believe it because the laws of physics operating on your brain caused you to believe it.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That sounds like pagan magic. But what is a being? There's just electricity and chemicals, no "being". Who cares that there's some current running through the ground beef?
            It’s running through the most complex wiring in the known universe. It’s shocking how difficult it is for you to understand the distinction between the neuronal connections of the cerebrum and just shocking a pile of hamburger.
            It’s like electrocuting a rock vs. powering up a supercomputer. I can’t fathom why you would be struggling with something this basic.
            Are you being stupid on purpose?

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Why does it matter what shape the meat is in? It's just meat with electricity going through it. Supercomputers don't think or feel either, so I don't see what difference it being made of meat makes.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Structure creates function. The same reason why you plugging in a rock does basically nothing compared to a supercomputer is directly because of the structure of the object and how electricity flows through it.
                If you’re serious you’re too unintelligent for this conversation, if you’re not you’re trolling.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                No I think you just don't understand my point. The mind produces thought and experiences experience. This is something which material objects do not do. I don't care how complicated the hamburger is, it's still a hamburger. To drive home the point, what is a thought? Is it an electro-chemical process in the brain? Then how is it any different from any other material object? I don't care how complicated it is, we're still talking about some overglorified electric beef. Thoughts? Feelings? Nope, no more than a rock.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                It’s the most complicated electrical wired object in the known universe. Yes it’s capable of doing things nothing else you know of can do.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Also, a supercomputer might be a lot like a rock, but the chasm between a thinking thing and it is exactly as large as the chasm between the former and a rock, because the supercomputer is still mere matter

                It’s the most complicated electrical wired object in the known universe. Yes it’s capable of doing things nothing else you know of can do.

                No it's not, because consciousness is not a thing which is done but a thing which exists. Again, what is a thought? Electro-chemical processes aren't terribly impressive, I could shock some hamburger and do that. There is absolutely nothing special about thoughts if they are chemicals in the brain. What is it? What is it *doing* that's so special? Is there any difference in your worldview between a thinking thing and a philosophical zombie?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Anon if you don’t know that increasing the complexity of electrical circuitry yields increased capability, and that taken far beyond the most advanced supercomputer yields results you’re finding difficulty accepting I can’t help you.

                There is clearly an emotional or maybe cognitive barrier to you accepting your thoughts are coming from your brain

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Also
                >There is clearly an emotional or maybe cognitive barrier to you accepting your thoughts are coming from your brain
                Nope, it's just the laws of physics pressing on the chemicals of my brain compelling me to believe it.

                >thought is something the brain does", but what *is* it? What is it "doing"?
                Processing information. It’s not going to be 1 to 1 with computers as you understand because its wiring is more structured like a tree than a circuit board of right angles, but yes you are processing information.

                >I hear words in my soul as if spoken to me yet there is no sound, I consider these words and construct them myself, and then I type them for you here.
                Yup me too. The process is visible in brain scans where you’re processing inner monologue partially as if you’re hearing it.

                .)Not only is it completely unacceptable rationally speaking to call that a material process as if it was anything like lava shooting from a volcano
                It’s electricity, you keep bringing up matter but electricity is very much unique and capable of seemingly magical things compared to hot matter or rocks or dead meat.
                >but speaking of complexity fails completely to resolve the problem I am raising, since if what I have described is simply current running through some really complicated meat then it is truly nothing more than ground beef
                That’s not how I frame it, I’m a living person. You’re going out of your way to compare yourself to dead ground up meat, it’s not accurate. You probably just hate yourself.

                >Processing information
                Is that all it is an nothing more, no different from a computer processing information? In what sense is inner sight and the inner voice information processing? And what is experiencing the phenomena of inner sight and the inner voice?
                >you keep bringing up matter but electricity is very much unique and capable of seemingly magical things compared to hot matter or rocks or dead meat.
                E=MCsquared. What is this magical thing it's capable of doing? You still haven't explained it. Processing information doesn't seem terribly impressive or magical nor does it seem anything like a thought. Some metal and plastic can process information.
                >That’s not how I frame it, I’m a living person
                Good for you. You have no right to see it that way given your worldview. What separates you from a pile of ground beef? Some electricity? Hang on, let me get a cattle prod and a burger.
                >You’re going out of your way to compare yourself to dead ground up meat, it’s not accurate. You probably just hate yourself.
                Why is it not accurate? It's all matter, right? I don't hate myself, I do hate the folly of atheism but I fail to see its relevance to this conversation.

                experience is being used pretty vaguely here, but as I explained your brain processes what you see so if you consider that experiencing then yeah

                Do I *experience* sight in a way distinct from how a camera "experiences" an image?

                >they know on a level far more fundamental than empirical data that a thought is an abstract object, not a material process
                you can't verify that something is an abstract object, at best you're calling something abstract only because it hasn't been proven to be physical yet, which itself isn't evidence

                A doctor tries to reason with a lunatic who believes he is dead, ultimately he gets him to agree that dead men don't bleed, the doctor quickly pulls out a scalpel and cuts him; "Well what do you know, I guess dead men do bleed!"

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Do I *experience* sight in a way distinct from how a camera "experiences" an image?

                >camera takes picture
                >camera project picture on the screen
                >user analyzes it

                >eye sees world
                >brain projects world into visual cortex
                >user analyzes it

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                What user?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                the body itself is the user, seeking to delay its inevitable ending and trying to pass down its genetics, some of them really go as far as to argue they're ethereal beings created by gods so they can cope in faith that there is an afterlife waiting for them

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it's not, because consciousness is not a thing which is done but a thing which exists
                I’m not convinced. Everything we’ve learned about it points more toward a process instead of an object.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >consciousness is not a thing which is done but a thing which exists.
                NTA, but if consciousness is not a process but just a thing which exists how come it can change over time like a dynamic process rather than a static object. Also if consciousness is not a process why is it affected by the condition of the brain and body, for example being drunk or having brain damage can seemingly impair consciousness as if it's not its own separate object and you actually experience these impairments.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The mind produces thought and experiences experience. This is something which material objects do not do
                thats the brain, not the mind and the process is still very much material. thoughts and experiences, through the processing of visual/auditory/sensitory stimuli and breaking down the situation based on available data (AKA memory AKA previous recorded experiences) you look for first hand experiences to compare to, remember anything someone told you about relevant to the situation, avoid what didn't work/was told wouldn't work/doesn't seem like it would work previously and try doing what worked/was told would work/seemingly would work

                I'm talking about my consciousness, not the atoms that make me up.

                your consciousness is the atoms that make it up, on a more conceptual sense you as a person are the sum of your life, determinism and causality and whatnot. everything you think like hate do are the result of shit you lived heard saw, a brain/mind cannot develop let alone exist in a vacuum, that is to say look up genie the feral child

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I do not merely see out my eyes but I experience sight. A camera records an image, but does it experience what an image 'looks like'?

                Anon if you don’t know that increasing the complexity of electrical circuitry yields increased capability, and that taken far beyond the most advanced supercomputer yields results you’re finding difficulty accepting I can’t help you.

                There is clearly an emotional or maybe cognitive barrier to you accepting your thoughts are coming from your brain

                >increasing the complexity of electrical circuitry yields increased capability
                You still aren't hearing me, you're telling me it has "increased capability" but increased capability to do what? "A thought is something the brain does", but what *is* it? What is it "doing"? We know what a thought is, in spite of what some may claim to believe, they know on a level far more fundamental than empirical data that a thought is an abstract object, not a material process. I reason in my mind, I hear words in my soul as if spoken to me yet there is no sound, I consider these words and construct them myself, and then I type them for you here. Not only is it completely unacceptable rationally speaking to call that a material process as if it was anything like lava shooting from a volcano, but speaking of complexity fails completely to resolve the problem I am raising, since if what I have described is simply current running through some really complicated meat then it is truly nothing more than ground beef, scaled up.

                >consciousness is not a thing which is done but a thing which exists.
                NTA, but if consciousness is not a process but just a thing which exists how come it can change over time like a dynamic process rather than a static object. Also if consciousness is not a process why is it affected by the condition of the brain and body, for example being drunk or having brain damage can seemingly impair consciousness as if it's not its own separate object and you actually experience these impairments.

                Consciousness is immaterial and not subject to physical law. How do you know that damage to the body changes it, rather than changing the relationship between it and the body?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I do not merely see out my eyes but I experience sight.
                >through the processing of visual/auditory/sensitory stimuli
                >through the processing
                >processing

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do I *experience* sight?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                experience is being used pretty vaguely here, but as I explained your brain processes what you see so if you consider that experiencing then yeah

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >thought is something the brain does", but what *is* it? What is it "doing"?
                Processing information. It’s not going to be 1 to 1 with computers as you understand because its wiring is more structured like a tree than a circuit board of right angles, but yes you are processing information.

                >I hear words in my soul as if spoken to me yet there is no sound, I consider these words and construct them myself, and then I type them for you here.
                Yup me too. The process is visible in brain scans where you’re processing inner monologue partially as if you’re hearing it.

                .)Not only is it completely unacceptable rationally speaking to call that a material process as if it was anything like lava shooting from a volcano
                It’s electricity, you keep bringing up matter but electricity is very much unique and capable of seemingly magical things compared to hot matter or rocks or dead meat.
                >but speaking of complexity fails completely to resolve the problem I am raising, since if what I have described is simply current running through some really complicated meat then it is truly nothing more than ground beef
                That’s not how I frame it, I’m a living person. You’re going out of your way to compare yourself to dead ground up meat, it’s not accurate. You probably just hate yourself.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >they know on a level far more fundamental than empirical data that a thought is an abstract object, not a material process
                you can't verify that something is an abstract object, at best you're calling something abstract only because it hasn't been proven to be physical yet, which itself isn't evidence

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >How do you know that damage to the body changes it, rather than changing the relationship between it and the body?
                Anon you can talk to people with brain damage. They have fundamentally lost part of themselves

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Consciousness is immaterial and not subject to physical law
                I don't think this is completely true.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >your consciousness is the atoms that make it up
                is it really though? Do the exact same atoms make up my brain for my entire life? What happens if eventually, 10 years down the road, some of my current atoms make their way to someone else's brain through something they ate?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not until I end up in the grinder

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's not what I'm implying at all. I'm asking why we're born into the bodies we're born into, which includes the brain.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        The possibility of even asking the question disproves that consciousness is in the brain. No matter how hard you try to explain it to him he won’t understand the question because doing so would immediately disprove his worldview.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          There’s no reason to think the “problem” of consciousness hasn’t been solved. The current work on consciousness hasn’t been falsified.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The answer to the question isn’t in the domain of science, it is provable by the law of non-contradiction alone and therefore isn’t any more falsifiable than 1 + 1 = 2

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >The answer to x specific belief I hold can’t be discovered empirically
              The claim of every single faith healer, scam artist and fraudster for the last 3000 years.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                The answer to the question isn’t in the domain of science, it is provable by the law of non-contradiction alone and therefore isn’t any more falsifiable than 1 + 1 = 2

                And your specific case isn’t different than any of the other bullshitters - be they Abrahamists, Marxists, or other mysticists - they’re all just bullshitters repeating social construction.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ask yourself... why a lot of people still believe in it and have faith?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Addiction to the illusion of control it provides. Same reason anyone of low agency and cognitive ability is attracted to supernaturalism.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Please explain how you can empirically discover empiricism? By taking the scientific method as the only way to gain knowledge you are doing the same thing I am. By saying only science brings knowledge you have already made an unscientific, pre-scientific, non-empirical claim.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You don’t empirically discover it. Empirical statements consist of internally consistent a-priori claims (analytic, synthetic, contingent synthetic or necessary synthetic in order of increasing precision).

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then attacking me because my beliefs are not falsifiable is not valid as the belief in soemthing like an a priori realm or a priori validity is not falsifiable either

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                So empirical proofs are not necessary for every beliefs?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Have you discovered empirically that beliefs need to be discovered empirically?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/11OGq3E.jpg

        Why are living beings born into the specific bodies we were born into?

        Why was I not born as a rat in London in 1833 that died after 2 days? Why were you not born as a bug in 60 million BC?

        I used to ask this question all the time as a kid, and I think it's one reason I tend to have fantastical dreams.
        I think it comes down to something like karmic relations that's impossible to fully understand via reason.
        I think the rat who was fed by a kid, comes to love the kid in some ways, and in his final moments dying, if his life was genuine, he will be reborn as a kid.
        What this implies is a solipsistic reality of dreams within dreams, and that it continues until karma can be purified.
        No one is exactly on the temporal scale, the temporal scale is completely relative, so everything experienced is akin to a mirror.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >life
          love*
          Also, this isn't exactly New Age because in a sense it is not feel good in its implications. It is dukkha

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      You’re talking to a person who has never taken any formal classes in neuroscience/physics at a high level. Such people really shouldn’t be able to pollute the informational commons with their nonsense.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      This dodges the question. It has nothing to do with materialism.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      How do you explain near death experiences then?
      >inb4 muh drugs being released by the brain to ease the process of dying
      It's anecdotal evidence, sure, but i think it's a strong indication that there actually is some sort of incorporeal form of human consciousness that continues to exist independently from the physical body after it has perished. It is completely unknown where this consciousness ("soul", if you will) progresses on towards since people who experienced NDEs obviously were in some sort of transitional limbo state between life and the afterlife.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >How do you explain near death experiences then?
        Drugs being released by the brain to ease the process of dying. Simple as.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous
          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >religious boys complain day in and day out about secularism being supposedly nihilistic
            >they also attack any attempt to derive wonder and awe from reality

            OR

            >stupid christcuck doesn’t know where heavier elements come from

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why would evolution select for this, accepting death usually reduces fitness

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe that calming mechanism reduces cardiac death and psychological incapacitation rates by deeply calming people who have brushes with death

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        We can trigger NDE in labs, with no chance of the person dying.Its just an odd function of our brain, which is not a perfect computer and does all sorts of odd things under stress.

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Everything has awareness but only particular beings become aware that they are aware. Your awareness is not in a body but your awareness of your awareness is.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Also you are only aware of a specific subset of your awareness. In theory everything has the same awareness but “you” insofar as you are a brain only get a slice

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who you are is a direct result of your specific DNA, body and nervous system. You are actively being created by your specific DNA and body.

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    how do you know you weren't

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's an insoluble problem so far. We need to solve the hard problem before we can begin to address it.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      It can’t be studied by science because science is posterior to observation and observation is posterior to consciousness. It’s the domain of philosophy and it’s already been solved many times.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        It absolutely can. The reason why you are in your head is because your brain is creating you in your head right now or no one else’s. I’m not sure if this is directly addressed in scientific papers but that is the conclusion of aggregate scientific knowledge on the topic at the very least.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The reason why you are in your head is because your brain is creating you in your head right now or no one else’s.
          That reason comes from observation, but observation comes from consciousness. That means that you presupposed knowledge of what consciousness is in order to explain it. That’s begging the question.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            None of this was pre-supposed, this was learned over the course of civilization through study.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              “Study” itself was presupposed

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    there is no soul, we are but fleshy automatons exposed to knowledge never meant to be uncovered by feeble animal brains, now we have to make sense of this accursed existence and the endless uncaring void we reside in
    your consciousness is a lie, simply a glorified net of electric impulses and hormones assuring your continued existence
    the caveman in each of us screams
    >grug no understand, grug no comprehend, grug scared

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    There isn't some giant basket with "souls" that are picked and thrown in random bodies, retard
    You could never have been anything else than what you are

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You could never have been anything else than what you are
      What about twins, who are biologically identical? What decides which consciousness gets into which body?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        You still don't get it. He's saying that who you are is a product of the environment not of some soul that was downloaded into your body. Every single day you are being changed, parts of you created and destroyed by time and environment. The illusion that consciousness exists outside the body is borne out of our poor comprehension of unexplained phenomena. The consciousness you have today isn't the same that you had when an infant, it's not dissimilar though, it has grown because your body was changed by interacting with the environment.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The illusion that consciousness exists outside the body
          I did not say this, ever. You didn't address my point at all lmao.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is your point? NTA but it’s not obvious

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but "seperate consciousness" isn't really a thing pre-birth, an unborn child has nothing to call a consciousness as it doesn't even know what the world is, so in your terms "they have the same indistinguishable" consciousness

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >an unborn child has nothing to call a consciousness as it doesn't even know what the world is
              I wouldn't say this is definitively true, but you raise an interesting question: where does consciousness begin? I would imagine the answer can be pinpointed somewhat accurately using by looking at the brain development of fetuses and younger infants.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >where does consciousness begin?
                ironically enough google states it as "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings", almost like consciousness couldn't exist without the surroundings

                or at least more it cannot begin to exist without the surroundings, if you were put in a deprivation tank you could still think about things, an unborn fetus couldn't do that since it has nothing to think about

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Fetuses are not completely deprived of sensation. Only maybe extremely young ones that haven't developed nerves or hearing capacity or shit like that.
                But for any living being with a brain mildly capable of experiencing consciousness, it's virtually impossible to experience absolutely nothing at all.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >But for any living being with a brain mildly capable of experiencing consciousness, it's virtually impossible to experience absolutely nothing at all
                I know that, the point here is a concept not an actual experiment, explaining that all thought is derived from the physical world and the consciousness can't develop/exist without the physical world, the hero cannot exist in a vacuum

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >What decides which consciousness gets into which body?
        It’s created by each individual body. Twins are still going to be more alike than anyone else, but they are still two different beings in two different bodies

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I've been ruminating about this stuff a lot lately. I feel guilt because compared to the vast majority of humans throughout history I have such an easy life. And yet I haven't enjoyed life much, or really learned all that much.

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Within in an infinite amount of time anything and everything can and will happen. It quite possible there was a Paleolithic bug version of you, and a version of you that’s a salmon swimming around the behring straight circa 1906 but again, that assuming many things. The truth is we don’t definitively know why your particular spermcell won the race and became a sentient being in this time and 2000 years ago, but it’s called the butterfly effect. You could probably spend a lifetime tracing where you came from but don’t think about it too hard. Enjoy the now!

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >bug in 60 million BC?
    Because that long ago doesn't exist

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because the genetically immutable neurochemistry of your idiosyncratic brain produced your individual consciousness, mind, and capacity for introspection. It's really not difficult to pinpoint.

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    We haven't solved the hard problem of consciousness yet anon and we can't be sure if we ever will.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      What’s the problem specifically? Can you give an example? I’ve taken some university neuroscience classes and it’s unclear what this even is.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why do we have first-person qualia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia)?
        If you think that neuroscience explains this, you misunderstand the question. We may be able to explain how sensory perceptions work mechanistically, but we can't explain why we -experience- them.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >ut we can't explain why we -experience- them.
          What do you mean why? That’s like asking why you have a heartbeat. That’s just the biological function that evolved for that task in humans and animals. At least some of them.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Have you never considered why you are experiencing this particular moment in time as yourself from your perspective? That's what we're talking about, not the mechanics of your brain processing a visual signal.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Again the why seems out of place. It makes sense that I’m here experiencing things as I currently am. I don’t know what you’re not getting with all due respect

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why you, specifically, as yourself. Think about your own unique first-person experience of the world. You can explain everyone else's consciousness away with biology but what about your own? It's the only one that you fully experience. Why is that possible?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why would I be experiencing anyone else’s consciousness? I’m here as myself because that’s what I am. If you think that’s circular, every single question eventually reaches its answer.
                Is it possible for you to be less vague and more specific? Maybe an example?
                I’m experiencing my living room because I’m in it looking at it and standing in it

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                This is an extremely difficult topic to describe with words. I recommend reading the Wikipedia article on "hard problem of consciousness" and related articles. If you still don't get it after that I don't know, sorry. I assure you that I'm not making this up.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Okay maybe this will help, in your mind if there were no hard problem of consciousness what would it be like to experience looking at a tree?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think the reason why the question makes sense to him is because he thinks that he can experience anything else other than himself. That last statement doesn't even make sense if you define 'he' and 'himself' well enough. It's really a semantics issue that depends on whether you believe consciousness exists outside the body.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >he thinks that he can experience anything else other than himself
                Lmao why? What is wrong with dudes here

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Kek. Read my post again anon. It's a funny concept but it's justified if you believe certain axioms about consciousness.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Let me repharse the question anon so you understand better:
                >Why aren't we philosophical zombies?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                That’s like asking why our heart beats instead of a different blood pumping mechanisms like other animals. That’s just how that organ evolved to fulfill its function. Maybe some animals like bugs are strictly calculating computer brains, but we are conscious.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                This post proves autism is at an all time high.

                Here you all go, homosexuals. Take the set of all categories required to deny or call something into question (logic, self, quality, quantity, relations, truth, infinity, time, identity over time, modality, universals, etc.). You cannot deny or call into question these things.

                These undeniable assumptions are not compatible with any autistic, materialistic worldview, and nobody who claims to believe in materialism actually does. You’re self-deluding weirdos who are a fluke of history.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I never called myself a materialist, if you can’t explain what the hard problem of consciousness is to you I’m not interested. You don’t need autism to know consciousness is being created by our brains.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >hard problem
                >this thing I don’t believe in/can’t define is created ex nihlo from monkey brain
                Literally insane.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I do believe in consciousness, it is awareness, wakefulness and capability of thought, it is created by trillions and trillions of neuronal connections signaling with electricity.
                If you can’t articulate a specific problem then stop bitching.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s kind of difficult when you grew up in the culture you did, but it’s whatever. I’m not Kantian, but try understanding transcendental apperception and the incompatibility of the being over time of the self with the odd view you’re taking.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                The being remains similar over time because the neurons and their connections are not constantly destroying themselves and being remade from scratch. There’s a general structure, it grows and changes slowly over time which is why you change and grow slowly over time.

                I’d like to point out you did not have any specific criticism and both of you who have tried to challenge this were not specific in any way or able to articulate your specific qualms with the model. At least the other anon was reasonable and stopped talking when he had no answer.
                You on the other hand will continue to look more foolish and I’m certain you will only become more frustrated and aggressive at your inability to articulate your point.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The being remains similar
                Similar to what? You just said the whole being changes. This is goofy.
                >general structure
                What structure if everything changes?
                >I’d like to point out…
                Look, I don’t know if I’m older than you or just more privileged in this area, but there are certain concepts that you just don’t seem capable of understanding at the present moment. It’s fine. You’ll get it one day. I’m not trying to be pompous, but I’m trying to do it for your own good and open some new doors for you.

                You’re not some meaningless retard monkey neuro abortion. I know it’s weird to hear that, but you have a lot more value than you think.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not that anon.
                Ive got a question for you.
                Do you believe in some type of God?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Similar to what?
                The self remains as a whole and aspects gradually change. Don’t try to pull an intellectual routine when you don’t understand that and can’t articulate a problem with the model of the brain creating consciousness.
                I’m making specific points, you’re running away from all of them. You can wave your white flag if you have nothing but don’t try and be smug if you can’t articulate specific criticism.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You’re not some meaningless retard monkey neuro abortion
                Your attempt to sound like an aged intellectual with this childish outburst is hysterical.

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who's to say that I didn't live as a rat in London in 1833 in a past life?
    Or maybe in a next life?

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    God willed it. Become a Calvinist

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Easy. Your own mind developes the auto-knowledge of "this is me and my body". The same happens for anyone.

  16. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why was I not born as a rat in London in 1833 that died after 2 days?
    you do realize corpses rot, get eaten and otherwise continue to exist, so to say your body is a mixture of everything you consume, your sperm and as a byproduct your child is also a mixture of everything you consume etc

    >mfw I was part strawberry pie part chicken tendies before mom and dad had sex

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Also you’re built with the food you eat.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm talking about my consciousness, not the atoms that make me up.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe it has something to do with every sensory organ and major nerve in your body being wired directly to the area in the front of your brain, the area determined to be responsible for awareness and wakefulness.

        Captcha: DMTKM

  17. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The bike does not exist it is a result of the emergent properties of tires, spokes, chain, ball bearings, and an aluminum frame. As to why that bike is that bike and not some other bike seems to be a silly question. It is because it can't be another bike it's axiomatic.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Im sorry sir but you didn’t say moronic superstitious garbage so I have to escort you out

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      You are fundamentally misunderstanding the question.

  18. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    there's no evidence of consciousness in rats, let alone bugs. or any non-humans for that matter. so that's an easy explanation for why you're not one of the 20 quadrillion ants that exist right now. you couldn't be as they don't have a conscious experience. why this homosexual instead of another homosexual? maybe you're not. the solution is probably to forego the concept of the self. you are your body just like a rock is a rock. there just happens to be conscious awareness along for the ride.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      thats crazy

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >brain activity
        it's obviously talking about consciousness in the sense of being awake and aware of its surroundings. do you think that's what consciousness refers to in a philosophical sense? clearly not.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >disagrees about the definition
          >does not give a different definition
          so how else do you describe consciousness? the rat has a concept of self, it does its best to stay alive as to keep itself living, as for the being aware of surroundings refer to

          >The mind produces thought and experiences experience. This is something which material objects do not do
          thats the brain, not the mind and the process is still very much material. thoughts and experiences, through the processing of visual/auditory/sensitory stimuli and breaking down the situation based on available data (AKA memory AKA previous recorded experiences) you look for first hand experiences to compare to, remember anything someone told you about relevant to the situation, avoid what didn't work/was told wouldn't work/doesn't seem like it would work previously and try doing what worked/was told would work/seemingly would work

          [...]
          your consciousness is the atoms that make it up, on a more conceptual sense you as a person are the sum of your life, determinism and causality and whatnot. everything you think like hate do are the result of shit you lived heard saw, a brain/mind cannot develop let alone exist in a vacuum, that is to say look up genie the feral child

          >your consciousness is the atoms that make it up
          is it really though? Do the exact same atoms make up my brain for my entire life? What happens if eventually, 10 years down the road, some of my current atoms make their way to someone else's brain through something they ate?

          >is it really though?
          try killing yourself then, should your mind be a seperate entity merely experiencing the world then only your senses should go away and you should still be able to think, or even better try lobotomizing yourself

          >What happens if eventually, 10 years down the road, some of my current atoms make their way to someone else's brain through something they ate?
          the brain, as you call it consciousness is a construct, an atom to a brain is a brick to a house, they can come and go but the function lies in how its built, and through natural degradation and regeneration your brain cells get replaced, every decade or two pretty much every single atom in your body is replaced IIRC, the brain retains the memory and whatnot though

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            the more specific term would be 'phenomenal consciousness', which itself is hard to define as it's inherently subjective, but it has been described as 'what it feels like to be you'.
            >the rat has a concept of self
            i'm highly doubtful of this, but regardless it wouldn't prove they're consciously aware of that 'concept'.
            >it does its best to stay alive as to keep itself living,
            like plants and bacteria? you should look into the philosophical zombie concept. there's no reason to think that these functions in organisms require conscious awareness to be present. there's no obvious relation between basic survival mechanisms and consciousness.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >there's no reason to think that these functions in organisms require conscious awareness to be present. there's no obvious relation between basic survival mechanisms and consciousness
              there is fundamentally no difference between you or a rat though, as there is no action above basic survival mechanisms (aside from suicide)

              everything a human being boils down to two goals, one being increasing chances of survival/reproduction, other being because it feels good to do so

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                everything a human being does boils down to*

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                that's just stupidly reductive. you may as well say there's no difference between us and rocks because we're all made of atoms, so therefore rocks are aware of their existence too.
                if i made a robot that avoided harmful stimuli and existed to replicate itself would it automatically possess consciousness too? i don't understand your criteria.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >that's just stupidly reductive
                excuse me for using proper categorization you nonce, those two are materially founded categories, survival to protect one's flesh, doing things that feel good because your brain releases the happy chemicals, either because of evolutionary reasons or because you're abusing the evolutionary reasons, you working out or posting some entry level philosophy on LULZ is the same as a rat chasing a bug and then watching cats from a distance, one is a physical maintenance activity and the other is to reason with the world so you can understand it better and increase your chances of survival

                >if i made a robot that avoided harmful stimuli and existed to replicate itself would it automatically possess consciousness too?
                the trick here is to have biological degradation and the seeking to get rid of that, living beings reproduce because death filters out those unfit for survival/those with shorter lifespans (throughout generations), living beings are evolved to pass down their genes because by design if it's alive and can reproduce then it may as well, since its genes are probably just as likely as he is to survive

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >everything a human being boils down to two goals, one being increasing chances of survival/reproduction, other being because it feels good to do so
                Through evolution, these have become one goal. This is why actions that increase the chance of survival (and therefore reproduction) are pleasurable, such as eating when you're hungry, and why reproduction itself is one of the most pleasurable things possible.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >This is why actions that increase the chance of survival (and therefore reproduction) are pleasurable, such as eating when you're hungry, and why reproduction itself is one of the most pleasurable things possible.
                there are exceptions like junk food/soda (which mathematically abuses the highest sugar percentage the brain derives pleasure from) and drugs as well

                though ironically enough, I couldn't really find anything that don't fall under these two categories aside from suicide, if you do something unbenefitial to prove the point that not all action is within benefit then that itself becomes the benefit and defunkts the action, maybe something like learned helplessness and self destructive behavior could fall outside of these categories but even then its just the result of trauma

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >there are exceptions like junk food/soda (which mathematically abuses the highest sugar percentage the brain derives pleasure from) and drugs as well
                Well I was talking about ancient times, when most of human evolution happened. Our world has changed so much in the past 200 years that our species hasn't had time to bring about the newly optimal genes that increase the chance of survival/reproduction, we still have the genes from ancient times.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >like plants and bacteria? you should look into the philosophical zombie concept. there's no reason to think that these functions in organisms require conscious awareness to be present. there's no obvious relation between basic survival mechanisms and consciousness.
              Do plants and bacteria have brains or something parallel?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Do plants and bacteria have brains or something parallel?
                plants got some nerves

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Rats react to things like sharp objects and smells in a similar fashion to us humans. Given that these are things that can only be experienced via consciousness in humans, and the fact that rats are fellow biological beings that share a common origin with humans, I'm pretty sure rats do have at least some degree of consciousness.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Rats react to things like sharp objects and smells in a similar fashion to us humans. Given that these are things that can only be experienced via consciousness in humans
        except the response is automatic and happens before the conscious awareness of it. just because there's a conscious awareness of mental processes and states in humans doesn't mean there necessarily has to be. look at blindsight patients for instance. while they can't 'see', they can still function as if they can. the same is true for pain. the brain can process pain signals without conscious awareness or therefore suffering.
        >the fact that rats are fellow biological beings that share a common origin with humans
        literally every form of life on earth is to one degree or another. where is the line? i could just as easily draw the line at humans, i'd argue more easily considering how unique we are and how only other humans can communicate their consciousness.
        >some degree of consciousness
        there's no 'degrees' of consciousness. you're either conscious or you're not. the richness of experience can differ but consciousness is a binary.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >except the response is automatic and happens before the conscious awareness of it
          That's true, reflexes can eliminate the problem right away if the situation allows it too - your body automatically away from the stationary sharp object without you having to think about it. But what if the sharp object is coming your way? At least in humans, consciousness will have to kick in at some point. But for rats we can't be sure without examining their brains closely.
          >where is the line?
          I was technically drawing the line at the common ancestor of all life on earth. But we can go closer. Since we know there is at least one species on earth with consciousness, it's plausible that species fairly closely related to it (rats being in the same class as us) can have consciousness as well.
          Perhaps on another planet, the "lifeforms" don't have any consciousness. But on earth we know one that for sure does.
          >there's no 'degrees' of consciousness
          What I'm trying to say there is that some animals do have "fewer" ways of experiencing the world than normal humans do. Deaf humans cannot experience the world in the plane of sound. Ferns cannot experience the world in several of the senses (sight for example) that humans can, but they may have some consciousness.

          I think it's unlikely that at one point, one of our (VERY distant) ancestors suddenly had consciousness while his parents did not have consciousness. I think different levels of consciousness, such as smell and touch, evolved gradually over time into modern creatures.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >At least in humans, consciousness will have to kick in at some point.
            I can kind of tell by this statement that as is often the case we're operating under different conceptions of consciousness. with the type I'm operating under (phenomenal consciousness)
            >Phenomenal consciousness is experience; the phenomenally conscious aspect of a state is what it is like to be in that state. The mark of access-consciousness, by contrast, is availability for use in reasoning and rationally guiding speech and action
            the anticipation of that sharp object would not be the conscious experience itself, the awareness of that anticipation would be the conscious experience.
            the definition you're operating under would be closer to access consciousness, which is why you're equating that anticipation which our brains can use to make a decision to try and avoid it with consciousness.
            >But for rats we can't be sure without examining their brains closely.
            we can't be sure, period. even if we see similar brain activity we can't be sure that there is a phenomenally conscious experience associated with it like there is for us.
            only if we understood fully the neural correlates of consciousness could examining the brain determine whether or not something is conscious.
            >Since we know there is at least one species on earth with consciousness, it's plausible that species fairly closely related to it (rats being in the same class as us) can have consciousness as well.
            while I may be willing to agree that it might be plausible, at least more than a bacterium, I'm not willing to agree that it's justified, especially when they can't even pass a basic mirror test of self-recognition.
            >What I'm trying to say there is that some animals do have "fewer" ways of experiencing the world than normal humans do
            right, and again I'd separate this from consciousness as while it seems like senses are required for conscious experience the reverse isn't true.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >we can't be sure, period. even if we see similar brain activity we can't be sure that there is a phenomenally conscious experience associated with it like there is for us.
              I believe that a pain signal in the brain means that a being is conscious. The whole evolutionary point of pain (among other unpleasant sensations created by our brain, like inedible things tasting bad) is to make our conscious selves avoid things that lower our chances of surviving or reproducing. Our automatic reflexes are just another evolution-derived characteristic that is distinct from pain. Right?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I believe that a pain signal in the brain means that a being is conscious.
                because again you're operating under a different definition of consciousness.
                when it comes to phenomenal consciousness, it's perfectly conceivable that yes, there is a physiological process of pain which ends with the brain going 'this is bad and i should do something about it', while there NOT also being an awareness of this mental state. think of it like meta-awareness. it's not just awareness, it's awareness of the awareness. my contention would be that without this meta-awareness of being in pain, there's no suffering as it's all happening in the dark in a purely mechanical way.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >this is bad and i should do something about it', while there NOT also being an awareness of this mental state. think of it like meta-awareness.
                That’s meta-cognition which is not required for consciousness. Consciousness is aware wakefulness and arguably the ability to think beyond reaction to immediate stimuli. I’m confident a lot of conscious humans don’t have meta-cognition

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I think it's unlikely that at one point, one of our (VERY distant) ancestors suddenly had consciousness while his parents did not have consciousness
            I think it's inevitable actually unless you assume that life BEGAN conscious as you seem to do if you're drawing the line at the first common ancestor (unless you meant something else by line).
            someone has actually argued that even among humans it's a recent phenomenon as it's hard to find any language associated with it before a certain point, i'd have to look into it again though.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              there's also theories of consciousness based on language so it could be when language developed consciousness kicked in and therefore it wouldn't simply be a biological fact but it'd rely on an interaction between biology and culture. not sure about the likelihood of this though.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >you are your body just like a rock is a rock
      This is a poor analogy, the exact atoms that make up a human being get replaced over time much, much more than a rock.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        if anything that reinforces the point. there's no such thing as a persistent self as 'our' bodies are always changing.

        >that's just stupidly reductive
        excuse me for using proper categorization you nonce, those two are materially founded categories, survival to protect one's flesh, doing things that feel good because your brain releases the happy chemicals, either because of evolutionary reasons or because you're abusing the evolutionary reasons, you working out or posting some entry level philosophy on LULZ is the same as a rat chasing a bug and then watching cats from a distance, one is a physical maintenance activity and the other is to reason with the world so you can understand it better and increase your chances of survival

        >if i made a robot that avoided harmful stimuli and existed to replicate itself would it automatically possess consciousness too?
        the trick here is to have biological degradation and the seeking to get rid of that, living beings reproduce because death filters out those unfit for survival/those with shorter lifespans (throughout generations), living beings are evolved to pass down their genes because by design if it's alive and can reproduce then it may as well, since its genes are probably just as likely as he is to survive

        i don't understand the connection between these biological imperatives and consciousness. i think you're just assuming they're inextricably connected because they are for you, but i'm not willing to make that assumption and think it's actually kind of absurd to think that bacteria are aware of their existence, especially when you consider the implication in regards to the OPs question (how many bacteria exist - why aren't we bacteria?)
        >Do plants and bacteria have brains or something parallel?
        that's irrelevant to the criteria that were laid out. if you're saying there's a specific part of the brain that's necessary for consciousness or that all brains are conscious for some reason that's separate from the argument that we can infer consciousness from harm avoiding behaviour.

  19. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is happening to the consciousness, right now, of a person who will be born in 2035?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nothing is happening to it because it doesn't exist yet, the same as the consciousness of everyone in this thread. It didn't exist for billions of years and then boom, one day it did. For us conscious humans, those billions of years felt like the blink of an eye though

  20. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why? that's probably an unknowable facet of being alive. It's Probably karma, or something resembling "the egg", by andy weir.

    You came into being out of no knowable volition of your own, out of the unknowable void of being which preceded it. Even if death leads to absolute nothingness, you will probably return to another life, as that is the only precedent.

    tldr: you survived nonexistance and returned once again to play out a part that needed an actor

    thread theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IsSpAOD6K8

  21. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    You were.

  22. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the specific bodies were were born into

    We're not born 'into' bodies, we're OF/ARE those bodies from the creation of the body

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well, I should have specified more. I meant brains, specifically, more than bodies. It has been demonstrated that people can control other people's arms when hooked up to some sort of device.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >people can control other people's arms when hooked up to some sort of device.
        And I can fly if I had an airplane. Your point?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        That video's pretty cool ngl

  23. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Consider that asking a question isn't the same thing as considering the question seriously as a question. Aka, a rat thinking to itself "why am I not this fag on LULZ in 2022" is the same categorical operation that you are performing. In that sense, you've not allowed anything other than the asking of the question to seperate you and the qualities of the rat, thus, there's no reason that you aren't simultaneously a rat in london, in 1833, and a bug in 60 million BC, in any way less meaningful than the most literal interpretation of the scenario.

  24. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Consciousness is an illusion
    Free will doesn't exist
    Soul doesn't exist
    Dopamine isn't real
    God is not real

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Dopamine isn't real
      ???

      All the other stuff you said makes sense based on current understanding of reality.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *