/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22666669]

Consciousness explained away.

[Anonymous No.22666676]

>>22666669
Dennett is a brainlet.
>we're all NPC's
Speak for yourself, you cuck.

[Anonymous No.22666687]

>>22666669

[Anonymous No.22666690]

>>22666669
Amazing ti me how bad he is at philosophy but has a professional career at it

[Anonymous No.22666692]

I cannot believe he's made a legitimate career off denying that he's conscious. He makes these claims in riddles and word games though so the normies think he's profound. He literally sides with Keith frankish that illusionism should be the default theory of consciousness. The when someone says okay so you're denying consciousness then? He goes on some rant about how he isn't and bla bla bla weasels his way out of it because if he said his views plainly he'd be laughed out of the room.

[Anonymous No.22666694]

>>22666687
Go back to the mathematics thread and stop posting twitter screencaps of this midwitt faggot.

[Anonymous No.22666696]

>>22666669
When my wife complained that I was fucking the dog again the other day, I explained to her that the various properties attributed to her notion of a dog are actually just contradictory subjective impressions, but she wasn't having it.

[Anonymous No.22666699]

>>22666687
Why would that be useless? If you know what caused consciousness you could make conscious ai it would have huge technological solutions plus you could download your mind onto silicone and live forever

[Anonymous No.22666708]

I advice everyone to read whole of this article:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-representational/

Particulary part on Illusionism
>Several authors point out that to reject WIL properties is not to grant Chalmers’ (1996) claim that for a zombie lacking WIL properties, “all is dark inside” (pp. 95–6).

before you post anything since past 20 threads on qualia where filled with people who do not understand what qualia, sense data, consciousness and p-zombies really mean. Thank you, have a nice evening and debate.

Additional literature:
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

[Anonymous No.22666710]

>>22666699
the problem is you will never be able to look at something else and say “that thing is conscious,” because you can’t experience it, yourself. And AI doesn’t need to be conscious to work.

[Anonymous No.22666720]

>>22666687
stop spamming your tweets you twink fag
>>22666676
this

[Anonymous No.22666735]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eY1pAAL_Ffw&t=143s&pp=ygURQ2FydGVzaWFuIHRoZWF0ZXI%3D

How does he have a career? We know nothing about fundamental reality in-itself beyond being able to describe it with math equations, we all have subjective experience. Dennet is just like NOPE that's magic particles have zero capacity for consciousness its all an illusion but btw free will exists ;)

Can't wait till this piece of shit croaks

[Anonymous No.22666757]

>>22666720
> stop spamming your tweets you twink fag
not an argument

[Anonymous No.22666773]

Blindsighted piece of shit. Let's go beat the fuck out of him and then see if he says it's an illusion.

[Anonymous No.22666950]

>>22666699
No because you need a soul to be conscious. Machines don’t have souls goober.

[Anonymous No.22666995]

>>22666676
>we're all NPC's
I don't remember him arguing for this, can I get a qrd?

[Anonymous No.22667013]

You quite literally cannot explain consciousness. To do so, you'd need to somehow observe it but be separate from it - which we can't. The best we can do is draw parallels between brain activity and narrated/remembered states of consciousness, and maybe infer some causation between them, which is different from describing the experience of consciousness *itself*.

I hate agreeing with a Twitter screenshot but >>22666687 is fundamentally correct.

[Anonymous No.22667029]

>>22666995
He thinks that because consciousness can't fit into a physical ontology it therefore doesn't exist. He does this in a very smug way as well, which is annoying, especially considering how absurd it is to have some guy play word games because actually admitting his position would make anyone laugh in his face. I'm not kidding btw, proper philosophers have absolutely tore him to shreds but he appeals to brainlets and normies because he's one of the four "horsemen" who atheist look to for guidance.

Read this essay from Galen strawson (scroll down)
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330717407_A_hundred_years_of_consciousness_a_long_training_in_absurdity

Saying the quiet part out loud - these guys are just fucking retards who've made a name for themselves peddling horseshit.

[γρηγορεύω (formerly Racist White Supremacist) !!J89a5VVZH9B No.22667043]

>>22667013
Consciousness is differentiation.

[Anonymous No.22667198]

Substance dualism is the solution. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.22667210]

>>22666669
There is a reason professionals call it "Consciousness Ignored".

>>22667198
No, idealism is the truth according to NDErs because we are all one consciousness. And NDEs are actually solid proof of life after death, because anyone can have them if they come close to and survive death. And they are so extremely real to those who have them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

As this NDEr described their NDE:

>"Now, what heaven looks like? 'OMG' doesn't even describe how beautiful this place is. Heaven is, there are no words. I mean, I could sit here and just not say anything and just cry, and that would be what heaven looks like. There are mountains of beauty, there are things in this realm, you can't even describe how beautiful this place is. There are colors you can't even imagine, there are sounds you can't even create. There are beauties upon this world that you think are beautiful here. Amplify it over there times a billion. There are, it's incredibly beautiful, there's no words to describe how beautiful this place is, it's incredibly gorgeous."

And importantly, even dogmatic skeptics have this reaction, because the NDE convinces everyone:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

So anyone would be convinced if they had an NDE, we already know this, no one's skepticism is unique.

>muh brain chemistry

Neuroscientists are convinced by NDEs too. What do skeptics think they understand that neuroscientists do not?

>muh DMT causes it

Scientifically refuted already, and NDErs who have done DMT too say that the DMT experience, while alien and really cool and fun, was still underwhelming to the point of being a joke when compared to the NDE.

[Anonymous No.22668106]

>>22666708
Ways P-zombies might be scientifically detectable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gvwhQMKvro

[Anonymous No.22668197]

So we basically exist as forms in the mind of God right? And matter is the actualization of potentiality in God's mind, for the purpose of giving us a realm in which to interact?

What other solution is there that accounts for all the questions?

[Anonymous No.22668324]

>>22667013
so when you agree with somebody it automatically becomes "a fundamental truth" in your mind?

[Anonymous No.22668736]

If I saw dennet irl I'd beat his ass

[Anonymous No.22669005]

Who honestly gives a fuck about this topic? It's so unbelievably mundane at this point. Descartes was wrong; the unconscious side of the organism is also the organism, not some removed, other thing. Are we all still a bunch of superstitious fucking retards or something?

[Anonymous No.22669012]

>>22667043
Consciousness is without differentiation, spotless, partless, pristine and spontaneously present

[Anonymous No.22669022]

>>22666696
Women are such brainless.

[Anonymous No.22669083]

>>22668106
This is exactly why i posted those links..
Yet again a futile attempt.

[Anonymous No.22669116]

>>22668736
You know what is actually disgusting?
People who read things superficialy and present topic that goes more deeper then that as something that has absoloutely no relation to meaning of the topic.

Your pic rel and you only show us how dangerous it is having people like you on the internet or acess to philosophy in general.

[Anonymous No.22669313]

>>22669116
Guarantee I've read more on the topic than you

[Anonymous No.22669319]

>>22666708
>I advice everyone
Post descarted

[Anonymous No.22669342]

>>22666687
It's extradimensional, Yolanda

[Anonymous No.22669347]

>>22666696
Your wife sounds like a bitch desu.

[Anonymous No.22669941]

>>22668736
The curious case of samsara and the trolled

[Anonymous No.22669949]

>>22669005
I’m not.
*throws salt over shoulder*

[Anonymous No.22670074]

>>22666692
At this point I have given up on these people. They kept telling me that Dennett actually meant something deeper, but to this day I have still not found a satisfying answer to any of these questions, nor in Dennett's texts, nor in his interviews, nor in the words of his defenders. Maybe I'm just a bad reader, but I doubt it since Ive managed to crack down lots of texts that are evidenly more complex. The only options left is that either these people are dishonest (as in, basically sophists who will do anything to defend physicalism), or are simply deeply confused. I'm more convinced by the first option: they tried to defend eliminativism, they failed, but they went in too deep (and tied their careers too much to this position), and now they're stuck with having to resort to sophistry in order to not be ridiculed (this would apply to the older proponents of eliminativism; the younger ones are probably just getting swindled by it). Either way it is an easily refutable dead end (hence why they have to lie so much about what they actually mean), one that should not be taken seriously past your freshman year.

[Anonymous No.22670079]

>>22666708
Tbh you don't even have to focus on qualia in order to raise the hard problem of consciousness, since the same argument applies to all intentional states anyway.

[Anonymous No.22670238]

>>22670074
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330717407_A_hundred_years_of_consciousness_a_long_training_in_absurdity

Scroll down and read this essay from Galen strawson eviscerating illusionism. The response from dennet at the bottom is especially hilarious. Just more bullshit from a charlatan.

[Anonymous No.22670390]

>>22669949
lmao

[Anonymous No.22670747]

>>22666669
Idk about you anon, but I'm certainly not conscious.

[Anonymous No.22670758]

>>22666708
This thread wasn't made for people to talk about theories of the mind, it was made for three autistic NPCs to ramble about how much they hate a strawman.

[Anonymous No.22670767]

We are all, in fact, NPCs.

[Anonymous No.22670958]

>>22670758
Lol the funny part abkut your post is that illusionism is the thesis that we are all npcs..

[Anonymous No.22670982]

>>22670958
No no, the funny part is, you did not read my links and still think qualia are sense data and cant comprehand that negating qualia does not equal npc at all

[Anonymous No.22670993]

>>22669313
And still you are here sprouting nonsense.

[Anonymous No.22671136]

>>22668106
Are p-zombies basically NPCs?

[Anonymous No.22671168]

>>22666710
>the problem is you will never be able to look at something else and say “that thing is conscious,” because you can’t experience it, yourself
I can look into the eyes of a person and see their soul looking out. I can look into the eyes of my dog and see that while it's not self-aware, it has an inner emotional life and is having an experience. This kind of false philosophy is an act of perpetual backing away from the mystery of life instead of diving into it. Cowardly and useless.

[Anonymous No.22671878]

>>22671168
>omg we just can't know anything!! Is it a simulation??? Do I have hands???? I can't prove solispism isn't true ahhhhh!!!!!

Fuck skeptics. I can directly perceive the external world, introspect the existence of my soul, feel myself making libertarian free will decisions, know the presence of God in my life and directly perceive morality in good and bad acts, and when I look into the eyes of my gf, I can see her consciousness peering out at me.

Skeptics are nothing but deficient, aberrant human beings who either get a kick out of denying the obvious, or have lesions in their brains (most likely from drug or alcohol use).

[Anonymous No.22671880]

Relevant thread:

>https://www.reddit.com/r/consciousness/s/QS2Rh6tUs0

[Anonymous No.22672355]

When people realised the earth wasn't at the center of the universe people got really mad and emotional. Arguments were about feels and how it was against humanity to think earth wasn't the super special place.
Now I read this thread and it looks exactly the same.

Maybe Dennet doesn't have the perfect arguments but I'm convinced I don't have a special place somewhere in my body containing a soul or making me that different from animals.
If I'm 5 hours late for eating, my body will be hungry and in some kind of pain. Even if my consciousness knows I'll just eat later and already did several days fasts and I'm in no danger, I can't bypass the feeling. My mood will change, I'll think about food and be irritated.
Am I a NPC because I can't think myself out of this ? Am I a NPC because I react to tits ?
Isn't all my existence similar in some way in the end ?