>Consciousness is the sum total of the functions of the body.

>Consciousness is the sum total of the functions of the body. When the body stops functioning, consciousness does as well.
Why does this make people seethe so much?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    They’re terrified of death

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nothingness is pretty comfy though

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >but me? i'm BRAVE
      nope
      >w-well at least i'm HONEST
      also nope

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        NTA, but I'm not at all scared of death. I am scared of dying, but thats different, dying itself can potentially be painful or frightening, but once you're already dead there isn't a whole lot to be afraid of anymore.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Just carry a pistol with you everywhere. Right when you start having a heart attack blow your brains out.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Pretty sure I'd be too busy having a heart attack to be able to aim a gun at my head, rack the slide, and pull the trigger. But even thats not a guarunteed death unless you go for something like a 44 magnum or higher

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            My sides have left the orbit.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        I’m scared of death but not to the point where I have to retreat into a fantasy that it won’t happen.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      who? how do you know? did they tell you?
      maybe it bothers them because they view the soul differently?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Pretty straightforward man. Comforting delusion. It’s like if you tell a kid his dog died and he won’t believe the dog is actually dead. Motivations are obvious, protection from pain of reality

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >who?
        Dualists.

        >how do you know?
        They say so.

        >did they tell you?
        Yes.

        >maybe it bothers them because they view the soul differently?
        They hold their """"""""beliefs""""""" as a cope.

        What would being asleep and awake mean to a person with no senses? To us sleep is a period of no sensation while being awake is feeling sensation, but to a person with no senses both have no feelings of sensation.

        The person wouldn't need to come up with a meaning for it, just to perceive a difference between states.
        >To us sleep is a period of no sensation while being awake is feeling sensation
        Reportedly you can be conscious of sleep. How much that affects, or not, the state is beyond me.

        The brain can take its own activity as a source of input for further activity, but it does so via the same parts that process sensory information. That is, when you imagine something, you're using visual-perception, you just aren't actually receiving any information from your eyes. Because awareness and information processing are performed by the same parts of the brain a person "with no senses" basically wouldn't be able to think, but the anon in question's initial post (

        Provided one without senses could differentiate between the state of being awake or asleep, there's a possible marker for the passage of time right there.

        ) COULD be meaningful if by "one without senses" he meant someone with no actual sensory detection mechanisms, that is with no eyes, ears, skin, etc, just a brain and nervous system in a vat.

        For what it's worth, people who are deprived of sensory information go off the deep end pretty quickly. Sensory deprivation tanks are torture unless you know what you're doing. There's some study where a French dude locked himself in a cave (he had outside assistants) to see what would happen. tl;dr he very quickly lost track of time (like, after 24 hours his mental clock was shot), became completely unhinged and delusional, and stopped eating and drinking. So, perhaps some Buddhist monk who spent years doing rigorous mental training could survive "without senses" but normal humans just totally break down in that scenario.

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    If the sum total of the functions of my body is lower than the average, does it affect my consciousness?
    Why/why not? And can you demonstrate that?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. If I gouge your eyes out (lowering the sum total of bodily functions) you lose a sense, and senses are integral to consciousness.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        To what degree are senses integral to consciousness? Is someone without any, unconscious?
        And how do you know this?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Is someone without any, unconscious?
          NTA, but I would argue yes, assuming they were born that way, since they would have no point of reference as to what consciousness even is. They wouldn't even be able to imagine all that much because they'd have no experiences to draw inspiration from.

          If someone lost all their senses later in life, however, then that would be different, but only because they would at least know what senses were like before losing them, similar to people who went blind later in life vs someone born blind

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >To what degree are senses integral to consciousness?
            Without them consciousness doesn't exist.
            >Is someone without any, unconscious?
            Yes.
            >And how do you know this?
            Because the senses allow you to experience things and experiencing is equivalent to consciousness.

            I'm not sure how to effectively counterargue from here, I'll have to think more about it. Thank you for entertaining me.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >To what degree are senses integral to consciousness?
          Without them consciousness doesn't exist.
          >Is someone without any, unconscious?
          Yes.
          >And how do you know this?
          Because the senses allow you to experience things and experiencing is equivalent to consciousness.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        You can't prove consciousness as the lived experience of reality ever stops.

        Feeling the passage of time is possible even without any senses.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Feeling the passage of time is possible even without any senses.
          Please elaborate

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Even when someone's head is completely empty they'll still feel time pass. Maybe from hearing his own heart beat or something.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >hearing

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Provided one without senses could differentiate between the state of being awake or asleep, there's a possible marker for the passage of time right there.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            What would being asleep and awake mean to a person with no senses? To us sleep is a period of no sensation while being awake is feeling sensation, but to a person with no senses both have no feelings of sensation.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The person wouldn't need to come up with a meaning for it, just to perceive a difference between states.
            >To us sleep is a period of no sensation while being awake is feeling sensation
            Reportedly you can be conscious of sleep. How much that affects, or not, the state is beyond me.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >just to perceive a difference between states.
            The point is that they couldn't because it would be identical. The way we differentiate from being asleep and awake is by sensation but they don't have that.
            >Reportedly you can be conscious of sleep.
            Only if you have a dream but someone with no sense can't dream. In the same way that blind people don't see in their dreams because they can't even imagine what it would be like, someone with no senses has no sensation in their dreams as well (meaning they don't have dreams at all).

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >In the same way that blind people don't see in their dreams
            This isn't actually the case. Blind people who are blind due to eye defects can "see" in their dreams because the parts of the brain responsible for sight still work, they just never receive input. They "see" gibberish, but they do see.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm talking about people blind from birth. People who are blinded later in life still have memories of vision and can thus dream about it.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm talking about people blind from birth
            Right, if they have working visual processing systems but are blind from birth due to some kind of eye problem then they can still "see" in their dreams, it's just noise. The visual processing system still receives data from other parts of the brain, it's just junk data so it means nothing and produces nothing meaningful.

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nuh uh. I'm different.

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >functions of the body
    Pee and poop?

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why does this make people seethe so much?

    You must separate people into classes and dispositions and the like if you want that answer, I think.

    As for me, I know that to be wrong.

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Consciousness is the sum total of the functions of the body.
    ??????????????

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      What don't you understand?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        The part about consciousness being the sum total of human bodily functions. If I lose the ability to wiggle my little toe, is my consciousness thereby reduced?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >If I lose the ability to wiggle my little toe, is my consciousness thereby reduced?
          If you lost the ability to feel your little toe then yes.

          >I'm talking about people blind from birth
          Right, if they have working visual processing systems but are blind from birth due to some kind of eye problem then they can still "see" in their dreams, it's just noise. The visual processing system still receives data from other parts of the brain, it's just junk data so it means nothing and produces nothing meaningful.

          >they can still "see" in their dreams
          No they can't. Please tell me any blind person who says they can see in their dreams, even if it's noise like you say.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The part about consciousness being the sum total of human bodily functions. If I lose the ability to wiggle my little toe, is my consciousness thereby reduced?
          I would argue no because your perception of the outside world hasn't been reduced. You merely can't move your little toe.
          However if you lost all sensation to your little toe then yes you would be perceiving a tiny weeny bit less information than you were before.

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Clueless thread

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because even if you knew every single aspect of a human body down to the nanometer, you would never find the source of feeling.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      It’s in your brain stem and midbrain, apparently also located in the partietal lobe and frontal lobe

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >you would never find the source of feeling
        It's the nervous system

        oh it is? Really? Tell me what its like to be a nerve cell. How does it feel to be your parietal lobe?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Do you really think this is a gotcha?
          I don't have to tell you what it's like to be a nerve cell to tell you that it is the source of feeling. That doesn't even make sense.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well obviously if a nerve cell can't feel, it doesn't experience anything, then a whole bunch of nerve cells can't either. So where does feeling come from?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So where does feeling come from?
            The senses

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Well obviously if a nerve cell can't feel, it doesn't experience anything, then a whole bunch of nerve cells can't either. So where does feeling come from?
            "Well obviously If a single transistor can't run a C++ program than a CPU with millions or billions of transistors can't either!"
            Notice how stupid that sounds?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Single nerve cells don’t have consciousness. It’s a CNS wide phenomenon centered behind your eyes in the frontal lobe

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Single nerve cells don’t have consciousness
            Ah, the "emergent" cope. Do you have any basis for the reasoning that unconscious elements can somehow give rise to consciousness?

            >So where does feeling come from?
            The senses

            I don't think you understand what I mean by "feeling"

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah you must be using some weird schizo definition of feeling because everyone knows feelings come from the senses

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            By "feeling" I mean experience. What it feels like to be you. What it feels like to be a dog, a frog, a sea slug, a bacteria. Qualia, experience.
            You say, we have it all figured out now. I look back at the thousands of years of men boldly proclaiming the same thing, and I see a long lineage of morons.

            By all means, in your worldview, it shouldn't exist.

            >Well obviously if a nerve cell can't feel, it doesn't experience anything, then a whole bunch of nerve cells can't either. So where does feeling come from?
            "Well obviously If a single transistor can't run a C++ program than a CPU with millions or billions of transistors can't either!"
            Notice how stupid that sounds?

            Oh, sorry, I must've missed that memo, is C++ conscious? Does it have an internal experience?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >By "feeling" I mean experience
            Yeah experience comes from the senses. How could you disagree?
            >What it feels like to be you. What it feels like to be a dog, a frog, a sea slug, a bacteria
            It feels like what it is. Being a dog feels like being a dog.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How could you disagree?
            Because there is no experience in the eye. Or in the brain. It doesn't "feel" like anything to be an eye.
            Also, OBE's. I've had them. Many others have as well.
            >It feels like what it is
            There you go. Consciousness is consciousness. It's not a soul. It's not a brain function. It's not this or that. It is what it is. Consciousness is a glimmer from the Great Mystery, not something you understand with tools and minds as crude as out own.

            >Oh, sorry, I must've missed that memo, is C++ conscious? Does it have an internal experience?
            A single Transistor is a single rudimentary unit of logic that be used to create a CPU that can perform feats of logic that are incomprehensible to a Transistor.

            A single Neuron is a building block of consciousness that can be used to build a brain that perform feats of awareness, understand, feeling and emotion that are incomprehensible to a single neuron.

            >By "feeling" I mean experience. What it feels like to be you
            Well for a start you can't feel anything if you aren't conscious of it. So it is debatable if reptiles, amphibians, fish or invertebrates are even aware of their senses.

            Humans can live normal lives while missing 90% of their brains, including the parts you believe create consciousness. Can a computer run C++ when missing 90% of it's components that are needed to run C++?
            >So it is debatable if reptiles, amphibians, fish or invertebrates are even aware of their senses.
            It's debatable if any humans can as well. In fact, you can NEVER be quite sure, since no level of dissection will find consciousness. But since all other lifeforms demonstrate self-awareness to many varying degrees, I tend to give all life on Earth the benefit of the doubt.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because there is no experience in the eye.
            The experience of vision is.
            >There you go. Consciousness is consciousness. It's not a soul. It's not a brain function. It's not this or that. It is what it is. Consciousness is a glimmer from the Great Mystery, not something you understand with tools and minds as crude as out own.
            This is just schizo ramblings. Take your meds.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The experience of vision is.
            Weird, can you show me any instances where surgeons dissecting an eye found consciousness in it?
            >This is just schizo ramblings. Take your meds.
            Again, you can take you place in the line of millions of very confident men in human history who thought they had it all figured out, nice and neat. Every new intellectual and scientific trend always thinks "Ah there we go, just gotta fill in a few cracks." Whether its the confident assertion that the soul is consciousness, or that electricity is it, or if emergent properties got it nailed down, they always come up short.

            For one simple reason: The Great Mystery isn't an unsolved problem.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Weird, can you show me any instances where surgeons dissecting an eye found consciousness in it?
            The eye itself is where the experience of vision comes from. You can prove this by gouging your eyes out and then telling me what you see.
            >The Great Mystery isn't an unsolved problem.
            Yeah I know I just solved it.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Humans can live normal lives while missing 90% of their brains
            Completely wrong lol. I was interested ages ago in that kind of inquiry and this is the general trend.

            1200cm^3 Average brain size.

            1000cm^3 lower limit of brain size before low IQ or severe disability start creeping in. Still such people have a higher incidence of dementia than normal brain-sized peers.

            400 to 650cm^3 is Microcephaly and severe mental moronation.

            So if you half a normal person's brain size you turn them into a dribbling moron. That's a 50% reduction.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892980/

            Typical example of microcephaly..

            ?t=67
            "37 with the mind of a three year old"

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3679117/scientists-research-man-missing-90-of-his-brain-who-leads-a-normal-life-1.3679125
            This is not the only case of humans missing massive portions of their brain, and still living more or less normal lives.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            He had an IQ more than a full standard deviation below normal. That’s also a clickbait news article and not a scientific study with precise language

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            It was compressed, not missing and he had low cognitive ability. the article misrepresented it because that’s what news articles do, and you fell for it.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is not the only case of humans missing massive portions of their brain, and still living more or less normal lives.
            Lol, I knew you would bring that French case up.
            Doesn't at all prove what you think it does.

            He had an IQ more than a full standard deviation below normal. That’s also a clickbait news article and not a scientific study with precise language

            >He had an IQ more than a full standard deviation below normal. That’s also a clickbait news article and not a scientific study with precise language
            Exactly.

            It was compressed, not missing and he had low cognitive ability. the article misrepresented it because that’s what news articles do, and you fell for it.

            >It was compressed, not missing and he had low cognitive ability. the article misrepresented it because that’s what news articles do, and you fell for it.
            Exactly, severe hydrocephaly.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/138/6/e353/269537
            There IS this one though

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/138/6/e353/269537
            >There IS this one though
            Hey nice, I will save that one.
            Zero cerebellum would off the bat give you a terrible muscle control.
            And would you know it...

            "she was 4 years old before she could stand unassisted, and did not begin to walk unassisted until the age of 7, with a persistently unsteady gait. She never ran or jumped. Her speech was not intelligible until 6 years of age and she did not enter school. "

            " The patient has mild voice tremor with slurred pronunciation and her voice quality is slightly harsh. Cerebellar ataxia including Romberg’s sign, and there is evidence of heel-knee-tibia impairment. The patient experienced mild to moderate dysmetria in reaching the nose when administered the finger-to-nose test. Pronation-supination alternating movements were slightly irregular and slowed. While she is able to walk unsteadily without support, her gait is moderately unsteady. The patient has evidence of tandem gait and moderately reduced gait speed. "

            We can all have a laugh when we remember that physics doesn't cause anything, and feelings, color, and knowledge are free-to-use materials, seperate from physics

            >We can all have a laugh when we remember that physics doesn't cause anything, and feelings, color, and knowledge are free-to-use materials
            Sorry Christ-tard anon, The cerebellum only accounts for 10% of your brain volume so your theory is still invalid lol.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but wouldn't missing such a foundational architecture of the brain mean that her ability to be conscious is disrupted. Because I've heard it put forward that the cerebellum is necessary to be conscious at all.

            Prove anyone feels anything. You're just going into solipsism at this point.

            EXACTLY, now you get it. The antidote to solipsism and p-zombies is this: every living thing is conscious, because I can clearly see them to be so. It's not a game of "some are this, some are not". They ALL are, even bacteria, and yes, your very own cells.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're insane. You asked how a neural net maps certain concepts, I told you, and now you're jumping to some crazy shit about proving the network feels something and solipsism.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, but wouldn't missing such a foundational architecture of the brain mean that her ability to be conscious is disrupted.
            No, because it is almost entirely devoted to balance and fluent, fast muscle coordination and control. And as you can see, she had serious developmental delay.

            >EXACTLY, now you get it. The antidote to solipsism and p-zombies is this: every living thing is conscious
            That's a stupid solution to an equally stupid problem that doesn't even exist because consciousness is easily tested.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >consciousness is easily tested.
            If you're referring to the mirror test, I already addressed that.

            Everyone is always just 2 weeks until they finally understand consciousness completely. Just like we are always 2 weeks out from finally figuring out the Universe in it's entirety. But always, failure. Souls, brains, computers, nothing has managed to explain the simple question: why do I feel?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why do I feel
            Because you have senses. It's not that complicated. If you didn't have any senses you wouldn't feel anything.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because you have senses
            Why do my senses feel like anything?

            Are you deliberately being dense? Or is this a case of more religious-thinking, where you put on blinders to simple concepts.

            >prove the neural network has any feelings at all
            When did I say I think it does?

            >When did I say I think it does?
            It's what you implied, that the human brain is a neural network. If not, I'll retract that.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why do my senses feel like anything?
            Because that's what senses do. Are you moronic?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you're referring to the mirror test, I already addressed that.
            No you haven't moron anon.
            >Everyone is always just 2 weeks until they finally understand consciousness completely.
            That's how long it took you to make up this shit lol.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Sorry Christ-tard anon, The cerebellum only accounts for 10% of your brain volume so your theory is still invalid lol.
            I'm not that guy, I'm the one who posted that study, and I'm not a Christian.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not that guy, I'm the one who posted that study, and I'm not a Christian.
            So you are a Christian and that makes you even more stupid because it directly demonstrates how the Brain creates and is in charge of the human mind.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Humans can live normal lives while missing 90% of their brains
            They cannot, Redditor level pseudo-intellectualism.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's debatable if any humans can as well. In fact, you can NEVER be quite sure, since no level of dissection will find consciousness
            .
            Well no, it's very easily testable without even needing to use language.
            An animal aware of pain will seek out opioids and animals with no awareness of pain don't.
            So self-medication.
            Mammals and birds pass that test but reptiles, amphibians and any other lower life form fail it.

            Another test is the mirror test that once again has only been passed by some mammals and a very small selection of birds.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because there is no experience in the eye. Or in the brain. It doesn't "feel" like anything to be an eye

            the Eye is merely an obtainer and transmitter of visual data to the brain which then processes and consciously perceives that information.

            This is why you can become blind by two different means.

            1) physical damage to the eye which prevents it from sending information to the brain.

            2) Damage to the brain so it can't consciously perceive the information it is receiving from the fully functional eye.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Oh, sorry, I must've missed that memo, is C++ conscious? Does it have an internal experience?
            A single Transistor is a single rudimentary unit of logic that be used to create a CPU that can perform feats of logic that are incomprehensible to a Transistor.

            A single Neuron is a building block of consciousness that can be used to build a brain that perform feats of awareness, understand, feeling and emotion that are incomprehensible to a single neuron.

            >By "feeling" I mean experience. What it feels like to be you
            Well for a start you can't feel anything if you aren't conscious of it. So it is debatable if reptiles, amphibians, fish or invertebrates are even aware of their senses.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Ah, the "emergent" cope.
            I’m not tied to any descriptor here, it is created by a large network and certain regions are needed to consolidate it all like the insula. So comments like this

            >The experience of vision is.
            Weird, can you show me any instances where surgeons dissecting an eye found consciousness in it?
            >This is just schizo ramblings. Take your meds.
            Again, you can take you place in the line of millions of very confident men in human history who thought they had it all figured out, nice and neat. Every new intellectual and scientific trend always thinks "Ah there we go, just gotta fill in a few cracks." Whether its the confident assertion that the soul is consciousness, or that electricity is it, or if emergent properties got it nailed down, they always come up short.

            For one simple reason: The Great Mystery isn't an unsolved problem.

            >How could you disagree?
            Because there is no experience in the eye. Or in the brain. It doesn't "feel" like anything to be an eye.
            Also, OBE's. I've had them. Many others have as well.
            >It feels like what it is
            There you go. Consciousness is consciousness. It's not a soul. It's not a brain function. It's not this or that. It is what it is. Consciousness is a glimmer from the Great Mystery, not something you understand with tools and minds as crude as out own.

            [...]
            Humans can live normal lives while missing 90% of their brains, including the parts you believe create consciousness. Can a computer run C++ when missing 90% of it's components that are needed to run C++?
            >So it is debatable if reptiles, amphibians, fish or invertebrates are even aware of their senses.
            It's debatable if any humans can as well. In fact, you can NEVER be quite sure, since no level of dissection will find consciousness. But since all other lifeforms demonstrate self-awareness to many varying degrees, I tend to give all life on Earth the benefit of the doubt.

            are asinine. The eye alone isn’t conscious. The eye arguably is not conscious at all, just controlled by it.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it is created by a large network and certain regions are needed to consolidate it all like the insula
            But again, where does the feeling of experience arise from? You just say "emergent neural networks give rise to consciousness because.....well they just do okay!"

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Mostly on an axis between the anterior cingulate gyrus and midbrain. Data is funneled into the insula and then to those two regions, though it’s not wrong to describe it as a cerebrum wide phenomenon.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is all really neat, but would you mind not dodging the question? Why does any of that feel like anything? On what do you base the assertion that a system of neurons MUST give rise to consciousness.

            >Weird, can you show me any instances where surgeons dissecting an eye found consciousness in it?
            The eye itself is where the experience of vision comes from. You can prove this by gouging your eyes out and then telling me what you see.
            >The Great Mystery isn't an unsolved problem.
            Yeah I know I just solved it.

            > You can prove this by gouging your eyes out and then telling me what you see.
            I've seen without eyes before. It's called an OBE.

            >This is not the only case of humans missing massive portions of their brain, and still living more or less normal lives.
            Lol, I knew you would bring that French case up.
            Doesn't at all prove what you think it does.
            [...]
            >He had an IQ more than a full standard deviation below normal. That’s also a clickbait news article and not a scientific study with precise language
            Exactly.
            [...]
            >It was compressed, not missing and he had low cognitive ability. the article misrepresented it because that’s what news articles do, and you fell for it.
            Exactly, severe hydrocephaly.

            >It was compressed, not missing
            Fair enough, that's reasonable. I'll take that point back.
            But my other points still stand. You''ll never find "where" consciousness is, not in any system or otherwise. Because consciousness isn't "in" anything", nor "generated" by anything less than the entire Universe at once.

            >It's debatable if any humans can as well. In fact, you can NEVER be quite sure, since no level of dissection will find consciousness
            .
            Well no, it's very easily testable without even needing to use language.
            An animal aware of pain will seek out opioids and animals with no awareness of pain don't.
            So self-medication.
            Mammals and birds pass that test but reptiles, amphibians and any other lower life form fail it.

            Another test is the mirror test that once again has only been passed by some mammals and a very small selection of birds.

            >An animal aware of pain will seek out opioids and animals with no awareness of pain don't.
            Experiments with crayfish show they flee from pain, and remember said pain. They feel pain and want to get away from it. So do humans.
            >Another test is the mirror test that once again has only been passed by some mammals and a very small selection of birds.
            Biased for visual creatures, and again, only indicative of a certain DEGREE of consciousness. Any degree of self-awareness is consciousness. There is no such thing as "appearing" to be conscious but not being so.

            >Because there is no experience in the eye. Or in the brain. It doesn't "feel" like anything to be an eye

            the Eye is merely an obtainer and transmitter of visual data to the brain which then processes and consciously perceives that information.

            This is why you can become blind by two different means.

            1) physical damage to the eye which prevents it from sending information to the brain.

            2) Damage to the brain so it can't consciously perceive the information it is receiving from the fully functional eye.

            >consciously perceives that information.
            Where, between the eye and the brain does feeling arise?
            Why does ANY step of that process feel like anything?

            That's the thing NONE of you are answering. You just keep asserting that brain functions MUST create consciousness, but you don't explain how things that don't feel like anything give rise to internal experience. There IS a relationship, but nowhere in that entire schema, does consciousness arise.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I've seen without eyes before. It's called an OBE.
            This is because you have memories of seeing before. The experience of vision can either come from your eyes or your memory.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But my other points still stand. You''ll never find "where" consciousness is
            We already have. The brain.
            This is why braindeath is a legal concept.
            >Experiments with crayfish show they flee from pain
            Well no, they flee from predators automatically and haven't been shown to self-medicate in any study.
            >Biased for visual creatures
            Then why do no visual animals asides from mammals and birds pass it?
            >Where, between the eye and the brain does feeling arise
            It's very simple.
            The data is gathered by the sense organ and transmitted by nerves to the brain where it is then consciously perceived.
            So without the brain you perceive nothing and have no consciousness.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is why braindeath is a legal concept.
            A concept which exists purely to facilitate medical malpractice. People who have been declared braindead have emerged back to normal life just fine. It exists to allow organ harvesting, which is lucrative.
            >Well no, they flee from predators automatically
            Okay, Descartes. Appearance of self-awareness IS self-awareness. Nothing happens "automatically".
            >Then why do no visual animals asides from mammals and birds pass it?
            Good question. Maybe they just don't care about the spot on their head? Not every single mammal tested even in those groups always passes the test. So are some birds conscious and some are meat robots?
            >It's very simple.
            When you start saying this, you know you're on the wrong track. Nothing ever gets more simple with more investigation.
            >The data is gathered by the sense organ and transmitted by nerves to the brain where it is then consciously perceived.
            You get one more chance, and then I'm done going in circles here with you religious types: Where does the feeling of anything arise in that process? Not "data" (whatever that means here because brains are not computers), but experience. FEELING of experiencing. Why are you, you?
            >So without the brain you perceive nothing and have no consciousness.
            NDE's that are undergone during a period of total brain inactivity, which are often coupled with an OBE involving sensory information that wasn't accessible to the patient throw a spanner in the works.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A concept which exists purely to facilitate medical malpractice.
            Nope. It's to determine if somebodies brain is dead.

            >Okay, Descartes. Appearance of self-awareness IS self-awareness. Nothing happens "automatically".
            Your lobster scenario doesn't demonstrate conscious awareness. It demonstrates automatic programming.

            >Good question. Maybe they just don't care about the spot on their head?
            As if that hasn't already been taken into account. You're just making dumb excuses Christ-tard anon.

            >When you start saying this, you know you're on the wrong track. Nothing ever gets more simple with more investigation.
            Lol, because mentally ill people like you can look at a blank piece of paper and call it the Mona Lisa.

            >You get one more chance, and then I'm done going in circles here with you religious types
            There is literally nothing religious about anything I've said lol. You're one of those Christ-tards that think not believing in anything is a religion. Lol.
            You're the one going around in circles mate.

            >NDE's that are undergone during a period of total brain inactivity
            No they aren't lol. The brain is active five minutes or more after complete heart failure.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nope. It's to determine if somebodies brain is dead.
            Again, this doesn't happen. It's nonsense, because people recover from brain death all the time, unless actively murdered first.
            >Your lobster scenario doesn't demonstrate conscious awareness. It demonstrates automatic programming.
            There is no difference. That's why I called you "Descartes". Calling it "automatic programming" is mostly an excuse to horrifically mutilate and abuse animals, because you can make that case about any animal, even humans if you had some real balls.
            >As if that hasn't already been taken into account. You're just making dumb excuses Christ-tard anon.
            How, exactly? Not all animals of the same group pass the test. Also calling me a Christisraelite repeatedly won't make it true kek.
            >You're the one going around in circles mate.
            I'm calling you religious because you argue in the same way the religious do. "Well, MY schema has it AAAAAAAALLL figured out. Everyone else was just a bunch of deceived morons before ME. The Mystery is finally conquered."
            >not believing in anything
            You don't "not believe in anything". You most certainly believe that reality is as it appears to be, and that the current sciences as they stand are enough to solve any possible question.
            I don't believe these things.
            >No they aren't lol. The brain is active five minutes or more after complete heart failure.
            That's why I said, complete cessation of brain activity, not heart failure.
            >Because that's what senses do
            Read my post very carefully. Why do my senses FEEL like anything at all? Why do I experience colors, sounds, and emotions, rather than just "automatically react"? Can you prove I'm not automatically reacting?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Again, this doesn't happen.
            Again, you're too stupid to understand basic law lol.

            >There is no difference.
            Lol. There is a massive difference.
            You can program a drone to avoid certain obstacles but it isn't consciously perceiving anything.
            That's why lobsters can't self-medicate or pass a mirror test.

            >How, exactly?
            So highly social sheep that have excellent facial recognition can't recognize any change when their whole face has been painted brown when it was white before?
            Because it "doesn't care about that"..
            Stop playing stupid

            >Also calling me a Christisraelite repeatedly won't make it true kek.
            You're a pathological liar and a Christ-tard.

            >I'm calling you religious because
            You're a Christ-tard that calls everyone and everything religious regardless of whether they are or not.

            >You most certainly believe that reality is as it appears to be
            Exactly, you believe in your beloved sky-daddy...
            An imaginary thing that doesn't exist.

            >That's why I said, complete cessation of brain activity, not heart failure.
            And that's wrong. An NDE doesn't involve brain death. It involves temporary cessation of the heart.

            >Read my post very carefully. Why do my senses FEEL like anything at all?
            Because you are too stupid to understand basic science text books. That have been produced for over 150 years.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Back in the same circles. Tiring. Anyways, I'm done here, just too many damn Believers in these threads. Maybe someday you'll get it, that Man is not the measure of anything much at all, besides himself, and that the Universe remains a Mystery.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Back in the same circles
            Said the idiot that's going in circles being a stupid christ-tard.

            >Tiring. Anyways, I'm done here
            Cool, cut off your own head to prove your consciousness doesn't reside in it.

            >just too many damn Believers in these threads.
            Said the Christ-tard that thinks everything is a religion.

            >Maybe someday you'll get it, that Man is not the measure of anything much at all
            Wow, maybe you should feed yourself to a shark so nobody has to listen to your idiocy.

            >and that the Universe remains a Mystery
            Aha, I'm guessing that you find many very simple things in life "mysteries".
            Like missing the keys to your car every day.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >you would never find the source of feeling
      It's the nervous system

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Also because the body is simply an extension of the Universe. So you then would admit that the Universe is conscious.

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    is the sum total of the functions of the body. When the body stops functioning, consciousness does as well.
    >Why does this make people seethe so much?
    As a side thought.
    This is interesting because the pagan Europeans worshipped the head because they believed it was where all thought and personality came from.
    Yes Christians like the Ancient Egyptians believed that the Heart contained the soul and intellect.
    Christians weren't that stupid though. Their heart/soul/intellect mythos was merely how they denied physical reality and emphasized the importance of their invisible non-physicality universe model.

    So for Christians. Ascribing a persons mind to their brain was denying their god.

    That still sounds stupid and it is, but it makes a bit more sense from a theological perspective.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      I guess Epicurus was ahead of his time
      >There is also a part of the human soul that is concentrated in the chest, and is the seat of the higher intellectual functions.
      >The function of the human mind — that part of the soul that is located in our chest
      from plato.stanford.edu on Epicurus

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Oh sorry I was mostly thinking of the Ancient Celts.
        Yeah, when you look at the Romans and Greeks...

        Brain centered hypothesis - Pythagoras, Plato, Hippocrates, Galen, Homer
        Heart centered hypothesis - Diocles of Carystus, Aristotle, Epicurus, Praxagoras.

        You get a mishmash of thinkers from Ancient Rome and Greece on both sides of the fence.

        With the Celts you have Brainballs frequently used as weapons, here's an example...
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cet_mac_M%C3%A1gach

        Then the "beheading game".
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beheading_game

        Skull drinking cups.
        "Edouard Chavannes quotes Livy to illustrate the ceremonial use of skull cups by the Boii, a Celtic tribe in Europe, in 216 BC."
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_cup

        and then the Celtic head cult archeological sites.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entremont_(oppidum)
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Celtic_religion

        There is clearly an obsession going on there.

  11. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    You still think physics creates conciousness. go eat some color or something, newb

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You still think physics creates consciousness. go eat some color or something, newb
      Everything in this whole thread has convincingly and thoroughly proven that consciousness originates from matter.
      Your delusion is infinite anon.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >that consciousness originates from matter
        Where in the matter?
        >inb4 it's emergent
        I think I get it now, the people who subscribe to the "emergent" explanation believe in souls. At some arbitrary and immaterial level, consciousness arises from nonconscious matter because....well it just does.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Where in the matter?
          Your question has already been answered anon.
          Your logic is just as applicable with computers, yet you never apply that logic to computers.

          Your logic is just as applicable to muscle tissue, yet you never apply it to muscle tissue.

          Your logic is just as applicable to tree growth, yet you never apply it to tree growth.

          that sounds pretty illogical anon, I'm just sayin'.

          >that sounds pretty illogical anon, I'm just sayin'.
          No it doesn't.
          You are extremely stupid.
          Punch any part of the body aside from the head and you get.pain and broken bones.
          Punch the head and boom they are unconscious on the ground...

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Your logic is just as applicable with computers, yet you never apply that logic to computers.
            Brains are not computers. Consciousness is not a program. Calling brains computers is just the current fashion, because digital tech is the current hot thing. Biology is not mechanical.
            >Your logic is just as applicable to muscle tissue, yet you never apply it to muscle tissue.
            All your cells are conscious.
            >Your logic is just as applicable to tree growth, yet you never apply it to tree growth.
            All plants are conscious.

            >I'm not that guy, I'm the one who posted that study, and I'm not a Christian.
            So you are a Christian and that makes you even more stupid because it directly demonstrates how the Brain creates and is in charge of the human mind.

            I just said I'm not a Christian. I don't believe in souls, or any of that stuff. My point with the cerebellum one is this: she is still conscious. The most basal part of the brain is gone, and yet, she is still self-aware. She still feels. I never said the brain does nothing. Only that consciousness is not the result of a brain's functions.

            You're insane. You asked how a neural net maps certain concepts, I told you, and now you're jumping to some crazy shit about proving the network feels something and solipsism.

            You're getting me mixed up with other anons. I DID ask for you to prove the neural network has any feelings at all. So you're welcome to.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >prove the neural network has any feelings at all
            When did I say I think it does?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Brains are not computers. Consciousness is not a program.
            That doesn't change anything anon.
            Matter obviously gives rise to growth, movement and calculations yet you insist on leaving out consciousness for purely illogical religious reasons.
            >All plants are conscious.
            Literally zero evidence of being conscious.
            Don't possess a nervous system.
            Haven't passed any test of consciousness.

            >I just said I'm not a Christian. I don't believe in souls
            You're Christian and you literally believe in souls.

            >You're getting me mixed up with other anons
            No, don't lie anon.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Matter obviously gives rise to growth, movement and calculations yet you insist on leaving out consciousness for purely illogical religious reasons.
            You think you know what matter is? That's pretty funny. Like I said before, we know frick all.
            >Literally zero evidence of being conscious.
            Except that they react when hurt, seek to better their living conditions, have a deep relationship with pollinators, and actively work to make themselves more attractive to pollinators. Just because something doesn't talk or walk, doesn't mean it's not aware of itself. All life is conscious. There are no zombies.
            >You're Christian and you literally believe in souls.
            I don't even believe that Jesus ever existed at all, and I spent this entire thread constantly saying how "souls" are nonsense. Is this some new form of seethe I'm unaware of? Pointing out that science is relative and provisional, and that humans barely know the surface of the cosmos is now makes someone a Christtard?
            >No, don't lie anon.
            Do you seriously think I'm the only one posting in this thread that disagrees with OP (gay) and (You)?

            >If you're referring to the mirror test, I already addressed that.
            No you haven't moron anon.
            >Everyone is always just 2 weeks until they finally understand consciousness completely.
            That's how long it took you to make up this shit lol.

            >No you haven't moron anon.
            Not all animals in the same species or related group of species that are tested pass the test. Not all dogs, not all parrots, not all apes, so on.
            Animals that demonstrate incredible intelligence and emotional expression, like octopi, don't pass it either. It's a flawed and naively humanocentric metric, versus simply interacting with the animals.
            >That's how long it took you to make up this shit lol.
            See? This is how Believers react to meeting a TRUE Unbeliever, a TRUE relativist.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You think you know what matter is? That's pretty funny. Like I said before, we know frick all.
            No, you're too stupid to understand basic concepts or even read for that matter.
            Subatomic particles mate.

            >Except that they react when hurt
            They don't react because they don't move.
            They merely regrow dead tissue.

            >I don't even believe that Jesus ever existed at al
            You're Christian and you clearly believe in souls.

            >Do you seriously think I'm the only one posting in this thread that disagrees with OP
            You might even be the OP.
            Yes, that mentally ill behavior is all over IQfy.

            >Not all animals in the same species or related group of species that are tested pass the test.
            And that changes absolutely nothing because some species have ZERO individuals that successfully pass. Whole classes of life contain nothing that passes.

            >See? This is how Believers react to meeting a TRUE Unbeliever
            This has nothing to do with belief anon.
            You simply can't read or understand basic knowledge lol.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        that sounds pretty illogical anon, I'm just sayin'.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Explain how a neural net maps out a concept like "if" or a concept like "enjoyment"

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          It assigns a certain pattern of activations of neurons the name "if" or the name "enjoyment"

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Prove the network feels it.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Prove anyone feels anything. You're just going into solipsism at this point.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Noooooo consciousness has to come from some super spooky ghost shit

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Both are wrong, or at least, not sufficient to get the whole picture. Why does the Mystery make people so incensed?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        We can all have a laugh when we remember that physics doesn't cause anything, and feelings, color, and knowledge are free-to-use materials, seperate from physics

  12. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    bots, the lot of ya.
    conciousness stems from desire, which you would HAVE if you weren't a bot. bots.

  13. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >109 posts
    >17 IPs

  14. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because there is the equivalence principles and de morgan's laws of logic, hence any logical set of operations in any body has an equal set of operations elsewhere, literally anywhere. Materialists dun goofed.

  15. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Im a christian I dont disagree with this. When you die, you cease to exist on planet earth with your physical senses and body, you will live again in heaven.

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