How does materialism explain consciousness without devolving into panphysicism?

How does materialism explain consciousness without devolving into panphysicism?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >How does materialism explain consciousness
    Firing neurons create something when they coordinate their activity

    >without devolving into panphysicism?
    Why would that happen? I can perceive my own thoughts, not yours or anyone else's

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Firing neurons create something when they coordinate their activity
      But what is the process of how consciousness appears without just saying "it's emergent lol"? How would hard materialism "measure" consciousness?
      >Why would that happen? I can perceive my own thoughts, not yours or anyone else's
      Because just saying "consciousness exists" doesn't offer any explanatory power

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        NTA
        Your sense circuits are all wired into one structure which is also directly wired to your emotion and memory regions, this pair of regions is connected to your most advanced higher order thinking part of your brain.
        All of this is directly behind the bridge of your nose and eyeballs at the from to rhe bottom of your brain.
        It’s actually exactly how you would imagine it’s set up if you thought about it for a minute.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          this doesn't explain how or why subjective experience arises though

          >How would hard materialism "measure" consciousness?
          Brain-reading machines are being developed as we speak. By now we can actually figure out, very approximately, what someone is thinking, in terms of words or images

          https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/5/4/23708162/neurotechnology-mind-reading-brain-neuralink-brain-computer-interface

          If you're curious, just wait a year or two and we'll know a bit more about it

          >Because just saying "consciousness exists" doesn't offer any explanatory power
          Again, what's the problem? It's not like my thoughts can communicate with yours without the intermediary of matter (such as me opening my mouth and you hearing my words)

          >Brain-reading machines are being developed as we speak. By now we can actually figure out, very approximately, what someone is thinking, in terms of words or images
          Well you could do the same thing to circuits in a computer, doesn't prove that it actually has subjective experience. I can see how we can figure out how and what the brain processes information, but I cannot see how we can pinpoint where and how subjective experience arises. And if we say that subjective experiences is an emergent property of information/sensory processing, where do we draw the line, and why do we draw the line at that specific point, lest we again delve into panphysicism.
          >Again, what's the problem? It's not like my thoughts can communicate with yours without the intermediary of matter (such as me opening my mouth and you hearing my words)
          The problem is that we all agree that consciousness exists, and my problem with just describing consciousness as an emergent property is that every single other emergent property is an abstract thing that can be broken down until we get to the fundamentals, while we cannot do the same with pure materialism unless we somehow break down consciousness to a more fundamental aspect of reality ie panphysicism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Panpsychism*, please excuse my horrid spelling and grammar I took too much beer

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That actually is the how. Your senses are wired into one spot, mixed with your memory and wired to the part of your brain that is capable of real thought. That’s what you’re experiencing is those signals being fed into your most complex piece of brain.
            Why would you ask how something works and just ignore the answer?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why would you ask how something works and just ignore the answer?
            Because you're answering the wrong question.
            >Your senses are wired into one spot, mixed with your memory and wired to the part of your brain that is capable of real thought. That’s what you’re experiencing is those signals being fed into your most complex piece of brain.
            And I don't dispute any of this, but the unanswered question here is, which part of this causes subjective experience/consciousness to arise? How does information processing and signals traveling through complex neural networks end up producing consciousness? Do you see the problem here? Consciousness seemingly pops up out of nothing like magic.
            Let's say you have an extremely advanced robot that's indistinguishable from a human, would it be conscious/have subjective experience?
            If your answer is yes, let's say we go through a number of steps where we reduce it's cognitive abilities by an infinitesimal amount each step, at what point would the robot cease to have subjective experience? What would be the trigger for having/not having subjective experience?
            And if your answer is no, what differentiates the robot from the human, what causes the human to have subjective experience and the robot not to have it?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >And I don't dispute any of this, but the unanswered question here is, which part of this causes subjective experience/consciousness to arise?
            Your senses feeding into a part of your brain that processes those signals and makes decisions. That part is also hooked up to your memory and emotion. Maybe consciousness is an inevitable byproduct of complex electrical activity, maybe it evolved in humans and other animals. It certainly is practical to sort through my memories and sense data on command.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Uhmmmm, I'm sorry to say this, but the brain-as-a-bundle-of-electronic-components model is already outdated and is officially no longer sanctioned by professional neuroscience and cognitive science researchers.
            https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/feb/27/why-your-brain-is-not-a-computer-neuroscience-neural-networks-consciousness

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sorry to inform you that The Guardian is not a scientific journal.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's crazy how often people here post a popsci article with a sensational headline saying basically "this common crude metaphor is actually misleading" and assuming that science has basically abdicated any systematic explanation and you can just believe whatever you can imagine. The Creationists do this all the time too.

            Nothing more insane than the people here constantly b***hing about Redditors or whoever not actually understanding science when they post pop-science news articles they clearly didn’t read or understand.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's crazy how often people here post a popsci article with a sensational headline saying basically "this common crude metaphor is actually misleading" and assuming that science has basically abdicated any systematic explanation and you can just believe whatever you can imagine. The Creationists do this all the time too.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What is kind of true is that many metaphors are misleading and can make people ignore the finer details behind the workings of something while leading them to make or embrace even more absurd propositions. I'm not saying that the neuron-as-a-transistor metaphor isn't just that, a metaphor, but some people might be led to believe that hooking up a computer to a brain shouldn't be that difficult, and that human-machine fusion should be possible.

            I’m going to use a line from the article, metaphors are only partial. None of that article is saying the brain isn’t an organ that processes information and creates data with electricity.
            Computers are not a perfect metaphor and I don’t even think I used that metaphor in the first place. The best explanation is that consciousness evolved but it’s obviously not the most efficient method of being. A computer would actually be better because it doesn’t have to take time to make decisions like we do.

            >None of that article is saying the brain isn’t an organ that processes information and creates data
            Well, of course it doesn't, but I feel like saying that the human body is just an sensor-actuator-control loop that works through electrical impulses makes it feel like it's something relatively easy to replicate, as if it were possible to simply create an artificial human.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Well, of course it doesn't, but I feel like saying that the human body is just an sensor-actuator-control loop that works through electrical impulses makes it feel like it's something relatively easy to replicate, as if it were possible to simply create an artificial human.
            It’s not easy to replicate, it is beyond any computer as far as I know. I’m just saying your conscious experience is your senses, memory and emotions being wired to the front of your brain in one physical bundle of electrical wiring.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’m going to use a line from the article, metaphors are only partial. None of that article is saying the brain isn’t an organ that processes information and creates data with electricity.
            Computers are not a perfect metaphor and I don’t even think I used that metaphor in the first place. The best explanation is that consciousness evolved but it’s obviously not the most efficient method of being. A computer would actually be better because it doesn’t have to take time to make decisions like we do.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If your answer is yes, let's say we go through a number of steps where we reduce it's cognitive abilities by an infinitesimal amount each step, at what point would the robot cease to have subjective experience?
            That is a very difficult question, but no more difficult than asking how many parts of the human brain can I disable before a person stops having subjective experiences. As long as I avoid certain critical processing centers I would suspect I could remove a great deal of it, however the complexity of those subjective experiences would most likely decrease the more I paired away. Eventually they would lose intelligent thought, emotional reactions, then the ability to record information, then there would be nothing. In the same way the only thing that separates human consciousness from an animal's is the degree of complexity.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >How would hard materialism "measure" consciousness?
        Brain-reading machines are being developed as we speak. By now we can actually figure out, very approximately, what someone is thinking, in terms of words or images

        https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/5/4/23708162/neurotechnology-mind-reading-brain-neuralink-brain-computer-interface

        If you're curious, just wait a year or two and we'll know a bit more about it

        >Because just saying "consciousness exists" doesn't offer any explanatory power
        Again, what's the problem? It's not like my thoughts can communicate with yours without the intermediary of matter (such as me opening my mouth and you hearing my words)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >But what is the process of how consciousness appears without just saying "it's emergent lol"?
        That's an empirical question that hasn't been fully answered.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They claim consciousness is completely created by the brain meanwhile there are people who aren’t religious that believe in the possibility of uploading consciousness to a machine which would mean consciousness can be separated from the brain which imo absolutely proves the existence of the soul

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How does separating the mind from its matrix prove the existence of a soul? Are mind and soul the same to you? You could argue it proves the mind is essentially immaterial, but that's only if you can prove that the mind would not be transformed by being uploaded to a machine. Also, ostensibly anything on a machine can be copied infinitely. Doesn't the idea of hundreds of minds that are truly yourself (since you are supposing a real identity between brain mind and machine mind) seriously call into question the idea that having your brain simulated has bearing on the reality of the soul? I thought the soul was supposed to be unique and indivisible

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If you can only upload the mind and the consciousness transfers with it, doesn't that disprove the soul as our "experience of reality" is just our mind?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't think brain uploading is possible in practice (at least not for the next 100+ years), but I don't understand why the mere idea filters people. "Music" was something that organic humans made by banging things together, but you can encrypt it on a record in various formats, you can play it from speakers, you can generate it from software, and now AI can even compose it without human intervention.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Schizoidberg

      Those people either aren't materialist, are wrong, or are imagining some quantum bullshit that's way too complicated to get into; but basically, from a purely materialist point of view, uploading your brain to a computer would only save a copy of your mind, not "move" it there.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just out of curiosity..how do idealists explain it?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Well the mind is the only real thing for the idealists, so they don't have to explain as it is the only thing that is "real". But it's unfalsifiable not making it extremely useful in my opinion.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Berkeley

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There's a magical israelite in the sky.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Panpsychism is probably true.
    The apparent illusory separation of “individual” consciousness minds is likely the property that is emergent rather than consciousness itself.

    Perhaps this is due to some localization process within complex information processing structures (such as our brains) and analogous or even related to the fact that we only perceive sufficiently well-localized quantum states (i. e. high peaks in the associated wave function) in our mesoscopic everyday environment, although there obviously exist more exotic non-localized states/waves on a microscopic level (what pop-sci imprecisely labels a particle being in two position at once, but that is a distortion of what is going on, what should simply say the entity is in a non-classical state).
    Why our mesoscopic world has a preference for such states and their individuated minds could be due to processes called decoherence and einselection.
    In any case this is my crackpot theory.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >How does materialism explain consciousness
    why should it? are you under the impression that religiotardation explains it?

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Bumping based thread. Consciousness is in everything down to the lowest electron. Definition of conciousness: "that which collapses a wave function".
    Wigner's Friend
    Von Neumann-Wigner Interpretation
    Panpsychism

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Bro you were unconscious for part of last night. Nevermind a pile of sand

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Definition of conciousness: "that which collapses a wave function".
      so an interaction? whenever something gets entangled with something else, it becomes conscious because from its point of view the wavefunction of the other system collapsed?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >collapses a wave function
      wave function collapse only happens in one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it isn't even the most favored interpretation among physicists
      and even them that would equate 'consciousness' with 'interaction of any kind'

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Software to hardware but organic matter

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But software isn't real, it's a human construct to refer to certain hardware configurations. So you're just denying consciousness

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Dumbest cope i ever heard

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well, what exactly do idealists deny about the materialist conception of the sense-thought organ structure? Do they deny that the human hand can sense heat and tell apart soft from hard stuff because it has the appropriate sensory material? Do they deny that a human could not see without eyes, or could not hear without an auditory canal? Do idealists believe that people could imagine what, say, a card or a fish looks like even if they'd never seen, touched, smelled, or heard anything?
        Do idealists deny that the thoughts have an emprical component that is rooted in the material interaction of the human body with its environment?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How does materialism explain a billiard ball transmitting force to another ball it slams against?
    We observe phenomena and then postulate theories that best explain the data.
    Changing the brain changes our conscious experience with a reliability that we can conclude states of consciousness sleeping alertness etc just from looking at brain scans.
    It's really the only good conclusion.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What's wrong with panpsychism?
    If the evidence indicates that panpsychism is true, then it's true and we have to accept that. I don't think the evidence shows this as of now however.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It doesn't

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Consciousness? Heh. You mean a user illusion? Qualia is a dark-ages concept to us enlightened atheists.

    *smug*

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Let’s see anon.
    I think it’s because of the brain.
    The rock in the road doesn’t think…
    Neither does the squirrel next to it that got crushed by a Chevy,
    But people and dogs that are alive seem to be conscious
    Hmmm… I think it requires having a living brain

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It cant without curtailing itself because emergent behavior in hard to grasp via self observation.
    atheists would rather ignore this than admit humans are finite creatures.
    While I admire the faustian attitude its really cowardly to deny the limits of human observation.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Part of the problem is that leaving any uknowns is seeing by theists to be an opportunity to peddle their crosses and books,
      You really cannot admit "I don't know" if literally any admittance of it is seeing as an apportunity bring up the resurrecting carpenter (for example).

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's funny how we can't define "consciousness" in order to discuss the supposed hard problem without saying "it's the internal experience we all have. Can I point to it? No, but you know what I mean."

    Almost makes one think it's an illusion

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This line of reasoning has never made sense to me. How can consciousness be an illusion when it's in fact the most real thing there is? The only thing that is self evident when we go the path of full skepticism. Cogito ergo sum and all. I can understand saying that the self is an illusion, but consciousness itself?

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    microtubules man

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