Why does the establishment feels so threatened by them and neurophilosophy? Is explaining everything through neurological processes (aka. Churchland speech) the true path towards enlightenment?
Here's an example of that: «Pat burst in the door, having come straight from a frustrating faculty meeting. “She said ‘Paul, don’t speak to me, my serotonin levels have hit bottom, my brain is awash in glucocorticoids, my blood vessels are full of adrenaline, and if it weren’t for my endogenous opiates I’d have driven the car into a tree on the way home. My dopamine levels need lifting. Pour me a Chardonnay, and I’ll be down in a minute.’”»
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
>neurophilosophy
New IQfy meme confirmed
Cringe. They deny qualia and free will. Larping as a neuroscientist is the opposite of philosophy.
>qualia
There's nothing to deny, because qualia doesn't support the premise that consciousness is separate from the body.
>free will
Was never a thing. Nietzsche destroyed it in the 19th century and he wasn't the first either.
Qualia are not reducible to physics and hence provide evidence of a nonphysical consciousness. Free will is an introspective fact. Nietzsche is cringe.
Of course qualia can be "reduced to" (explained by) physics. What else do you think there is, moron? Magical fairies from the Other Realm beaming qualia into your body?
To an npc like you consciousness may indeed be indistinguishable from magic, since you never experienced it and cannot imagine it.
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting, moron. Say something actually worthwhile next time you reply.
>since you never experienced it
I experience qualia like everyone else, all the time. It doesn't mean God is real.
There is nothing ironic about a fact. It is indeed sad that you apparently exist without a consciousness.
>I experience qualia like everyone else
Exactly what a p-zombie would be programmed to say.
>It is indeed sad that you apparently exist without a consciousness.
What is meant by "there is no consciousness" is that there is no isolated mental process or experience separate from the rest of the body. There is still the experience conventionally referred to as consciousness, but it is a byproduct of a combination of physical processes merely creating the sensation that your mind is separate from your body.
Not that you care, because your only concern is your religious agenda.
Acknowledging the irreducibility of qualia is in fact the opposite of religious modes of thinking, for it is not based on blind belief but only on logical inquiry. It is a scientific conclusion based on evaluating the implications of countless thought experiments. Your naive materialism on the other hand is religious, since it denies undeniable aspects of reality only to defend a dogma that has been refuted long time ago.
There is no "irreducibility" of it when you understand what "it" is. There is nothing about it being denied in my description; the creative imagination and breadth of sensational depth our bodies are capable of are fully recognized and still appreciated. You are just trying to force into existence some property that you would like to be seen as irreducible, because you have a religious agenda. Such a property serves as a gateway into the rest of your life-denying religion.
The red-ness of red will never exhausted by physical description. Explaining qualia through physical processes is like asking someone to paint you a song, or write you a sculpture. Don't you get it that these are two irreconcilable, discontinuous domains?
That the physical explanation of qualia is different from the experience of it does not suggest, in any way at all, that qualia is an isolated experience rather than an emergent byproduct of physical processes.
Still don't get it. Where is the switch-over from physical process to experiential quality? You can only jump between the two domains through a quantum leap, not emergence.
>Where is the switch-over from physical process to experiential quality?
The physical process is observed from an outside body while the qualia is experienced within the body. Your qualia doesn't exist for me because I'm not your body, you're your body; likewise, my qualia is only an observation of physical processes to you. Denying perspectivism is fundamentally solipsistic.
Again: how does an external description of an internal event exhaust it?
There's no "exhaustion." They happen simultaneously via perspectivism. The description that is external to you is qualia to me and vice versa.
Experience is metaphysical. Even talking about it objectively is stupid since it's inherently private.
A) If physicalism is true then
B) Qualia cannot exist
A is true, therefore so is B
there I solved all of your dumb mind-body problems
The establishment wants to destroy them because if everyone read this shit they would instantly realize how fricking lame science is and revert back to religion, destroying the current liberal establishment's power.
>Pat burst in the door, having come straight from a frustrating faculty meeting. “She said ‘Paul, don’t speak to me, my serotonin levels have hit bottom, my brain is awash in glucocorticoids, my blood vessels are full of adrenaline, and if it weren’t for my endogenous opiates I’d have driven the car into a tree on the way home. My dopamine levels need lifting. Pour me a Chardonnay, and I’ll be down in a minute.’”»
fricking lol. It's actually pretty impressive how powerful it is in that it will make anyone embarrassed to admit they've read it. It makes the entire field of neuroscience sound cringe and damn near brings down philosophy with it. It's brings to mind that one single quote that brought the entire online atheism movement to its knees
>In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessings. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
I hope it catches on and people finally realize how lame the end goals of science are so that we can hang these people and get back to basics
Imagine caring about "online movements"
>The establishment wants to destroy them because if everyone read this shit they would instantly realize how fricking lame science is and revert back to religion, destroying the current liberal establishment's power.
I still respect science, but knowing these guys actually made take anything scientists said with a grain of salt---mostly whenever it relates to a field that isn't their own. I mean, I'll trust (most) hearing specialists about my ears, but I wouldn't trust them about ethics or religion---actually, the one hearing specialist I knew held moronic points of view in these fields.
Imagine defending the fricking Churchlands lmao
There's still this cloying sancho panza quality to some philosophers of mind. If you watch the Searle and Eccles debate it's Searle the philosopher defending a monism and claiming that neuroscience can solve all problems of the mind in principle against Eccles the scientist and dualist. And of course Eccles is sitting there and shaking his head because he's done the work. Searle is sharp enough to not be an epiphenomenalist but I think these types rely on some very devious cognitive sleights of hand, like equating the stomach-digestion 'problem' with the brain-mind problem when we intuitively feel there's a difference. Really I'm of the belief that the problem of consciousness itself presupposes dualism
>don’t speak to me, my serotonin levels have hit bottom, my brain is awash in glucocorticoids, my blood vessels are full of adrenaline, and if it weren’t for my endogenous opiates I’d have driven the car into a tree on the way home. My dopamine levels need lifting. Pour me a Chardonnay, and I’ll be down in a minute.
hot