• foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Again, it has been yet to be proved.

    If it seems so obvious to you, please go on and prove it. You’ll die a nobel laureate rather than an armchair dbag.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What are you smoking? It’s been proved, inasmuch as “it’s daytime when the sun is out” has been proved.

      Our brain is made up of neurons firing electrical impulses.

      Consciousness is in the brain.

      Therefore, somewhere in those electrical impulses is consciousness.

      Strange you get so defensive. Maybe it’s because your psyche can’t handle the fact that there’s nothing after death, and you need to cling to whatever faint hope you have that there might be such thing as a soul?

      • zero_iq@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No it hasn’t, and if you don’t see why, and why your explanation is incredibly simplistic and insufficient as an explanation of consciousness, you may not fully realise or understand the problem.

        I don’t believe in life after death etc. and I believe consciousness is indeed manifested somewhere in the brain (and tied to those electrical impulses in some way), yet find your explanation utterly insufficient to address the “hard problem” of consciousness. It doesn’t explain qualia, or subjective experience.

        Now obviously we do seem to have proved that consciousness is somehow related to such electrical impulses and other processes in the brain… but to say that we even begin to understand how actual subjective conscious experience arises from this is simply not true.

        For starters: your logical steps from brain uses electricity -> consciousness is in the brain -> therefore consciousness is in the electrical impulses is a non-sequitur.

        To illustrate: CPUs are made up of logic gates that utilise electricity to perform many operations. We know mathematical calculations are done in the CPU. Therefore mathematics is in the logic gates. Does that sound right to you? Is that in any way a satisfactory explanation of what maths is, or where mathemarical concepts exists or how marhs came to be? Does maths only exist in electrical logic gates?

        Doesn’t seem at all right does it? Yet that’s precisely the same leap of logic you just used.

        Now before you reply with “ah, but that’s totally different” carefully examine why you think it’s different for consciousness…

        In addition, there are more than just electrical impulses going on in the brain. Why do you choose electrical or only electrical? Do you think all electrical systems are conscious? What about a computer? What about your house electrical system? Do you draw a distinction? If so, where is the distinction? Can you accurately describe what exactly about certain electrical systems and not others gives rise to direct subjective experience and qualia? What is the precise mechanism that leads to electrons providing a conscious subjective experience? Would a thinking simulation of a brain experience the same qualia?

        If you really can’t see what I’m getting at with any of this, perhaps you might be a philosophical zombie… not actually conscious yourself. Just a chemical computer firing some impulses that perfectly simulates a conscious entity, just like an AI but in meat form. Carefully consider: how do you personally know if this is or isn’t true?

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay, I’ll give it a shot.

          For starters: your logical steps from brain uses electricity -> consciousness is in the brain -> therefore consciousness is in the electrical impulses is a non-sequitur.

          To illustrate: CPUs blah blah mathematics

          Okay, fine. Consciousness is exclusively in the brain. Now your whole metaphor falls apart, because mathematics is not exclusively in the CPU. It is not subjective. It does not arise from the existence of the CPU. It is a concept separate from the CPU, or indeed any matter.

          Now before you reply with “ah, but that’s totally different” carefully examine why you think it’s different for consciousness…

          I thought about it, and my conclusion is “it’s because I’m not a fuckin moron” .

          In addition, there are more than just electrical impulses going on in the brain.

          Pedantry. “Electrical impulses” is a close enough phrase to describe a host of related but slightly different things.

          All the rest of your questions are stupid ridiculous garbage based on some weird fixation you have with electricity. Like I said, it’s a phrase I used to avoid giving a 3 semester lecture on the minutiae of everything going on in the brain.

          • zero_iq@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            My comment just touched the tip of an iceberg that is an entire realm of philosophical and scientific debate that has occupied some of the brightest minds, across multiple disciplines, for decades. But sure, it’s just stupid ridiculous garbage 🙄

            You probably think you sounded really clever.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Philosophy, as a field, is full of idiots and I have no respect for it.

              But also the premise dealt with the tip of the iceberg and nothing more. The extent of our conversation is (heh) just the tip.

              “Consciousness is electrical impulses in the brain”. That’s it. The extent of our debate is whether this is true or not. Not how those impulses give rise to consciousness, which is what the greater debate (among those who are not idiots) is about.

              • zero_iq@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Petroleum is what makes cars move, obviously. That’s it!

                All those engineers and mechanics who waffle on about physics, laws of motion, and engines and stuff are all a bunch of idiots. I have no respect for them. I don’t need to know about that stuff to talk about how cars work!

                You just put petrol in it, it burns and it moves. Burning petrol is what makes cars move. That’s all we’re talking about here! The extent of our debate is whether or not petrol makes cars move. Not how it makes cars go, that’s a wider debate for non-idiots.

                (Electric cars? Nonsense. Where’s the gas tank?)

                (Boats? No, they’re completely different. I mean yes you put the same fuel in them, but they’re clearly not cars, so it’s not the same.)

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I specifically called out philosophy as being full of idiots rather than literally any other field for a reason.

                  For example, your post.

                  • zero_iq@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You are wading in with extreme arrogance in an area you clearly know very little about.

                    Many of the most prominent ideas in the field of consciousness are from physicists, biologists, and other scientific fields. The issues are in some cases fundamental to the philosophy of science itself. This is the very bleeding edge of science, where hard physics and metaphysics collide.

                    Why do you think consciousness remains known as the “hard problem”, and still a considered contentious mystery to modern science, if your simplistic ideas can so easily explain it?

                    Do you think your naive ideas have not already been thoroughly debated and explored by scientists and philosophers over years of debate and research? The extremely simplistic and basic points you have raised (even ignoring the fallacious ones) are easily invalidated by anyone with even a basic grasp of this field (or indeed basic logic or scientific methodology).

                    Besides the above, you have clearly not understood the main point of my comment, not engaged in any actual logical debate or analysis of the issues raised (indeed you don’t even to comprehend or recognise what these are) and demonstrated a near total ignorance of modern theories of consciousness.

                    You had a chance to open your eyes to a whole realm of knowledge and discovery in a fascinating field at the cutting edge of modern science and reason and you just utterly failed to engage with it, handwaving it away with ignorance and stupidity.