People argue over the hard problem of consciousness, but few mention it's odd locality. Why am I conscious of this specific body and not any other creature in the universe? What mechanism limits qualia to a single entity instead experiencing of all of them at the same time?

>>17804863 (OP)
Identity

>>17804873
Lacking a personal identity wouldn't suddenly have me experience another. Only mimic it. Which is not the same thing.

>>17804863 (OP)
The scientist in me wants to say you're conscious in this body because this brain produces your mind. But, that doesn't explain why you're not in some other brain. The brain may be the generator of consciousness, but doesn't explain why THIS brain. Quantum collapse MIGHT play a role in individual consciousness, potentially enforcing this kind of locality. But there's zero empirical support this.

That makes about as much sense as asking
>why am I drowning in the Pacific Ocean, and not in the methane lakes below Titan's ice?

>>17805073
>this brain produces your mind.
>that doesn't explain why you're not in some other brain.
It perfectly does, in fact.

>>17805086
No you're not understanding the problem of the physical blind spot. The brain may be the generator of consciousness, but why this one that you currently occupy? It ties into the hard problem of consciousness of why we're aware at all, let alone why we're aware in THIS brain and not some other brain.

>>17805094
>The brain may be the generator of consciousness, but why this one that you currently occupy?
Because it's a working brain that exists? How is that any harder a problem than anything else related to identity? For example, in a sense one could have been born to any female human with a working reproductive system, so why was I born to my mother and not another? You could get into details about how your brain or your mother made you the particular individual you are, but there's no actual problem at all.

>why we're aware at all
why do flatworms have eyes?

>>17805073
>But, that doesn't explain why you're not in some other brain.
Yes it does.

>The brain may be the generator of consciousness, but doesn't explain why THIS brain.
It's not just THIS brain, it's each and every brain. You're acting like there is something unique about your conscious point of view, as if you are God and it's a mystery why God is attached to this particular brain.

>>17805122
>>17805128
I don't think you understand what the hard problem of consciousness is or why OP's question is related.

>>17805131
No u don't understand.

>>17805131
Why do flatworms have eyes?
If you're not versed in biology, I should specify that flatworms do not have "proper" eyes as we understand them, but clumps of light-sensitive cells that basically only allow them to sense where light comes from, these animals seem to have dull or non-existent senses in general.

The hard problem of consciousness is when you read the answer to your question but claim it doesn't answer the question and go off on a tangent about spooky quantum magic.

>>17804863 (OP)
You are confusing yourself by thinking that you are not a body but rather a ghost piloting a body. This leads you to ponder why this ghost entered this specific body, ignoring the fact that the whole problem goes away when you grow up and stop believing in ghosts.

>>17805564
So.... why does this particular body have qualia? Just a big cosmic accident?

>>17805619
Qualia or consciousness? They're not the same thing.
Regardless, what is "accidental" about that? Presumably the body has characteristics that correspond to its physical makeup.

>>17805639
Qualia or consciousness? They're not the same thing.
Whichever one you think means subjective experience.

>Regardless, what is "accidental" about that?
I'm asking you.

>>17805660
There's nothing accidental about the fact that the body has properties which correspond to its physical makeup. It's like asking if it's a big coincidence that chairs have the property of chairness.

>>17805669
So my body has qualia because it has properties corresponding to qualia? Doesn't that sound a little 2πr to you?

>>17805693
You're begging the question for substance dualism. The fact that substance dualism leads to weird issues is not my problem.

>>17805702
So your answer to the harm problem of consciousness is "don't know, don't care"? Can't argue with that.

>>17805710
Were you talking about the hard problem? I thought you were talking about the problem of identity, specifically because you said "why does THIS PARTICULAR body have qualia".
If what you really meant was something like "why does consciousness exist" or "what mechanism or substance is connected to consciousness", different people will give you different stories of course.
Keep in mind that I'm not shilling materialism here or anything of the sort. The answers I gave to the problem of identity earlier are available to all monists, regardless of whether they are materialists, idealists, neutral monists or whatever else.

>>17805722
>Were you talking about the hard problem? I thought you were talking about the problem of identity, specifically because you said "why does THIS PARTICULAR body have qualia".
Well, that did seem to be the topic of the thread. And I'm really not clear what your answer is, if it's not just begging the question.

>>17805725
>Well, that did seem to be the topic of the thread.
What, the hard problem? Obviously not, OP literally opens with "people talk about the hard problem, but here's this OTHER problem I don't see people talking about".
>And I'm really not clear what your answer is
That's because I did not give one, because neither the hard problem nor my stance on consciousness are the topic of the thread.

>>17805740
Seems to me like not another problem, but a specificity of the same problem.

>>17805748
No, it's a completely different problem called the "vertiginous question".
Look, you seem to be upset that I'm not talking about the hard problem with you. You don't have to look for ways to somehow smuggle it in or prove that this thread really is about the hard problem. You can simply directly ask me what I personally think the answer to the hard problem is.

There is one universal mind but it's actualised through different bodies. Like how different radios, bodies, can play the same tune, mind.

>>17805770
So you believe you are a pedophile?

>>17805086
>>17805122
>>17805188
Subhuman p-zombies

>>17805754
Hardly sounds different at all to me since the question "why am I me?" presumes the existence of subjective experience and the answer, whatever it may be, must be closely tied to the origin of the same, but in the offchance I'm not talking to an early 2000s chatbot, OK, what do you think is the answer to the hard problem?

>>17805772
Yes, the universal mind actuates through every pedophile and every other conscious being.

>>17805775
Of course it's a different question. If you can't recognize that, you're quite dull.
Idealism and property dualism both have their merits. I think the answer is probably one of the two, but I haven't committed to either because I think both have some unresolved problems (not with regards to the hard problem, but in other areas).

>>17805779
Ew.

>>17805786
Kek you utterly are the smuggie
>>17805748

>>17805789
What reason do I have to commit to one of two views if I think both have the same merits and the issues they face are roughly similarly serious? Aside from memes of course.

>>17804873
fpbf
ego is the membrane that keeps the soul droplets from merging into shared consciousness
thats why love or drugs gives this intense feeling of connection, it dissolves the ego barrier a bit

>>17805789
You are falling for the fallacy that one of two options have to be correct, it's called false dichotomy, they could very well both be wrong

>>17804863 (OP)
>What mechanism limits qualia to a single entity instead experiencing of all of them at the same time?
Qualia (& consciousness) is an emergent property of one's brain. It's linked to one's own experience through memories & language imo.

>>17805073
>>17805094
It seems you think that consciousness is something that you 'occupy'. But in reality, your consciousness produces your subjective experience afaik, so the answer lies in the question.

>>17805863
how do you explain OBE's then

>>17805868
Can you astral project into my room and tell me what I'm wearing?

>>17805868
Sensory hallucinations, made up stories etc. If you're not a retard, you should be able to visualize and imagine a very complex world. I can picture myself moving through the streets as a ghost without much problem. I imagine it must be the same for OBE

>>17805868
Chemicals in your brain can alter your experience without altering the physical reality around you. It's like asking me to "explain alcohol". Your brain is the one being affected, not the rest of the universe.

>>17805875
Like to a real wizard that would probably be trivial and he'd obviously have more important things to do

>>17805876
>I imagine it must be the same for OBE
Proof you haven't done it

>>17805882
That's obviously retarded because the "chemicals in your brain" are physical.

>>17805886
I see, you want to segway the thread into some dualist nonsense. Make another thread then retard

>>17805889
I feel like the "dualist" meme that you bring up is a cope, You don't need a philosophy to explain the spiritual nature of consciousness, it's literally just science but science that includes spirit things as well as physical things.

>>17805886
>Proof you haven't done it
>*waaah I could imagine myself flying and I was scared of heights waaah bro*
>Bro this totally means I'm actually ghost that flies around and am currently only renting this head for the small price of 49.99$ a month

why is /his/ full of retards

>>17805897
Cringe strawman, grow up and stop shitting up the board with your argumentative fallacies

>>17805886
>Like to a real wizard that would probably be trivial and he'd obviously have more important things to do
Nuclear cope.

>>17805886
>mystictard trying to act smug
meanwhile still zero proof of cartesian duality

>>17805886
Exactlty, your out of body experience is your brain notbhaving the capacity to accurately ascertain your location relative to your surroundings. This is called vertigo, a physical reaction. You want OBE's to be mystical to get your magic foot in the door. Same shit with Plato's cave allegory that he made up to deny man's capacity to know truth without him. I see you for what you are, a mystic.

>>17805898
>literally believes he's casper the friendly ghost
>tells people to grow up
kek

>>17805896
>I feel like the "dualist" meme that you bring up is a cope
A cope for what ? Dualism doesn't account for reality. The only thread it lingers on is a gap in our explanation of consciousness and OBEs, both of which have good explanations to account for.

>it's literally just science but science that includes spirit things as well as physical things.
Was this something you learned at Hogwarts ?

>>17805900
No cope detected saar, If there was a wizard that could AP into your room and shit he wouldn't because you are a loser faggot, he would probably be on important missions saving people's lives n shit or fucking up corrupt organizations by spying on them, a real wizard wouldn't want to look at some fag jerking off on 4chan

>>17805902
>cartesian duality
No idea what that is

>>17805905
No I don't believe that, kys

>>17805903
Nah bro vertigo isn't OBE, that's a whole different phenomenon

>>17805906
Smug references to Harry Potter, it's like I'm really on Reddit! Damn how 4chan took a nose dive

>>17805907
mid b8, 4/10
It stopped being believable once you started saying you were Casper the ghost

>Smug references to Harry Potter, it's like I'm really on Reddit! Damn how 4chan took a nose dive
Bro I'm telling you it's real, I've had an OBE where I met Hermione

>>17805907
If there was any truth to an OBE being mystical as you claim, it wouldn't be called an experience. It would be called leaving the body.

>>17805907
>he's telling people to grow up while claiming there are undercover wizards saving the world through magic like in a bad YA novel
kek

>>17805912
I never even wrote the word "mystical"

>>17805929
You asked me to explain obe's, then you tried to argue that my explanation was wrong because it was physical. If you think there is a non-physical explanation then you are using mysticism by default.

>>17805935
Okay bro.

>>17805073
I don't see any proof that you are "in a brain". Like how do you explain dreams for example.
>The brain may be the generator of consciousness
I don't see any proof of this either ... I don't feel like I need to bring "Quantum" stuff into the discussion either. There was some guy on a podcast talking about how he doesn't believe memory is stored in the brain, and he was pretty darn convinced.

You've got your main sensory organs attached to your head, that's why you think you are "in the brain". Let's say if your eyes & ears were on your chest, then you would seriously be making the argument that you "are in your heart". It would just look & sound that way.

>>17805965
We have 0 proof that consciousness cna exist without a physical body. It is folly to assume it is possible beforehand.

>>17804863 (OP)
1) there is no hard problem of consciousness; of someone are using that therm it means they are trying to peddle some mystcism babble

2) any mysticism babble explaination is incoherent and doesn't atually explain consciousness

>>17806021
Well you're being silly because you don't have any empirical evidence of consciousness being physical or even existing in the first place.

>>17806033
The evidence is clear. Physical entities can influence your consciousness like alcohol or drugs. Unless alcohol and drugs have a non-physical magic aspect there is no reason to assume consciousness is not physical.

>>17806032
>2) any mysticism babble explaination is incoherent and doesn't atually explain consciousness

This is clearly just you arguing from ignorance, Like if I don't understand something and call it "babble" it doesn't mean it's a wrong explanation. Like for example I pick up a handbook on electrical circuits and don't understand it, doesn't mean electricity isn't explained in that book.

>>17806035
>Unless alcohol and drugs have a non-physical magic aspect
And how do you know they don't? Well the answer is clear, of course you don't know that.
>>17806035
>Physical entities can influence your consciousness
Metaphysical entities might also (obviously)

>>17806036
>This is clearly just you arguing from ignorance, Like if I don't understand something and call it "babble" it doesn't mean it's a wrong explanation. Like for example I pick up a handbook on electrical circuits and don't understand it, doesn't mean electricity isn't explained in that book.
Notice how no explaination was given; because mysicism isn't a good way to understand the world

>>17806038
>And how do you know they don't? Well the answer is clear, of course you don't know that.
We know how these drugs workb if you believe in an ivisible and immaterial magic world your opinions are irreleant

>>17806038
Metaphysics is the study of what is real and what isn't, it doesn't mean non-physical, that glory goes to mysticism.

>>17806042
>We know how these drugs work
Who are "we" in this context? You don't know it, Seems to me as if you're basically appealing to "the scientists" like a religious person would appeal to his priesthood.

>>17806043
Fuck that is my biggest pet peeve, people saying "metaphysics" when they obviously just mean magic.

>>17806044
>Who are "we" in this context?
Modern medicine and neurology; feel free to provide cointer evidene to these fields (you won't)

>>17806045
Why's that a pet peeve for you?

>>17806046
What? You didn't post any "evidence" for anything, you just made a basic appeal to a supposed authority. Not exactly "evidence".

>>17806045
That's what happens when you get this month's talking points from a tranny discord instead of studying and understanding the words that you mean.

>>17806047
>Why's that a pet peeve for you?
Because these people use language in a confusing way in an attempt to sound more like serious adults and less like diaper-clad children.
It's a very dumb form of attempted deception.

>>17806047
>What? You didn't post any "evidence" for anything, you just made a basic appeal to a supposed authority. Not exactly "evidence".
As exected, no counterargument

You have to actually prove there is something beyond chemical interactions for these drugs not just disbelief modern science because you don't like it; I'll wat for your evidence (you don't have any)

>>17806050
Nah bro you're projecting your own lack of knowledge, metaphysics has a certain meaning, it's not necessarily that people use it to sound smarter than you. It could just be that they actually are smarter than you, haha. You basically got angry because someone used a word you don't understand and then you project that you are acting like a "diaper-clad child".

>>17806063
Nice b8 m8

>>17806067
Not bait by the way, calling it bait clearly a cope from your side

>>17806063
>the diaper-clad doubles down
You've never studied philosophy, that's why you think metaphysics means magic. Not even fresh philosophy undergrad students make this mistake.

>>17806069
>You've never studied philosophy, that's why you think metaphysics means magic
This doesn't even make sense, lol. Also Magic can have many metaphysical aspects to it, like take levitation for example, a heavy object wouldn't be expected to levitate under normal physical conditions, there would have to be something metaphysical going on.

supernatural*

>>17806071
Of course it does make sense. "Metaphysics" is a philosophical discipline. You're completely unfamiliar with philosophy, so you somehow got it in your head that metaphysics refers to magic, supernatural phenomena etc.

>>17806079
This is clearly a cope on your part because you for some reason think that philosophy can't be reconciled with metaphysics, so you take for granted I haven't studied philosophy, it's just a mental way for you to not have to deal with that, so that you can go on being ignorant.

>>17806086
>you for some reason think that philosophy can't be reconciled with metaphysics
I literally told you metaphysics is a philosophical disciple, diaper-clad.
Here, I can give you an easy example.
When Brad says "There is nothing in this world aside from matter.", Brad is doing metaphysics.
When Jeff says "abracadabra" and pulls a rabbit out of a hat, Jeff isn't doing metaphysics, he's doing magic.

>>17806090
*discipline

>>17806090
>"There is nothing in this world aside from matter."
If that were true why call it something? I.e. Why call it "matter", why not just call it "stuff". Also that example of pulling a rabbit out of a hat isn't magic, it's legerdemain. A good example of actual magic would be like curing an illness by thinking, or by laying on of hands.

>>17806096
>If that were true why call it something?
Literally irrelevant to the point of the example.
>Also that example of pulling a rabbit out of a hat isn't magic, it's legerdemain. A good example of actual magic would be like curing an illness by thinking, or by laying on of hands.
I didn't mean that he's doing a trick, I mean that he literally conjures a rabbit from literally nothing by saying a magical word.

>>17806098
>Literally irrelevant to the point of the example.
That's a bad way to try and dodge my question. I don't give a fuck about your example right now, I'm asking a question.

>>17806099
The word matter existed before stuff, have fun giving the answer yourself. Why call it stuff?

Also it's quite clear to anyone that you don't "conjure" things out of "literally nothing", that is clearly retarded and never happened. So if the rabbit really did appear it would make sense to believe it came from a metaphysical place

>>17806105
>The word matter existed before stuff,
Lol, how could you possibly know that? you just pulled that "fact" out of your ass, didn't you.

>>17806099
I don't give a single fuck about your question, you retarded puddingbrain. I am NOT the one making that claim, and I'm not in the business of defending the claims of imaginary characters.

>>17806108
I studied historical languages including english, feel free to prove me wrong. Asspulling is the tool of mystics, like your definition of metaphysics.

>>17806108
>Also it's quite clear to anyone that you don't "conjure" things out of "literally nothing", that is clearly retarded and never happened.
Illustrative examples, famously only involving things that happened.
Had you not eaten breakfast this morning, how would you feel?

>>17804863 (OP)
>Basedjak answer :
Because the neuronal activity in your body says your consciousness is in your body?!
>Me (an intellectual) :
Ok, why should we trust neurons to tell us what they are or what anything is, for that matter?
>Basedjak answer :
Because... Because they're your neurons???6? Just trust them ok!???!

This is literally a religion. Have faith in X despite X having no hard proof behind their claim; where X here is Neuronal Activity.

>>17806112
That is totally fair but why are you posting in the thread then? I don't get why people go into threads, and post about how much they don't care about the discussion going on. Lol. Just fuck off then? If you're just going to go off-topic then don't bother responding. There are many other boards to check out if you don't have anything to contribute.

>>17806120
I fundamentally agree with you ... It's a lot like a religious belief.

>>17806122
Genuine question... Are you high right now? The question I don't care about is this
>If that were true why call it something?
This question has nothing to do with the point of the thread and instead asks about the motivation of a fictional character who was used as an illustrative example with reference to a completely different point (that being - what is metaphysics?).

>>17806133
You don't get it? So if only matter existed, why would we have a special word for it. Even the scientists postulate something called anti-matter, which you should know about. Scientists even have something called dark matter, for which there's no empirical proof.

>>17806133
All mystics are high on their own farts. Mysticism in it's essence means that the reality we see it not true reality (whether you believe in heaven and hell/plato's world of forms does not matter). It is the explicit statement that man can not know reality by his own senses and mind. To try to debate the veracity of mysticism is dialectic suicide, only the cosmically arrogant will try. If man cannot know the truth then why debate truth, you know?

>>17806136
Answer the question. Are you high or not?
It's irrelevant whether the guy in the example is right or wrong, if he has the right motivations or anything of the sort. The only relevant point is that HE IS DOING METAPHYSICS.
Get it now, or are you a few blunts too deep to be able to parse this post?

>>17806139
I feel like this is kinda like seeing only one side of a coin, and then saying that that side of the coin is "reality", when in reality there's more to it.

>>17806129
because it IS a faith-based argument. Atheists love to claim that God exists for the believers "in the gaps of what science explains", but when they come to the consciousness-physicality dichotomy they always push back the answer behind qualia further
>it's the heart bro
>actually, it's the brain now
>actually, it's the neurons now
>uh wait, it's the electrochemical logic gates now
>nonono, it's the quantum logic gates behind those, acshully
it's faith-based cope all the way down that can easily be dismissed by the rational question : "ok, why do we trust X to provide us with a descriptive about itself?", the very basis of the scientific theory.

>>17806148
I feel like that's a pretty good breakdown, Anon

>>17806148
>>17806154
The guy who popularized the hard problem of consciousness (and is the foremost panpsychist today) is an atheist btw.

>>17806158
Kek really doesn't surprise me at all.

>>17806154
It essentially always lead back to a hard truth : that essentially no one person, no one biological process, "needs" to experience to exist. Everything that pertains to consciousness as an influence could be explained away by
>*checks note*
quantum physics these days. Despite what biologists will cope by saying "consciousness was an evolutionary mechanism", there is no evidence of consciousness beyond a personal experience by a conscious agent; the "proof" of consciousness could always be a quantum logic gate operating randomly somewhere. So that still leaves us with the unsolved problem of consciousness : why am I?
At least most faith-based systems of beliefs try to answer the question, "Science" merely pats itself on the back for finally proving machines - of either flesh or metal or silicon - can either imitate or develop consciousness, which still doesn't ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION.

>>17806143
There is reality, the physical that can be proven to exist like a rock in my garden, and then there is the mystical, that which cannot be proven like ghosts. I can prove the rock exists by picking it up, looking at it, smelling it. The ghost not so much, until I can measure it there is no reason to believe it exists. In fact, such endeavors most often end catastrophically.
If you look at philosophy at a grand scale, you get 3 flows.
Premodernists (Example:Plato/most religions) start at metaphysics by saying god is real, then how man can know reality must adhere to that first step. Abraham cuts into his own and his sons cock and now people die for desert wars eternally.
Modernists (example: Descartes) start at Epistemology by saying what is measurable is real, then they go back to metaphysics (the study of what is real) and fill it in using the scientific method.
Finally we have postmodernists who start at axiom, the final philosophical step. Axiom is the question "how do we live a good life?". Postmodernists first fill in what they think a good life is and then reality will just have to conform to that. What happens then? Well you get statements as utterly deranged as "I feel like a women therefore I am a woman".

Long story short? Keep to reality using the scientific method, otherwise you will cut your dick off.

>>17806168
The ATHEIST David Chalmers, i.e. the guy because of whom you're talking about the hard problem in the first place, provided a solution in the same breath as he outlined the problem.

>>17806169
>Modernists (example: Descartes) start at Epistemology by saying what is measurable is real, then they go back to metaphysics (the study of what is real) and fill it in using the scientific method.
Descartes grounds his epistemology in God.

>>17806178
Descartes was not perfect by any means, but he was the first to pose "I think, therefore I am" stating epistemology goes before metaphysics as a step. Aristotle had this idea as well (A=A instead of plato's world of forms) but also believed in the soul for instance. If you want pure unadulterated modernism I would suggest Rand.

>>17806182
It's a bit more tangled than that. Like sure he starts with the cogito, but then he uses the cogito as a springboard in an attempt to prove god so that he can use god as a justification for the reliability of his faculties.
Cogito is the famous part but the most important move in the Meditations is using god as an epistemic justificator imo.

>>17806187
Thanks for adding context. I still hold Rand to be closer to reality than Descartes, but would still give him an acknowledging nod for his contribution to modernism.

>>17806176
yeah, and David chalmers got destroyed by a simple "Ship of Theseus" argument over what his panpsychic position considers "a unitary consciousness"
Descartes' position is still the most intuitive answer to the hard problem of consciousness, despite the fact that we can,t identify the mechanism behind the qualia-matter interaction. Coincidentally, it offers a strong correlation with christian ethics and metaphysics, which I abide by.

>>17806193
I'm glad you googled Chalmers and asked an llm for arguments against his panpsychism, at least you learned something. Maybe you should go over his own responses, and then search for some further criticism of Cartesian dualism.
>Coincidentally, it offers a strong correlation with christian ethics and metaphysics, which I abide by.
Kek saying the quiet part out loud.

It seems pretty intuitive to me what the "consciousness" is, like it's you, and same thing goes with the soul, like it's you. Ship of Theseus is such a great story because if you took away one plank it would still be Theseus' ship. Like if you were to lose your left pinky, you would still be you, you wouldn't have lost a part of yourself. That's why I feel like if you believe that losing your pinky is losing a part of yourself, then that is where your consciousness is at. That's like a physical consciousness which won't have any survival at all after death (obviously by death here i mean the destruction of the physical body). Like if you were to, while still in the physical body, imagine other forms or modes of existence, then that would serve as a support when you were to assume them.
You could also imagine that the consciousness was able to build for itself a body which is basically how people are born.

>>17806201
>some further criticism of Cartesian dualism
most of those are mechanical criticism, i.e. if moodswings can be identified and curtailed via chemicals in the brain and reaction speed is a thing, then obviously consciousness _must_ be a physical process.
The problem with most of those arguments is that they assume that the brain isn't actually an obstacle to the translation of consciousness in a mechanical manner but simply a physical feature of consciousness. Hard dualism make the qualia only affected inasmuch as its thinking process is fed garbage data, not that there is an alteration over the very process of "experience", and I think it's a major difference.
Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" doesn't stop applying because you've been fed meds or because you've been lobotomized, it just mean the experience of consciousness is fed shit input.

>>17806213
>translation of consciousness
Describe what you actually mean by this.

>>17806227
the mechanism by which the conscious output is interpreted as an input by the brain/neurons/electrochemicals/quantum/whatever the fuck is at the bottom of nervous actions
>inb4 no such thing as a conscious output
ok p-zombie

>>17806227
>>17806234
forgot the "and vice-versa" after the original formula but the gist remains

>>17806234
>the mechanism by which the conscious output is interpreted as an input by the brain/neurons/electrochemicals/quantum/whatever the fuck is at the bottom of nervous actions
Then your view is incoherent. If consciousness is a property of the soul/mental substance, our conscious experience ought to align with the activity of this substance.
If this view were correct, being drunk would mean that you have a sober experience but your physical body is independently acting like a drunk person. It would be like a weird form of locked in syndrome where you helplessly watch as your body slaps some chick on the ass while slurring and challenging her boyfriend to a fight.

>>17806241
Isn't that generally what we call "instinct", though. Or "reflexes".

>>17806246
No, idk how that even crossed your mind as a relevant reply to my comment.

>>17804863 (OP)
>Why am I me and not someone else
Can you be not you?

>>17806113
What I thought, dead silence.

>>17806241
>If this view were correct, being drunk would mean that you have a sober experience but your physical body is independently acting like a drunk person.
that's an amateurish mistake. Nevermind the fact that some people retroactively feel that way about being drunk on occasion, again this is implying that the thinking process has an "experience" outside of the experience it is having with the physical input right now. Nowhere have I, or Descartes, posited this. In fact, the entire point of Descartes Meditations and establishment of the First-Person in the Cogito is because the existence of the experience is singular and unitary.

>>17806253
>Nevermind the fact that some people retroactively feel that way about being drunk on occasion
Irrelevant.
>again this is implying that the thinking process has an "experience" outside of the experience it is having with the physical input right now
You're the one who said:
>the mechanism by which the conscious output is interpreted as an input by the brain/neurons/electrochemicals/quantum/whatever the fuck is at the bottom of nervous actions
If the mind has a CONSCIOUS OUTPUT that then leads to jumbled responses when interacting with the inebriated physical body, what follows is exactly what I described.
>In fact, the entire point of Descartes Meditations and establishment of the First-Person in the Cogito is because the existence of the experience is singular and unitary.
Now I know that you haven't read the Meditations. Because I have, lol.

>>17806264
>If the mind has a CONSCIOUS OUTPUT that then leads to jumbled responses when interacting with the inebriated physical body, what follows is exactly what I described.
Except the experience is still unitary. In that state, hypothetically, the conscious agent _experienced_ drunkenness despite the consciousness not being drunk. I'll remind you again that the body does not influence the state of experiencing, merely the input of that state. The output, meanwhile, simply is interpreted back by the addled brain in what would be, in an ideal world where we already had the various formulas at the ready, fairly predictable.
>Now I know that you haven't read the Meditations. Because I have, lol.
>4. But I do not yet know with sufficient clearness what I am, though assured that I am; and hence, in the next place, I must take care, lest perchance I inconsiderately substitute some other object in room of what is properly myself, and thus wander from truth, even in that knowledge (cognition) which I hold to be of all others the most certain and evident. For this reason, I will now consider anew what I formerly believed myself to be, before I entered on the present train of thought; and of my previous opinion I will retrench all that can in the least be invalidated by the grounds of doubt I have adduced, in order that there may at length remain nothing but what is certain and indubitable.
>Lest perchance I inconsiderately substitute some other object in room of what is properly myself, and thus wander from truth, even in that knowledge (cognition) which I hold to be of all others the most certain and evident.
>I inconsiderately substitute some other object in room of what is properly myself
no you didn't, or if you actually read, you didn't understand shit

>>17806289
>The output, meanwhile, simply is interpreted back by the addled brain in what would be, in an ideal world where we already had the various formulas at the ready, fairly predictable.
On your model, the brain does not experience anything. This is why "conscious output - > brain makes action" would look like "sober conscious output -> drunk brain makes drunk action" would be what it would look like, i.e. exactly what I explained with the "locked in" experience.
>no you didn't, or if you actually read, you didn't understand shit
I knew you would pull something like this precisely because you haven't read the Meditations. This is a passage from the Meditations, not the "entire point" of the Meditations.
Had you said that you've read the Meditations, I would've called you a liar. However, I can see that you're carefully avoiding saying it because of your moral commitments.

>>17806302
>"sober conscious output -> drunk brain makes drunk action"
you're applying a unapplicable qualitative to the conscious output. The conscious output simply is. There is no "locked in" experience because the consciousness only has its experience as a frame of reference, therefore it is simply "an experience", with no "locked in" consciousness.
>would be what it would look like
again, this is a mechanical argument, it doesn't actually _mean_ anything in that context. A p-zombie would "look" like a drunk brain making a drunk action too, and you would be none the wiser since there is no actual measure possible for experience.
>I knew you would pull something like this precisely because you haven't read the Meditations. This is a passage from the Meditations, not the "entire point" of the Meditations.
I read all Meditations in the original French back when I was in College for the first time, and I've read it back several times since then, english and french, what point exactly are you making?

>>17806311
>The conscious output simply is. There is no "locked in" experience because the consciousness only has its experience as a frame of reference, therefore it is simply "an experience", with no "locked in" consciousness.
I don't think you understood what I mean by locked in. The point is that if you disagree, you have to posit that the conscious output of the mind is already drunk and therefore isn't "distorted" by the brain upon arrival.
>again, this is a mechanical argument, it doesn't actually _mean_ anything in that context. A p-zombie would "look" like a drunk brain making a drunk action too, and you would be none the wiser since there is no actual measure possible for experience.
I can know that I'm not having that kind of experience (i.e. "locked in syndrome" in a drunk body) because I have epistemic access to my own experience and know that my experience when I'm drunk is not like that.
>I read all Meditations in the original French back when I was in College for the first time, and I've read it back several times since then, english and french, what point exactly are you making?
Alright, now you're just brazenly lying. I've always found it wild when people lie like this even though they know the person they're talking to is aware they're lying.

>>17806325
>The point is that if you disagree, you have to posit that the conscious output of the mind is already drunk and therefore isn't "distorted" by the brain upon arrival.
>conscious output of the mind is already drunk
it's not drunk, it simply is with what inputs it received. The bodily outputs are drunk, but the conscious mind cannot "drunkenly" output because it lack the requirements to get drunk
similarly, the mind output can be misinterpreted by the body, just like it can be limited by it in "non-drunken" episodes.
>I can know that I'm not having that kind of experience (i.e. "locked in syndrome" in a drunk body) because I have epistemic access to my own experience and know that my experience when I'm drunk is not like that.
yes, because your consciousness isn't drunk, your body, and the biological mind relaying the input in your senses, is.
>Alright, now you're just brazenly lying. I've always found it wild when people lie like this even though they know the person they're talking to is aware they're lying.
idk what to tell you man. I read Descartes in college and beyond. That's just how it was.

>>17806344
>the conscious mind cannot "drunkenly" output because it lack the requirements to get drunk
>similarly, the mind output can be misinterpreted by the body
Then you must experience "giving sober outputs" while drunk, aka locked in experience. But you do not actually experience this, so the entire idea is wrong.
>yes, because your consciousness isn't drunk, your body, and the biological mind relaying the input in your senses, is.
If my consciousness isn't drunk, then I don't feel drunk.
>idk what to tell you man. I read Descartes in college and beyond. That's just how it was.
Why are you lying like this? I know that you're lying because I've read the Meditations and what you said was completely and blatantly wrong.
I come across this especially often with Christians and it's so fucking weird. These people who think the literal creator of the universe wants them to tell the truth will stubbornly lie in the most obvious ways and won't even apologize when called out.

>>17806246
>It would be like a weird form of locked in syndrome where you helplessly watch as your body slaps some chick on the ass
This sounds like instinct or reflexes

>>17806406
It really doesn't though.

>>17806344
>yes, because your consciousness isn't drunk, your body, and the biological mind relaying the input in your senses, is.
This is kind of retarded to me because you're implying there's a disconnect between body and consciousness, how can that be? You cannot be a disembodied consciousness.

From my perspective, the materialists will generally use the term "body" to denote matter. Like, they will mean to say that the body of a person is made out of matter, and therefore has no real existence, the same way for example a word written on a piece of paper isn't the word itself. That's why I recently figured that "body" ought to correspond more with "state" or maybe "condition". Like a vehicle or something you're moving around in. That's why I said previously that the ship of Theseus allegory is really great. And Plato's allegory of the cave as well.

>>17806413
>This is kind of retarded to me because you're implying there's a disconnect between body and consciousness, how can that be?
Once again, as I've stated above in >>17806213, you presuppose the body is a physical feature of consciousness, when dualists tell you that no, the brain does not participate in what we call "experience" and therefore is not a conscious object; therefore, consciousness is a separate existence from the physical body.
Descartes believed that the physical body and its senses were at best a limiting influence on consciousness and at worst an outright illusion pulled there by a malicious entity, the "demon in the cogs" that would purposefully deceive him to the bare minimum, self-evident formula of "I think, therefore I can be deceived, therefore i am"; or, shortened, "I think, therefore i am."

>>17806442
The body has to be a feature of consciousness, like how do you imagine gripping on to a cup for example, if there's not an interconnection between consciousness and your body. Also I'd like to add, you don't need to take the brain into account for this to make sense. It is logical that consciousness CAN be a separate existence from the physical body, but it clearly isn't.

>>17806359
>I come across this especially often with Christians and it's so fucking weird. These people who think the literal creator of the universe wants them to tell the truth will stubbornly lie in the most obvious ways and won't even apologize when called out.
Descartes literally calls God a necessity of existence in his Fifth meditations lmao, why are you so butthurt about Descartes being intrinsically religious?
>Then you must experience "giving sober outputs" while drunk, aka locked in experience.
Stop repeating this nonsensical fallacy. There is no "sober" output from the conscious agent. You're ascribing a quality that's simply not applicable to the object in question; therefore, the rest of the argument cannot proceed.
>If my consciousness isn't drunk, then I don't feel drunk.
Another fallacy. You conflate feelings, which generally occur through bodily interactions, to the consciousness. The conscious mind CANNOT "feel" anything, it simply experiences what the biological body outputs as feelings. To Descartes, the conscious agent was the seat of rationality and logic, not the seat of feelings that can mislead and obfuscate on what truly IS.

>>17806448
>The body has to be a feature of consciousness, like how do you imagine gripping on to a cup for example, if there's not an interconnection between consciousness and your body.
I never said there wasn't an interconnection, I simply stated that the body was unnecessary to the thinking process.
Say that I cut off all your senses RIGHT NOW, but you still had the historicity of what you experienced beforehand. Nonobstant the fact that you are now in a state close to complete hell, wouldn't you agree that you could still think and return to the information you've already experienced as a conscious agent?
Again, consider what I've told you previously and to others on the thread, that the brain isn't a necessity of consciousness, and vice-versa. At that point, wouldn't you be a "disembodied consciousness"?

>>17805965
>Like how do you explain dreams for example.
We can not only explain them, we can measure the brain's activity as they happen. Hell, you can probably have an AI decode the dreams you're experiencing from brainwaves nowadays.

>There was some guy on a podcast talking
Well what can I say to that?

>>17806471
So let's say, what if the self is having certain experiences while dreaming which aren't taking place in the brain, obviously you would fail to detect that with your measuring devices.

>>17806464
>Say that I cut off all your senses RIGHT NOW, but you still had the historicity of what you experienced beforehand. Nonobstant the fact that you are now in a state close to complete hell, wouldn't you agree that you could still think and return to the information you've already experienced as a conscious agent?
Certainly.

>>17806475
>Certainly
Then what separates you from a disembodied consciousness practically, besides having more data - arguably all junk, in your state - than one who hypothetically never had a body to begin with?
>inb4 but muh brain
how could you know? you have no senses to verify the previous presupposition of "brain" now
the only way to verify that would be to have another conscious agent contact you senselessly - literally - to inform you that your brain is still operational. Not only can't we do that in ideal circumstances - hence why consciousness faces a hard problem - but you're assuming the new conscious agent you've just met senselessly wouldn,t deceive you... why exactly?

>>17806472
>what if the self is having certain experiences while dreaming which aren't taking place in the brain
An intriguing proposition, do you have a single piece of evidence to back that up?

>>17806464
>Say that I cut off all your senses RIGHT NOW
you'd have demonstrated that senses are unnecessary for thinking, not the brain.
Did you know, there's a particular form of brain damage that blocks your ability to experience color as qualia, for example? Not only can you not perceive the color you see, despite your eyes and optic nerves are working perfectly, but even your past memories are in depressing monochrome. This despite having the memory of having perceived color before, though you can't recall what it looked like.

>>17806483
Being deprived of your senses is not the same as being deprived of your body, clearly...

>>17806485
>Did you know, there's a particular form of brain damage that blocks your ability to experience color as qualia, for example? Not only can you not perceive the color you see, despite your eyes and optic nerves are working perfectly, but even your past memories are in depressing monochrome. This despite having the memory of having perceived color before, though you can't recall what it looked like.
And what exactly proves that the experience the conscious agent had cannot be inputted back by the brain due to brain damage?
Again, this is a MECHANICAL ARGUMENT. This does NOTHING to disprove that consciousness can be separate yet connected to the body and its outputs.

>>17806491
Can you give an example of when the consciousness is separate from the body (any body)?

>>17806487
>Being deprived of your senses is not the same as being deprived of your body, clearly...
If you're going to make this argument, you're going to have to meticulously walk me through your thought process, and it better not lead back to "well my senses told me my body works that way".
Because then, your RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINT can be safely tossed into the trash by any skeptic worth his salt

>>17806498
>Because then, your RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINT can be safely tossed into the trash by any skeptic worth his salt
Kek, are you an atheist or something?

>>17806502
no, but if you are to approach philosophy rightly, then one must be skeptical and avoid preconceived notions and presuppositions, and "I believe X when it tells me it is X because it is X" is the biggest preconceived red flag imaginable.
>>17806494
Arguably I'd say "brain-death" but I'd guess that's not what you're searching for. Do you consider coma patient with no neural activity conscious or unconscious? It's no tangent, your answer may or may not constitute my answer.

>>17806517
So am I understanding this correctly that what you mean by a "consciousness separated from the body" would be a dead person?

>>17806521
>would be a dead person
dead in body, but the conscious agent - that some would call the soul - persist, yeah
But evidently this doesn't advance the conversation in any way - mechanical world and all that - which is why I asked the subsequent question
It's really a trick question. Coma patient could be either, but what isn't dependent on your consideration is their recovery. Long-term coma recovery, particularly with those with lessened neuronal activity, rarely if ever recover, but when they do it's almost invariably independent of any bodily functions. Essentially, they woke up from what should have been near brain-death... because they willed it so. Nevermind the fact that they often attest to experiences in their comas afterward, like vivid dreams or nightmares, hearing conversations on their bedsides or the feling on everything on their skin... but their brain remained inert except for the autonomous nervous system, including their memory regions...

>>17806521
>>17806564
that, or I could use rally before death as an example : people having lost sometimes significant brain mass, including zones related to memories, high-order thinking and behaviors, sometimes become clearly conscious and lucid despite being effectively lobotomized,shortly before death. If the memories and higher-order thinking pattern aren't stored in the missing areas - which demonstrably led to the patient becoming a mechanical, barely-functionning shell, as shown by terminal lucidity cases, then where the hell are they stored?

>>17806491
>And what exactly proves that the experience the conscious agent had cannot be inputted back by the brain due to brain damage?
Inputted "back" where?

>>17806595
I could ask you the opposite question (and I believe I have), if the memories and higher-order thinking aren't stored or processed in their diseased brains, then why were they muddled in the first place, and why did they recover from it when their bodies broke down further? They're not ghosts or anything, they're still trapped in the same decrepit body after all.
Neuroscientists have plausible, coherent explanations for terminal lucidity, but what's the dualist explanation?

>>17806608
In the mechanical/sensual world.
>>17806627
> if the memories and higher-order thinking aren't stored or processed in their diseased brains, then why were they muddled in the first place
because the processing equipment was becoming more and more garbage with time.
>and why did they recover from it when their bodies broke down further?
the body overtaxes the remaining neurons in order to receive input better. In fact, saying that
>They're not ghosts or anything, they're still trapped in the same decrepit body after all.
is cleverly avoiding the topic. If, say, consciousness was fully "hardware"-limited, then no amount of overtaxing would have led to the recovery of the lost chunk of motherboards, memory cards and processors eaten though by rusts and burns.
>Neuroscientists have plausible, coherent explanations for terminal lucidity
They can't even explain why memories which were sometimes the first to go resurface despite the missing brain mass, wtf are you smoking? It's one of the biggest medical mysteries still around.
>but what's the dualist explanation?
Obviously that the brain has barely any amount of actual information stored on it and is actually a receiver organ for the conscious agent, which has access to memories independantly of any biological organ, either as a similar existence or a separate one.

>>17806595
>that, or I could use rally before death as an example : people having lost sometimes significant brain mass, including zones related to memories, high-order thinking and behaviors, sometimes become clearly conscious and lucid despite being effectively lobotomized,shortly before death. If the memories and higher-order thinking pattern aren't stored in the missing areas - which demonstrably led to the patient becoming a mechanical, barely-functionning shell, as shown by terminal lucidity cases, then where the hell are they stored?
Clearly memories aren't stored in the brain. Or even in corpor/matter.

>>17806655
>In the mechanical/sensual world.
And exactly who is it that's receiving the memories and experiencing the qualia in the "mechanical/sensual world"?

>because the processing equipment was becoming more and more garbage with time.
So you do recognize that thoughts and memories are processed in the brain. The brain is thus the seat and spring of consciousness.

>the body overtaxes the remaining neurons in order to receive input better.
>no amount of overtaxing would have led to the recovery of the lost chunk of motherboards, memory cards and processors eaten though by rusts and burns.
You can, in fact, devote more resources to recovering data from corrupted supports and restoring the missing bits.
But more importantly it's an arbitrary assumption that the memories were physically gone from the brain in the first place, that they were in the decayed chunks of brain matter, rather than merely scrambled or inaccessible. You can have a full tank in your rusty ill-maintained car, the engine may even be running, but if rest of the components are worn down you can't make use of it. This doesn't necessitate the tank or the engine being external to the car, quite the opposite.

>Obviously that the brain has barely any amount of actual information stored on it and is actually a receiver organ for the conscious agent, which has access to memories independantly of any biological organ, either as a similar existence or a separate one.
Well fair enough, that is apparently a coherent explanation.
No wonder you consider consciousness a hard problem though, because why is that otherworldy agent experiencing and providing memories of existing in our world, to the being that actually exists in our world? Why does this agent have memories of such experiences tied to a particular individual? Why does the external agent experience being blind when the material being's eyes are covered, or his optical nerves severed, or the areas of the brain tied to visual processing damaged?

Some people also have memories of past lives ...

>>17806748
>And exactly who is it that's receiving the memories and experiencing the qualia in the "mechanical/sensual world"?
There's no who. It's just your body, an object, receiving it.
>So you do recognize that thoughts and memories are processed in the brain.
just because information is processed through something doesn't mean it is the seat f something
My router process inputs and outputs to transmit or receive from the entire Internet. Is the router the seat of my computing power?
>it's an arbitrary assumption that the memories were physically gone from the brain in the first place
my end point was that they never even were there to begin with, you would have to prove that the data was not only in there to begin with but then not destroyed and merely corrupted.
>You can have a full tank in your rusty ill-maintained car, the engine may even be running, but if rest of the components are worn down you can't make use of it.
the analogy is flawed, because if the rusty, eaten-over car were to follow the analogy, then suddenly the axle, radiator and frame would be uncracked after being cracked for years with no explanation and start running perfectly fine with not even a bad suspension or engine sputtering for a few hours before the engine - and the rest of the car - instantly collapses in itself.
No matter how you put it, the process of how the car "uncracked itself" is still external, no matter how hopefully you put it.

>>17806802
>There's no who. It's just your body, an object, receiving it.
Who is it that's experiencing confused thinking and hazy memories? Am I talking to a literal NPC? Can you put me in touch with your manager?

>Is the router the seat of my computing power?
>my end point was that they never even were there to begin with
Then how could the material being remember or think anything at any moment? I don't know if you know networks, but at some point the data received actually has to be stored and processed locally, even just temporarily. There's no particular reason to assume the brain is querying some external database of memories and experiences tied to that particular body, instead of an internal black box, but even if you did the brain would be the computer at the end of the line.

>if the rusty, eaten-over car were to follow the analogy, then suddenly the axle, radiator and frame would be uncracked after being cracked for years with no explanation and start running perfectly fine with not even a bad suspension or engine sputtering for a few hours before the engine - and the rest of the car - instantly collapses in itself.
But the axle, radiator or frame are not uncracked (the dying people's brain or flesh isn't miraculously restored), it's just that after stuff shifts around and a few parts are loosened or tightened, the car is suddenly working fine for a short while again. Not a rare occurrence, and similar to when you hit an old device a few times and stuff happens to click into place.
In no case is the car ever repaired in a manner external to the material reality of its components though, or do you think cars get repaired through ghostly possession?

>>17806851
>Am I talking to a literal NPC?
Can you prove that you're talking to anyone that isn't? That's one aprt of the hard problem of consciousness as well. You can't verify any one consciousness' existence outside of your own. You can logically _infer_, like Descartes, that there are more - he himself believes that God is the foremost, and that as such others are relatively plausible - but we can't exactly prove anything.
>Then how could the material being remember or think anything at any moment?
yeah, how does it? Even hardcore materialists still can't explain away consciousness. Dualists just say that without consciousness all that's left is a biological machine. Maybe it can even do party tricks, like talk like a conscious agent's human, react like a conscious agent's human, shit like a conscious agent's human and grumble about how it felt disgusting after the act like a conscious agent's human, but is just an empty imitation, executing preprogrammed commands.
The most hardcore of materialists even say consciousness is an illusion... which just leads back to Descartes saying there needs to be logically something there, for deception to be required in the first place. CQFD.
>but at some point the data received actually has to be stored and processed locally, even just temporarily.
your and mine's definition of "locally" is just radically different. You presuppose it's in the brain; I advance in contrast that it could be in some non-material substance. The data is still stored "locally", just not according to a hardcore materialist's perspective.
>But the axle, radiator or frame are not uncracked (the dying people's brain or flesh isn't miraculously restored), it's just that after stuff shifts around and a few parts are loosened or tightened, the car is suddenly working fine for a short while again.
I've already said my piece about the car analogy, It's fucking awful. The completely fucked and broken computer is a better analogy.

>>17804863 (OP)
>be set of information and operations upon that set (presumably d/dt, in this universe)
>get input relative/limited to (so far as we know) a physical body
You're "you" because "you" are defined by the initial state of your information set, the subsequent "inputs" (or lack thereof, thus not being some other entity) to that set, and the way that set operates upon itself/is operated upon (depends on personal beliefs), which may change over "time" (ex: a brain injury, if we speak purely of the material)

>t. soulless mathematician who ironically believes in reincarnation because of this

>>17805122
I genuinely wonder if people who can write posts like this are real people. How they can completely not understand OP's simple question baffles me. I almost think it's deliberate since materialism is completely incapable of answering this question since it's not about any material, so they just have to pretend they don't get what you're asking.

>>17809225
Probably it's because he has no understanding of metaphysics what-so-ever, he thinks everything is either nuts-and-bolts physics OR woo-woo tier philosophizing.

>>17809225
NTA, but did I not address it here >>17807947 ? Or would I not be considered a materialist due to "information set + operations" effectively representing a soul?

>>17804863 (OP)
May i interest you in open individualism? There being one consciousness experiencing all bodies resolves identity problems effortlessly. The only reason you arent aware of the other bodies is because your brain has no physical connection to any other brain

>>17806762
That is called an "imagination", everyone has one, I can "remember" a past life by simply imagining it.

>>17804863 (OP)
Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from the brain so is attached to the brain. It relies on sensory transcription into comprehensible data that is then understood by the person. Try it yourself, you'll realize you're only experiencing "qualia" and are "conscious" when you think. If you turn your head 90 degrees quickly, you'll see that you can only be conscious of what you see through memories and translation of your element (i.e. there is a wall, that wall is white etc)

>>17806870
nta but
>Even hardcore materialists still can't explain away consciousness
Not in the sense you think. It's true that materialists don't have empirical evidence for consciousness, but that is also the case for dualists or literally any consciousness model. In reality, materialists and even physicalists have theories about consciousness, which are about as consistent and logical than dualists.

>[...] executing preprogrammed commands
The irony about this statement is that it was proven true lol. Humans act before they are aware of the things they do. There was a psychological study done on this topic that showed that humans actions and choices happen before the brain is conscious of said-choices (Libet experiment in the 1980s).

>You presuppose it's in the brain; I advance in contrast that it could be in some non-material substance.
Youre advocating for a brain outside of the body, it's redundant and somewhat pointless because we have evidence that the brain does indeed perform operations and store locally memories

>>17809225
>I read the wiki page on the hard problem because it popped up on /his/ 4 months ago so I'm smarter than the rest

>>17809749
>There being one consciousness experiencing all bodies resolves identity problems effortlessly.
This doesn't resolve the problem.
>The only reason you arent aware of the other bodies is because your brain has no physical connection to any other brain
This does, but it doesn't require you to accept open individualism.

>>17809900
I dont follow, how does that work without open individualism?

>>17809730
It sounds like you're talking about someone's mannerisms, which isn't what OP is talking about