Thread 24809783

Can consciousness be solved?

consciousness is not real

>>24809783 (OP)
/x/ told me we're all living in one big fishbowl

>>24809783 (OP)
Consciousness is quantum, so not for a long fucking time

>>24809783 (OP)
consciousness is not a thing to be solved, it is a thing to be repressed

>>24809783 (OP)
If by solved you mean mapped, then yes - it can be solved very similarly to how a body was mapped out.
>but you can't dissect a soul
We didn't learn medicine through dissection. Reverse-engineering a healthy body from a cadaver is a modern idea in all senses of the word. We learn the most by watching the body in practice.

Among the Church Fathers I've heard them categorize faculties of the soul into rational, incensive, appetitive, then going into detail of the possible sicknesses of each faculty- f.ex. pride, anger and avarice avarice respectively - and the methods to cure them - f.ex. humility, kindness and fasting, respectively. They also go into detail of how the heart relates to the mind etc. but I cannot say I have a lot of theoretical clarity there, especially seeing that the terms evolve and vary across regions and centuries.

>>24809783 (OP)
I think its rather obvious to me that a lot of features of consciousness have to be elucidated by investigating how the brain works scientifically, and that those insights are massively important for our understanding of what consciousness/the soul is. How does memory, trauma, desire, etc work? to what degree are features of our brain distinct "faculties" or are they more like different modes or regimes of operating that are more continuous with eachother? What is happening during an LSD trip? Are the patterns we see because our visual processing is overactive, or because certain filters are disabled? are we seeing a "truer" reality or are we seeing the pretty effects of some kind of processing error?

On the other hand, obviously all this research is never going to solve the "hard problem." You are still going to need some kind of phenomenological approach, and a more sophisticated conceptual framework of how the objective and subjective are interrelated. I just think its lazy to cut out scientific inquiry out of that process because actually learning neurobiology is harder than just sitting on your ass speculating.

Phenomenology *is* solving it

>>24809783 (OP)
>Can consciousness be solved?
Just keep adding ethanol. Consciousness will dissolve.

>>24809783 (OP)
What do you mean by solved
A noose solves consciousness pretty well if you ask me

>>24809783 (OP)
It was already solved by Shankara (pbuh)

>>24809783 (OP)
No. Human reason isn't equiped to do so.

>>24809952
>He thinks there's a way out

>>24811228
>>He things there's a way out
For $99.95 per month I will send you an 1 fold of an 8 fold path for the next 8 months.

>>24809795
You can't prove you are either.

Life is not something to be solved

Consciousness was a mistake that must be corrected

>>24809783 (OP)
This organization might:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia_Research_Institute

>>24809815
Consciousness isn't even a 1 to 1 reflection of physical states in the brain. The whole field is a big fat false positive stupid pseuds worship because smallism = smart and good according to empiricist cucks.

>>24812615
read my post again smartass

>>24809808
Where are the tits? I need my titjob too

>>24809783 (OP)
>>24809815
>the "hard problem."
I explained it last time. hopefully this time will turn out better.

to understand this we don't need to know the specific physical thing that correlates with internal qualia, we only need to know that some physical thing does correspond (which is widely accepted at this point so I won't try to prove that as well). the answer to the hard problem is this: qualia IS what that physical thing in actuality is. this perfectly answers their correspondence. of course, the response to a monistic answer like this should be, "well if we cut up a brain all we see are physical things, not qualia". and the answer to this is quite simple as well. what we are seeing when we cut up a brain is not their actual brain (which as i said, is their qualia), but our qualia which represents their brain. and since representations can be really arbitrary (just as the word "tree" has little connection to an actual tree) its only natural that qualia that represents qualia should look dissimilar to what it represents (just as the word "word" looks different than any other word, despite representing it)

>>24809795
lawl

>>24813180
has anybody else noticed this retard does not say anything at all?

>>24813189
He's a materialist up until the point that materialism fails, at which point he's an idealist, up until the point that idealism fails, at which point he's a materialist again. The only concrete thing he's said is that there's a relationship of some sort between the physical brain and qualia, which is obviously true and doesn't do much to address the hard problem, which is the determination of a specific causal mechanism for such.

>>24813199
what a delightful day it is to be ragebaited

>relationship of some sort between the physical brain and qualia
I'm saying they are the same thing. I'm an idealist. what we call matter is qualia. I've explained how it can be that qualia doesn't look like qualia when you open up a brain and expect to see qualia in an idealistic account.
>which is the determination of a specific causal mechanism for such.
this is the interaction problem which dualists have, not the hard problem.

>>24812408
The extremities of physical pain suggest to me otherwise

>>24813180
This sounds like what my intuition and experience has arrived at as well I think. Do you reckon death (or at least the instant of, the singularity) is a qualitatively neutral state like what what's behind our eyes looks like to us right now, or do you reckon it's something violently ambivalent and hellishly chaotic, relative to our human values?

>>24812752
I wasn't disagreeing with you, but I was pissed off last night, so I came off as more vitriol than I intended. Sorry

>>24813189
Just another zoomer that fell for the panpsychism meme.

>>24813180
>>24813225
You don't even understand what qualia is, you mong. Hint: qualia is not synonymous with "what I see"

>>24814486
Yeah this is why I was confused with the whole "Qualia is the Physical thing of the brain" nigga what are you talking about?

>>24809783 (OP)

Still waiting on the gratification of the idea that Chomsky dies while Trump is president, an idea that I have repeatedly stated during the first Trump administration and the interregnum. Unfortunately, Chomsky really seems to be onto something with his vegetarian diet, but the delay of the second administration itself, together with Chomsky's extreme old age, may yet bring it about.

>>24809783 (OP)
idk
but if it can we are not very close

>>24813821
death is really only the death of memory and other structures creating a string of continuous experience, which may as well feel like nothing, yes. but since i believe physical things are qualia, there would still be disconnected experience happening. which means very little to our familiar consciousness.

>>24814317
well we know that mental states exist, in fact they make up the world we internally live in. second, we only posit this unimaginable noumenon that exists in this completely other way. third, whenever we alter this completely unimaginable noumenon in someone's brain, someone's mental state miraculously changes, and whenever their mental state changes, the noumenon in their brain miraculously changes. so it is reasonable to think that the noumenon IS their mental states, there is nothing miraculous, and that all noumenon exists in the same imaginable way that mental states do.

panpsychism sometimes formulated as "all matter has qualia" is wierd and not what i mean. i mean "all matter is qualia." i also dont get the current trend of tying panpsychism to quantum woowoo.

>>24814486
>>24814600
>In philosophy of mind, qualia are defined as instances of subjective, conscious experience
what i see is in fact an example of qualia.

there is a "lamp A" in your head that lights up whenever you see an elephant. you cut up someone's brain and look at their lamps. when you see "lamp A", "lamp B" lights up in your head. you wonder, if I'm looking at "lamp A" why am I seeing "lamp B"? because the relationship of "lamp A" to "lamp B" is as arbitrary as that of "lamp A" to an elephant.

the elephant is what we normally think of as noumenon, physical matter.

"lamp A" is qualia, representing that "physical matter"

"lamp B" is the qualia that represents other people's (or your own in the mirror if your head was open) qualia.

just as in this analogy, the elephant and the lamps are all made up of the same thing, thus can interact, and thus whenever "lamp A" changes "lamp B" changes, or when the elephant is altered "lamp A" is altered.

>>24810108
It was solved by the Buddha 2500 years ago. Consciousness, as you people think of it, is nothing more than an illusion created by the Five Aggregates. Once you understand this, there is no further question of "mind" or "soul."

neurophenomenology already claims to map deictic reference centers to the differential impulses between neurons on a 1/10th of a second time scale, corresponding to momentary awareness of an object in relation to an action the organism is getting ready to undertake in relation to it.

>>24815576
Conscious is the 5th aggregate actually. The illusion is a sense of self created by identifying with the aggregates

>>24815576
>It was solved by the Buddha 2500 years ago.
Au contraire, his analysis fails to distinguish between conciousness-as-such, or pure consciousness (śuddha-caitanya), and mental activity/modes (vṛttis) and is therefore woefully simplistic and incomplete.

The long process of Buddhist philosophy, starting with the Abhidharma and Yogachara analysis of mind and then the further refinement of these in Tibetan thought, is arguably the result of people having to rectify the poor analysis of Buddha with additional doctrines intended to supplant his analysis with something more comprehensive. That they felt compelled to do this in the first place is because of how inadequate Buddha’s analysis was.

>Consciousness, as you people think of it, is nothing more than an illusion,
Illusions are not sentient, but consciousness-as-such is sentient by nature. Moreover, every Buddhist attempt at explaining how the smooth unity of experience is generated by a jumble of disparate parts turns out upon analysis to either be logically incoherent and/or to not match our lived experience.

>>24815671
>Conscious is the 5th aggregate actually.
Looks like you have some more reading to do. "Consciousness" or vinnan in the context of the Five Aggregates is not what you think it is.

>>24815862
The actual number of aggregates and how you break them down and so on in the greater scheme is inconsequential. The key point is that it's nothing more than an illusion of aggregates, not something that really exists, and certainly nothing that could ever be eternal as it is all dependently originated.

>>24816049
>The actual number of aggregates and how you break them down and so on in the greater scheme is inconsequential.
The recognition of pure conciousness as being distinct from normal mental modes is actually of great consequence; although they don't classify the pure conciousness as being as an Atma like Hindus do both the Kagyu Mahamudra and Nyingma Dzogchen traditions of Tibet nevertheless both agree with this and their whole doctrinal position and the actual practice itself centers around this distinction between ordinary mind and pure conciousness.

>The key point is that it's nothing more than an illusion of aggregates, not something that really exists, and certainly nothing that could ever be eternal as it is all dependently originated.
Yes, this is the dogmatic Buddhist position. Neither Buddha nor anybody else in later centuries offers any arguments that conclusively proves or demonstrates this to be true though. That pure conciousness or conciousness-as-such is dependently-originated can neither be proven logically nor can it be demonstrated by anything in experience.

Because conciousness is always effortlessly present within our experience, we are unable to ever discover or verify experientially that it arises on the basis of something other than itself, so this purported "arising" remains purely theoretical and is not something that can be experience or verified in experience.

>>24809795
this. it cant be empirically measured

>>24816107
Is there somewhere in the Pali Canon that you can point me to that refers to this "pure consciousness (śuddha-caitanya)?"

>>24816548
I never said that it was in the Pali Canon, what I wrote actually stated the opposite by saying that the Buddhist analysis presented in the Pali Canon is incomplete IMO because it lacks this ingredient.

It appears in some later Buddhist texts though like Tantras, certain Yogachara texts, Vajrayana manuals etc. Presumably they claim it was secretly taught by Buddha and not revealed to everyone like with other Vajrayana doctrines.

>>24809813
>Among the Church Fathers I've heard them categorize faculties of the soul into rational, incensive, appetitive
Itself from the Greeks, used significantly in Plato’s and Aristotle’s psychologies for instance.

>>24816576
Okay, well I'm sure Buddha would have denied any notion of a "pure consciousness."

>>24816731
In the same way, I might add, that he denied atman/atta.