Thread 16777531

It's fucking retarded to say a bunch of chemical reactions between nerve cells can create consciousness. It's like saying that the universe came from nothing. If materialism was true then beings could be at most biological automatons, but never have consciousness.

>>16777531 (OP)
>it's retarded to say consciousness comes from somewhere
>it's like saying the universe came from nowhere
So, something coming from somewhere is the same as something coming from nowhere. Thanks, OP. Your contribution has been noted in our records. You are dismissed.

>>16777536
>So, something coming from somewhere is the same as something coming from nowhere
Something cannot come from nothing.
A subjective immaterial experience can't come from matter.

>>16777544
>I am unable to conceptualize that my metaphor is broken
Y'know, I did try, but apparently you're dead set on this.
Are you sure your brain contains chemical reactions?

>>16777547
sophist, make an argument

>>16777531 (OP)
>Consciousness HAS to be special or I'll cry
Great argument. Why don't you go test the bounds of consciousness and kill yourself then?

>>16777715
>make an argument
>for a dumb fuck that can't into logic
Which meaning of sophist, retard? Based on your manner, you mean "a captious or fallacious reasoner," yet this is precisely what I am calling out.
You may also see yourself to the retard corner. Do not pass go.

>>16777531 (OP)
Good thing that the universe did in fact come from nothing.

>>16777719
>Being sophistic about his own sophistry
Like pottery.
Come back when you have an argument.

>>16777744
>begging the question
You have everything you need to put potato in ricer.

>>16777531 (OP)
Please define "consciousness" and then explain why it cannot be a product of chemical signals

>>16777753
What question am i begging? What argument are you making? You're just posting drivel.
>>16777805
Kek.

>>16777866
How about you define both consciousness, matter, and how consciousness magically comes from matter.

>>16777916
Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of information. Anything that can be interpreted as information can have consciousness. Consciousness is not a physical or spiritual propert of any object, living or otherwise

>>16777531 (OP)
its also not true, the sperm must be conscious to the extent that it knows to go into the egg
theres no chemicals prepared for when the baby animal learns to eat or stand up before it even knows what it looks like or is the same as the other animals and so it can not be from chemical reactions at all it must be from just mechanical functions and nervous signals

OP who made the data array into functions and instruction sets for DNA chromosomes

>>16777866
>Please define "consciousness"
Explain why it needs to be "defined" and define what it would mean to "define" it.

>explain why it cannot be a product of chemical signals
Because "a product of chemical signals" is a pure abstraction that dependents on minds in the first place. Meanwhile my mental space is, by definition, as real as anything could ever possibly be.

>>16777920
>Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of information.
This is a basic category error. "Information" is relative and purely conventional. There is no objective reality behind it. "Emergent phenomena" are slightly more objective but still nothing more than an abstract interpretation of a more basic reality whose true qualities are different.

>>16777939
There is no objective reality behind consciousness, it's a matter of interpretation, just like information as a whole

>>16777967
>reality is not real, it just imagined itself into existence
You're a broken biological LLM with no coherent thoughts.

>>16777967
consciousness is only observing not observing correctly or doing anything

>>16777531 (OP)
>could be at most biological automatons, but never have consciousness.
you need to prove brain activity doesn't create consciousness. just like you'd need to prove the car's inner activity doesn't make the car go forwards or backwards.
there's also lots of emergent phenomena, not sure why you're discarding that like it never happens. the whole thing is more than the sum of its parts, enables new functions

>>16777968
But can you prove that? Can you prove that I am not conscious?
Read Descartes

>>16777971
it seems clear that the receivers which provide consciousness creates the brains structures and activities and not the other way

>>16777972
I don't need to "prove" anything to you. I am simply making an observation about your bottom-tier drivel. Meanwhile my points stand unchallenged.

>>16777971
>you need to prove brain activity doesn't create consciousness
Funny how your cult has given up on proving its belief system and now resorts to "you have to prove my poorly defined and unfalsifiable beliefs are wrong".

>>16777974
>receivers
you need to prove your bullshit. else that can be stated about cars as well. when you arrive at particular shape for all parts some soul infusion is received that makes the car move your around

>>16777976
if you assemble a brain and it acts like one then function comes from form. that's all there is to everything in this world. assemble particles a certain way and it does some particular thing, end of. rest is brain rot.
if you have some ideas about some soul and waves carrying it then prove it, detect ze wave like radio waves and shit, build a soul emitter, soul receiver, tell us how to create the soul you transmit from the emitter and all that

>>16777980
>if you assemble a brain and it acts like one then function comes from form.
But your cult has never assembled anything that acts like a brain. Nor has it established what that takes. But even if it ever happens (which is highly unlikely), your conclusion is still a logical nonsequitur.

>>16777975
what about me i am challenging your points
it seems more like you are unable to observe that i have challenged your argument
facets which allow for an entity to observe and make observations i think are what makes consciousness
facets which allow an entity to act are something else
somewhere the two things should meet

>>16777984
>i am challenging your points
Are you suffering from a delusional mental condition.

>facets which allow for an entity to observe and make observations i think are what makes consciousness
This doesn't challenge anything I wrote in any way.

>>16777983
>But even if it ever happens
>which is highly unlikely
primitive nonsense, which the likes of you always spouted, and have constantly been proven wrong throughout history.
unless you can prove something that exists cannot be replicated then it can.
it also doesn't have to be atomically perfect if function arises at higher level structures. just like two slightly different chairs offer the very same "sitting on them" function. or two different cars can move your ass at 50 miles/h from A to B.

>>16777995
Notice how all of my points stand completely unchallenged and your only recourse is to home in on the irrelevant tangent. You and all your likes have a raging mental illness. Your post is a full concession.

>>16777988
you said the brain and the chemicals are what makes consciousness
i challenged you here >>16777921
i said its the opposite thing to what you said here>>16777970
and here >>16777974
and i challenged you again about something else here >>16777923

>>16777998
You really are delusional.

>>16777998
You really are delusional. None of that concerns me in any way.

>>16778000
your consciousness is not linked to your uh

>>16778005
its the opposite of what you said
it cant be that you agree with it or you would be thinking something else which is not what you said
could it be that you feel romance for the words which you have used and have no comprehension of what it is that those words communicate

>>16777998
electrical activity is what makes the consciousness. no electrical activity = no consciousness. unless you can prove no electrical activity = consciousness gtfo brainlet

>>16777997
you are intellectually challenged enough anon. sometimes I feel sad and awkward trying to understand what kind of internal angst might make you think those things. you are so afraid and you found the weirdest ideas to help you cope. I am sorry your brain cannot do better than that. it's really quite sad in a sense

>>16778008
You have a psychotic illness. None of those posts were addressing me or anything I wrote. Get professional help.

>>16778014
>if you assemble a brain and it acts like one then function comes from form.
But your cult has never assembled anything that acts like a brain. Nor has it established what that takes. But even if it ever happens (and it's totally gonna happen in exactly Two More Weeks!) your conclusion is still a logical nonsequitur.

Has /sci/ always housed so many sub-115 IQs?

>>16778009
so what about the chemicals? what you said precisely related to the organ 'brain' i disagree that the chemicals are involved and i disagree that you require organ 'brain' for consciousness (observation) moreover the faculties which allow for one to observe stimulus are not necessarily connected with those which allow an entity to react to stimulus, that this comes from a relationship between the two things and what facilitates them.

>>16778017
the organ brain isnt related to the consciousness in such a way, but it allows for us to observe more different things in our environment and also tells us what to do
i dont mean the voices or images which ????? cast into your facets of observation but the organ itself

>>16778022
Unironically take your meds. This is word salad.

>>16778025
i disagree that the brain is what creates consciousness
it is not related to consciousness in the way which you said it is
the brain allows us to observe different things in our environment with more senses
the senses are to facilitate observations of our environment
the thing which is able to observe is not the brain itself
the brain also tells us what to do
we observe the brain telling us what to do
i do not mean to say that your brain and thoughts are the voices and images in your head, i do not believe this.
you clearly observe these voices in your head with your consciousness
your brain is reacting to them also

>>16778019
chemicals mediate the electrical activity fuck's wrong with your incompetent ass? it's about the electrical activity, chemicals or no chemicals, just reproduce the electrical activity PRECISELY taking into account precise potentials and timing for each and every single fucking pulse/spike. you will get consciousness. simple as.

>>16778029
>i disagree that the brain is what creates consciousness
>it is not related to consciousness in the way which you said it is
You're literally psychotic but I'm gonna try to explain to you for the 5th time now: you are either mistaking me for some other poster, or the voices in your head. I didn't make any propositions about what "creates consciousness".

>>16778017
>But your cult has never assembled anything that acts like a brain
your argument is weak in the sense that even if it does assemble one, perfectly, and is conscious, you'd still claim "but you just built the antenna so it makes sense" which is why you NEED to prove your brain rot by not only assembling souls, but also emitters, and emit souls via said emitters, and a new from scratch receiver and receive said soul, that new manufactured one in particular, and then you may have "some" standing on your brain rot ideas.
how is this weak ass shit discourse even tolerated here? your ideas are pure brain rot they're just trolling at this point

>>16778030
what chemicals retard
conductors mediate electricity retard
yes your nerves are electric too i know its confusing
this next part of what you describe is something else and not consciousness, you can prove this by observing this plastic fish which reacts to its environment

>>16778035
>what chemicals retard
are you really so incompetent that you have no clue about how electrical activity is mediated by chemicals. electric ACTIVITY not flow. just look into ions and ion channels this is fucking pathetic I'm done talking to your incompetent ass do your bare minimum homework moron

>>16778038
>how does electricity conduction work

>>16778041
it's not about the flow itself it's about the timing between spikes. you incompetent mouth-breathing moron

>>16778033
>your argument is weak because my claims don't follow from my premises even in my fantasy sci-fi thought experiment
An utterly irrational cult.

>>16778046
hope your brain receives the meds waves it needs

>>16778050
Your impotent zero-information content is irrelevant and my points still stand unchallenged. Come up with an actual argument. Protip: your cult's variation of "you can't prove my God doesn't exist" isn't an argument.

>>16778051
zero-information-content post*

>>16778051
>no
that's not an argument lmao, that's just you being in denial, which we both know you'll never stop doing no matter how much information you have access to

>>16778033
>>16778058
>your argument is weak because my claims don't follow from my premises even in my fantasy sci-fi thought experiment
An utterly irrational cult.

>>16778050
Your impotent zero-information-content post is irrelevant and my points still stand unchallenged. Come up with an actual argument. Protip: your cult's variation of "you can't prove my God doesn't exist" isn't an argument.

>>16778060
oh so you're just a damaged drone huh. sad

>>16778070
See >>16778060
Your belief system is unfalsifiable and irrational. I will rub your nose in this fact every time you reply, and you WILL reply dozens more times, because your cult programming forces you to keep engaging a lost argument.

>>16778072
you sound like a deranged bickering whoman just fuck off

>>16778044
if the fish is conscious it proves that electricity is not needed for consciousness
if the fish is not conscious it proves that the reaction to changes in its environment (in this case temperature) do not require consciousness
(and do not require electricity)
such that your (brains) reactions to the environment (creating brain neural pathways and electrical signals) are not your consciousness (your ability to perceive)
and in this way so does microphones and solenoid generators proves that spikes in electrical activity are not related to consciousness

>>16778074
You're legit mentally ill and you WILL reply again.

>>16777971
>you need to prove brain activity doesn't create consciousness
Why does he need to prove this?

>>16778077
fish nervous system relies on electrical spikes as well. depending on the complexity of the central nervous system they will be on a spectrum of consciousness. consciousness is an emergent phenomenon out of this type of activity. not sure what you're confused about

>>16778089
because each and every single time when it lacks electrical activity, consciousness also goes away, quite simple.

>>16778091
>consciousness is an emergent phenomenon
This statement is incoherent.

>>16778093
>every single time when it lacks electrical activity, consciousness also goes away
How do you know? What does this even mean? "Goes away" from where?

>>16778094
your brain is just too frail to comprehend or accept

>>16778095
goes away from the brain/person, vanishes, disappears, not there anymore, or anywhere.
just like when your car lacks something crucial to its working, it stops. the working state doesn't go anywhere in particular, it just vanishes.
>How do you know?
well it's quite obvious, they don't exhibit that which we call consciousness. whatever else you imply in consciousness being is based on some of your own personal issues with this reality and you need to prove.

>>16778098
Help my poor brain understand how subjective interpretations produce the minds they rely on in the first place.

>>16778099
You sound like you haven't developed object permanence yet. The absolute state of this board...

>>16777531 (OP)
if chemicals created consciousnesses then it should be quite easy to replicate. They know exactly what chemicals are in your brain. They should be able to put them in a beaker and create consciousness

>>16778101
>>16778103
you got used to people buying into your brain rot ideas and now you're having womanlike meltdowns. stop bickering brainlets and fuck off

>>16778112
>if I put a bunch of materials and shake them up I should get a mobile phone
>if I type randomly on my keyboard in my favorite IDE I should get windows 11
>what is order anyway?
this is what ideology gets you, the most dumbfuck of results. every single fucking time

>>16778115
What brainrot? I was just asking you some logical followup questions. None of your replies make any sense on the level of basic semantics, nevermind science or philosophy or anything more advanced.

>>16778121
>None of your replies make any sense
stop projecting you brainlet. no amount of obfuscating your ideas will ever make them anything less than pure weapons grade brain rot

>>16778112
>They should be able to put them in a beaker and create consciousness
the absolute state of dishonesty, imbecility, or both. this is fucking hilarious. this is the result of frail minds trying to process information, they shit themselves in the most wondrous of ways. how are you morons still breathing at this point, unassisted

>>16778130
NOOOOOOOOO! THAT'S COMPLETELY BACKWARDS

>>16778118
How is this different from nothing random becoming life?

>>16778122
You said OP needs to disprove your beliefs. I asked why. You answered with a nonsequitur making a bunch of new claims. I asked you to explain them. You gave an incoherent reply that seems to treat the brain as some kind of container that consciousness is hidden inside, then reasserted that consciousness just vanishes from it, but never explained how you know this, or that it was there in the first place.

>>16778112
>if chemicals created consciousnesses then it should be quite easy to replicate. They know exactly what chemicals are in your brain. They should be able to put them in a beaker and create consciousness
Kek. They'll say this is a strawman but it actually demonstrates perfectly the vacuity of the actual, literal statements they themselves make when those are taken at face value.

OP, the "chemicals" you're talking about are synaptic neurotransmitters, they aren't invovled in chemical "reactions", they are used to transfer electric nerve impluses.
It's primarily a physical process (electricity) being part of biological system, it's not about chemistry at all.

>>16778118
double digit IQ strawman, bravo

>reverse engineering isnt a thing retard!
if you are an african perhaps. Whites and asians are quite adept at it

>>16778130
>reeeeeeeeeee
impressive. very nice

>>16777920
>Muhhhhh EMEEEERGENCE
Emergence is a pseudoscientific copout for when you don't know something "Bro it just emerged ok don't ask me to explain how".
>Consciousness is not physical
Gee thanks Einstein I would never have guessed. Thanks for making my argument for me.

>>16778156
>It's primarily a physical process (electricity) being part of biological system, it's not about chemistry at all.
You could rewrite OP's post with this correction and it would remain essentially the same. Saying "electric nerve impulses cause consciousness" is every bit as uncompelling saying "chemical reactions cause consciousness". In what possible way could they cause it?

>>16777967
>What is subjective is not objective
Great point there buddy, truly groundbreaking, thanks for stating the obvious.
All 'empirical' evidence is derived from subjectivity.

>>16777971
>you need to prove brain activity doesn't create consciousness.
Why do soientists not understand the burden of proof? YOU are making that claim it's YOU who needs to prove it's true.

>>16778168
That poster is barely sentient but you're also missing the point. I witness this mental panorama not because it's my opinion, or my vague impression or my personal interpretation, but because it simply is. It defines what "is" even means. My personal witnessing of my personal mind is observer-dependent, but this post is expressing a more general truth that is observer-independent, unlike "emergent phenomena" that are literally, by definition, a matter of adopting a certain perspective.

>>16777536
geg
>>16777544
>subjective immaterial
those are just words, nothing separates your mind from your body, from matter, they are one and the same, there's no gap between your mind and a rock or your mind and someone else's mind, they are all the same substance inhabiting the same world

>>16777531 (OP)
Don't mistake the abstract model for the real experience.

Also don't mistake the the concept for not implying the subjective experience.
It's not "just" chemicals. It's chemicals, and that's a whole lot.

>>16778188
>expressing a more general truth that is observer-independent
Ok, i get that, but what is missing is the fact that there is nothing that is actually observer independent, at least to the extent that we know, or even possibly know, all empirical evidence or any evidence at all is always observer dependent and based solely on observation.

>>16778197
But we have absolutely no idea what the "world" is like outside of our minds.
Our mind presents an image, but it's only our best guess that it corresponds accurately to the outside world. It would make sense to say there's nothing separating you from that image, but you just can't say that the image and reality are one and the same.
You perceptions don't reach into the world, they are reproductions.

>>16778188
In fact, to get really meta, the only observer independent fact is that everything is observer dependent, there is nothing else that is observer independent.
This is indeed a strange fact to witness about the world when you realize it but it is nevertheless true.

>>16778203
What if the "world" was mind? All is mind. Matter is mind, this is an ancient lost philosophy that is being slowly rediscovered.

>>16778204
That's not meta. The meta part is that you don't observe what you observe, you observe the observation.

>>16778201
>there is nothing that is actually observer independent, at least to the extent that we know, or even possibly know, all empirical evidence or any evidence at all is always observer dependent and based solely on observation.
I literally just gave you an example of something that is true for any observer that has a notion of truth. If it's inherently true for any relevant observer, it's not observer-dependent in any meaningful sense, only in the trivial sense that it depends on observers existing at all.

>>16778208
The part of the world that you interact with and makes an impression of you does form a part of your mind as a reproduction.
Besides that, what you're saying is (pardon my French) wacko asspull shit.

>>16778208
>>16778212
Alright let me try to rephrase my qualms a bit more politely. If you're making a dichotomy saying there's X and there's Y and X is that which is not Y, you can't walk back on it and regard "all is X" and "all is Y" as two distinct propositions, you're making the two notions the same and meaningless compared to the other.

>>16778197
>nothing separates my mind from a rock
"People" like this will readily admit to being objects like rocks but then a bunch of retards will still argue with them unironically instead of taking it at face value and realizing they're arguing with a biological chatbot.

>>16778211
>I literally just gave you an example of something that is true for any observer that has a notion of truth.
What? What was your example? You didn't give me one.
>notion of truth.
Is it a notion of truth or actually the truth, because if it's a notion i don't think we have the same definition of objective truth.
>If it's inherently true for any relevant observer, it's not observer-dependent in any meaningful sense
Give me a single example of this, you can't.
>only in the trivial sense that it depends on observers existing at all.
How on Earth is that trivial lol? Trivial? The very existence of observers is required to observe anything that is so called 'empirical', that is not trivial that is the entire foundation of all empirical evidence and yet us arrogant humans somehow completely overlook this and we wonder why things don't make sense.

>>16778209
Honestly don't understand what you just said.

>>16778218
>Alright let me try to rephrase my qualms a bit more politely. If you're making a dichotomy saying there's X and there's Y and X is that which is not Y, you can't walk back on it and regard "all is X" and "all is Y" as two distinct propositions, you're making the two notions the same and meaningless compared to the other.
This is a really shallow gotcha. You can start from an incorrect dichotomy that helps you conceptualize something in terms of contrasts, then realize all the stuff you thought belongs in category B actually also belongs in category A. At that point it just boils down into a distinction that clarifies the qualities of what actually is, by contrasting against something that is conceivable but untrue.

>>16778227
Lol. Another psychotic.

>>16778212
>The part of the world that you interact with and makes an impression of you does form a part of your mind as a reproduction.
Are you not part of the world?
>wacko asspull shit.
Wacko asshattery is wacko jackassery until it's proven right.
>>16778218
>you're making the two notions the same and meaningless compared to the other.
Yes.
>gigachad.jpg
But seriously i wouldn't draw a distinction between matter and mind, i would just say that matter doesn't exist and all is mind. What seems like matter is just another form of mind. It starts to make everything make sense. Why can i see you as conscious and you see me as conscious when we have no 'empirical' evidence of eachothers consciousness? Because all is mind. We sophisticated humans just tend to think of a rock as 'not mind' in our arrogance because they don't behave like we do or like any animal does.

>>16778236
Are you serious? I just gave you a detailed explanation and you respond with ad-hominem because you disagree with me, you are a fool. You didn't even give me your example liar.

>>16778203
>But we have absolutely no idea what the "world" is like outside of our minds.
True
>Our mind presents an image, but it's only our best guess that it corresponds accurately to the outside world. It would make sense to say there's nothing separating you from that image, but you just can't say that the image and reality are one and the same.
True
>You perceptions don't reach into the world, they are reproductions.
Also true
What is your point though? We are part of the world but incapable of answering what it "is", we can create mathematical models that describe the behaviour of stuff but they still don't answer the question of what they actually are, whatever that means, but so what?
People talk about consciousness like its some outwardly stuff, but if you consider something like panpsychism it just becomes another feature of the world like electromagnetism and gravity, the "consciousness" of a atom is just as real as the gravitational effects of a hydrogen atom from Andromeda on you
>>16778220
Not sure how any of this has anything to do with being a rock

>>16778238
Completely serious. I believe you suffer from literal delusions and can't keep track of who wrote what in a short exchange.

>>16778241
If you're serious i think you're the one who's mentally off, i have no idea what example it was you were supposed to have given me. Was it the mental panorama thing? Because i have no idea what thats supposed to mean. I don't know what "personal witnessing of a personal mind" is supposed to mean, i didn't respond to it because i think it's gibberish that would require clarification.
You are still a fool.

>>16778240
The problem with panpsychism as i understand it is that it says: there is an atom, and it has a property of consciousness. It's much easier to just say: The atom IS consciousness. The duality is unnecessary.

>>16778251
If you're too retarded to comprehend even such a simple post, why did you reply to it with your 80 IQ idealism-for-dummies take? Either way, the basic truths about the mind are true for all observers, so your "everything is subjective besides my opinion" retardation is false.

>>16778240
>We are part of the world
No.
This is why you don't understand. You keep talking about consciousness as the mysterious domain to be analysed, but it seems so obvious to you to take the world as just simply given and self-evident.
The world is not the starting point to look inside from. The absolute base given fact for each individual is that there is consciousness and is should be realized that the notion of "the world" is actually mysterious, because "the world proper" would be something that we would be allowed to use any of our internal intuitions and mind-influenced perceptions, which makes the task impossible.
What makes describing uncoscinousness so hopeless is not that it's hard to penetrate in (it would be hard, but we're already there), but it's impossible to break out and see the world for what it is, to then be able to observe from a stable spot and reach full circle and see ourselves externally.
>>16778255
Ususally it doesn't make much sense to say that if something has a property, it's that property. Would it make sense to say that since you can read, you're an instance of literacy?

>>16778270
*we would not be allowed

>>16778267
If you're too retarded to even further expand upon your retarded word vomit why even say it at all.
>the basic truths about the mind are true for all observers
I like how you don't say what they are, very nice.
>so your "everything is subjective besides my opinion" retardation is false.
I never said anything like that, you're just being stupid at this point.
I think you're afraid that i'm advocating for nihilism and you don't want to be sucked in by the black hole of void so you're denying the obvious truth but this urge is making you act like a cunt.

>>16778270
>The absolute base given fact for each individual is that there is consciousness and is should be realized that the notion of "the world" is actually mysterious, because "the world proper" would be something that we would be allowed to use any of our internal intuitions and mind-influenced perceptions, which makes the task impossible.
Then you might as well stop using your intuitions to reason about consciousness because unless you're a mindless NPC, that's actually a sliver of this mysterious world. :^)

>>16778281
>I like how you don't say what they are
I did, though. But you're mentally ill, so you replied to that post with the words "I get it", then claimed you never read that post, then claimed you don't comprehend it, and now claim you're just too smart to understand it. lol

>I never said anything like that
>>16778204
> the only observer independent fact is that everything is observer dependent
Dumb mongrel. Literally can't keep track of what you or anyone is saying, just like I've pointed out a few posts ago.

>>16778270
>if something has a property, it's that property.
I wouldn't say it has a property i would say they are the same thing, the atom is consciousness, it's made of consciousness, it's like saying light has a property of brightness, no, the light is brightness, there is no distinction between the brightness and the light, the brightness isn't even a property of light it is what light is.
>Would it make sense to say that since you can read, you're an instance of literacy?
I would be an instance of literacy though wouldn't i? Just not the thing itself.

>>16778293
Alright then, you passed the test.

>>16778286
>I did, though. I just won't clarify them.
Whatever retard, if you don't want a good faith exchange of ideas to try to understand the others point of view just say so and we'll end this stupid nothingburger conversation.

I never claimed i'm a supergenius or whatever retarded schizo shit you're waffling about. I'm starting to think you're actually psychotic.

How is saying "the only observer independent fact is that everything is observer independent", the same as saying "everything is subjective besides my opinion", you're being retarded on purpose.
>YOU MUST KEEP TRACK OF EVERYTHING YOU AND EVERYONE IS SAYING EVEN WHEN HAVING MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE I SAID SO NEEHEE!
Ok nerd retard how about you just have a normal conversation.

>>16778299
There was a test?

>>16778301
>. I just won't clarify them.
You're right. I won't. If you need help with basic reading comprehension, ask gemini or chatgpt or something. You will immediately discover that you're dumber than the average chat bot.

>How is saying "the only observer independent fact is that everything is observer independent", the same as saying "everything is subjective besides my opinion"
Because 'subjective' means observer-dependent, and you were expressing the opinion that everything is subjective, only to then turn around and make an exception for your opinion opinion, as that quote shows. Dumb American inbred mongrel. Barely human. Neck yourself.

I actually take back that last paragraph. It's not "your" opinion. You don't have any opinions of your own. You are too dumb to have formed it yourself. You heard it in a 5 minute YT video.

>>16778293
Panpsychism doesn't deny that though, you conflated it with dualism

>>16778309
I mean, it's a kind of pluralism because it assumes that things have a separate essence or existence from their consciousness component, that the "thing" exists and it just has a property of consciousness, that is itself a dualism i think because it divides the thing from its properties and doesn't really explain why they're separate. I really don't see the need to distinguish them.

>>16778307
>You're right. I won't.
Then shut the fuck up cause you've lost the argument by default.
>and you were expressing the opinion that everything is subjective
>only to then turn around and make an exception for your opinion opinion
I'll make it reaaaally simple for you. Go ahead. Try to give me an objective truth other than the fact that all that exists apart from this fact is based on subjectivity.
You won't because you can't and you know it. You're coping and seething.
>Muuuhhhh american muuuuuh youtubes
Ok midwit, come back when you have an interesting or coherent argument to make. So aggressive for no reason.

>>16778326
What argument? You're literally retarded. Call me back when you master basic reading comprehension, then maybe you can make some kind of "argument". "I don't understand what I'm reading" is not an argument.

>everything is subjective besides my opinion, prove me wrong
A position so worthless doesn't even warrant doesn't warrant any kind of response, except that I preemptively proved you wrong without even intending to in that first post you claimed to understand, only to then admit you didn't. Ask chatgpt how it proves you wrong. I guarantee the mindless bot is more intelligent than you and will be able to spoonfeed you.

>>16778320
No, there are like 400 types of panpsychism https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism

But it did come from nothingness. To exist at all, existence was required to rebel from the innate default of nothingness.

>fucking retarded to say a bunch of chemical reactions between nerve cells can create consciousness

It seems you do not appreciate the miracle of atoms. Little bits of unitized energy, singulated into their own self contained independent existences. could you truly be so blind to the magic of that? Haha. Of course mechanisms can manifest between such powerful starting instrumentation, inducing ever further manifestations of yet more advanced mechanisms and hierarchies. This eventually leads to the phenomena of data transference - the soul being the ultimate recording instrumentation, ascribing all your interactions with your companion atomic structures - a singularity devoted to you and only you, containing all that you are, always there ready to receive more that is you and your story and individual perspective on the rest of reality. A celestial SSD with nigh infinite storage capacity, always loyally encrypted to your perfectly unique identification. Here is your You.

>>16778336
>What argument? You're literally retarded. Call me back when you master basic reading comprehension, then maybe you can make some kind of "argument". "I don't understand what I'm reading" is not an argument.
None of that was an argument.
>everything is subjective besides my opinion, prove me wrong
It's not my opinion it's an objective fact, the only objective fact there is is that everything is based on the subjectivity of observation apart from this fact. I've already asked you to argue against it and you haven't been able to. Let me rephrase it for you so you can understand this because it's pretty high level for you i guess, i'll rephrase it so maybe a midwit like you can understand it.

If there is any truth that comes close to being objective, or is 'more objective' than any other fact because it holds more consistent than any other fact, it is the fact that all things apart from this fact are based on subjectivity, MORE than this fact, because they are subject more to subjectivity.
You can say this is circular you can say this is whatever, but you know it's true, everyone knows it's true, there are some truths that are paradoxes, where they transcend logic, because not all things are based on logic.

>j-just ask chatGPT
Midwit, say something more interesting than an adhom or "i-it's circular" in a boringly tedious way, completely missing the point on purpose, give an actual argument that deals with my argument, or i won't bother wasting time explaining high level concepts to a conceited psychotic fool.

If you just want to say "it's circular!" again, fine, but you've completely missed the point if you do that. I could be wrong, but don't just keep repeating your rebuttal that i addressed, destroy my argument.

>>16778364
This is all to say, subjectivity is the only objective truth. This is the objective truth which all mysteries are based upon.

>>16778348
My God man, this is why panpsychism is hard to grapple with, there should just be one general framework of panpsychism.
>>16778362
Darned platonists, with your forms and raves.

>>16777544
Matter =/= nothing
I think what you mean is that something immaterial, like consciousness, cannot emerge from matter. This assumes consciousness is non-material though. However, it is true there has yet to be an accept materialist explanation for consciousness.

>>16778255
By predicating something about the atom, you're giving it a property. That is what properties are. Fucking retard.

>>16777544
>Something cannot come from nothing.
Nothing is something, though, so things necessarily come from it, you literally tried to change the subject of the thread to nothing since it is a thing that lives rent free in your consciousness.

>>16777916
Matter is the stuff a conscious agent is consciously aware of, why would they be unrelated?

>>16777921
>theres no chemicals prepared for when the baby animal learns to eat or stand up before it even knows what it looks like or is the same as the other
Yes there is, like you said, even the sperm has chemicals to guide it.
>nervous
Nerves are made of chemicals.

>>16777974
Brains are the receivers that allow the rest of the nervous system to be conscious of the external environmental signals that the brain receives with its various sensory mechanisms.

>>16777980
>that can be stated about cars as well
You mean like how modern cars are connected to distant servers that enable their cloud computing and autonomous driving capabilities?

>>16777983
>But your cult has never assembled anything that acts like a brain.
They have assembled thousands of brains.
>Nor has it established what that takes.
When a mommy loves a daddy very much... you will never even touch a boob, so its pointless to explain biological processes to you again.

>>16777544
>A subjective immaterial experience can't come from matter.
How come an immaterial force like gravity can come from matter then?

>>16778364
Not reading any of this mentally ill drivel. Sorry. Come back when you're at least functionally literate.

>>16777531 (OP)
We are soul, spirit and body. Not just body.

>>16777531 (OP)
Stop thinking with a carnal, materialist mindset.

>>16778669
>How come an immaterial force like gravity can come from matter then?
I like how all matertrannies inevitably demonstrate their inability to separate reality from abstractions. "Forces" don't exist.

>>16778091
he is talking about the plastic fish retard

>>16777531 (OP)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

>>16778779
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

>>16778779
https://en.m.wikishills.org/wiki/Different_Between_Objective_Reality_And_Subjective_Abstractions