Do retards really believe that the soul and body are separate? I've never read anything as retarded as Descartes

Bro ur wrong dan brown told me the soul is real man they measured it on this scale thing when some old fart died

Further as it seems completely opposite points can seemingly be ptoperly argued by using the kind of language that is appropriated for one point or its opposite, I question whether we can even define anything as an absolute. I cant help but shake the feeling that philosophy is an exercise in asymptotic approximations without resolution. By this it seems that truth cannot be established by philosophy, rather just points of view.

I would guess the point is that there is no soul, just the body, part of which is the supervenient phenomenon that is known as "soul."

>can't be explained by science

Has not does not imply it can not. Is there any argument for consciousness being unexplainable or incomprehensible?

the argument that everything is 'within' consciousness, everything we can possibly point to or be aware of is already 'inside' it, and it can't be inside itself, because it creates a sort of endless recursion

It's been explained by Tononi as an integrated system akin to a computer. It doesn't get to how the experiential side happnes, but it outlines what goes into it.

warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/activities/modules/ugmodules/humananimalstudies/lectures/32/nagel_bat.pdf

>STEMsperg enters the thread

Yes. Look up the idea of "qualia" for one aspect of the argument.
Also recognize that scientism is an insidious philosophy of the 21st century that is widely unrecognized and that no major philosopher has ever believed science accounts for consciousness.

>Nagel
More MRI studies and tables, less words in paperback format.

I know you're joking but it's not funny. Tons of underage redditors would genuinely reply like that.

Read Spinoza.

*blocks ur path*

Attached: Thomas_Nagel_photo_vertical.jpg (285x342, 46K)

No, I mean that I would have been dragged out back behind the compactor and shot if I wrote a paper like that. I'm a material denying shaivist who drinks at the fountain of french phenomenology and laughs at sam harris for not reading enough philosophy and that argument is still 30 years behind current neuroscience. Half the fuckers now are what I described and even they can point to what is going on that leads to experience.

It's possible there's some simple explanation between experience and atoms, and thus free will and the self are fictions, illusions, and then that's that.

On the other hand, qualia and atoms may have reciprocal causality, and that the self and it's will have an actual existence that is free and chooses, in which case we are, and there is some phenomenal science yet to be discovered, so phenomenal that quantum mechanics would look fucking stupid.

We probably won't know within our time, so back to lit.

the point is that neuroscience can't touch that argument because it deals solely with objective descriptions
you either didn't read the essay or you don't understand it at all

t. uneducated Veeky Forumsfag who likes to bask in the intelligenc of others

They are separate. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from information integration occurring among microtubules in the skull of a particular body. The body is a vessel of survivability and content for said consciousness, a set of necessary conditions locally related and distinct from all sets necessary for consciousness itself.

>tfw ur historical portrait will never be this smug

>the spirit resides with god
Read some Simoneous Weilonius

>It doesn’t.

But saying that only proves God's existence, bro.

Nagel's View From Nowhere

>tfw you'll never have a historical portrait

Yunmen

This should be the last Veeky Forums thread ever. We’re done. This board is officially filled with retarded, Reddit-tier edgelord brainlets.

I hope you drown in front of your family.

Now I can say I've read something more retarded: your post.

Kant explains the indeterminable subject in the first Critique.

He says that it can be discussed to the extent that we can know certainly it (the subject, the soul) is not materially definable, but that's as far as it goes.

I agree completely, I think I'm finally done here. You hear this a lot: "A thread died for this." While accurate, this phrase generally carries no weight. But just this once, if you would do me a favor and hear me out, it would do all of us a lot of good.
A. Thread. Died. For this. You woke up this morning, poured yourself a bowl of Faggot Flakes, moistened them with your impotent Faggot prostate milk (which IS in fact impotent, because you're a fucking faggot) and, within seconds, decided that today of all days would be the time you decide to cut your synapse firing quota by just a little too much.
So you hopped online, carved out this uninspired chicken scratch, probably failed the captcha once for every strand of peach fuzz on your half-empty sack, and clicked Submit.
At that moment, a thread died. A thread that could have been bumped. A thread that could have been resurrected with content, or valuable discourse between its denizens. Hell, it could've even been bumped for absolutely no reason. And that would've been okay. Because, had it survived, a few more seconds could have been spent without having had your abortion of a post been born in this world.

Science is not equipped to deal with consciousness

>You woke up this morning, poured yourself a bowl of Faggot Flakes, moistened them with your impotent Faggot prostate milk (which IS in fact impotent, because you're a fucking faggot)

Attached: laughinganglo.jpg (491x488, 19K)

You drink the fountain of French phenomenology yet don't understand a simple paper?

>in the skull
You ought not limit consciousness to particular life. Plants and all other organisms have consciousness too. I agree with the rest of what you said though.

Oh god, don't even start with that microtubules bullshit.

> plants and other organisms are consciousness
kek, no consciousness without a soul bucko.

>You ought not limit consciousness to particular life
It's actually really useful to only consider actual animals so you don't immediately jump to aimless speculation of unobserved phenomena.

It makes no difference which exact piece of flesh is producing phenomenal experience, IIT is correct and establishes the individuated subject as a product of the brain's predictive processing.

That's something expanded on (albeit to the opposite side) very heavily by speculative realists and their predecessors (mainly /ourguy/ Land really). From what I can gather these people insist on shoving metaphysics into the realm of the material and assume that yes, soul is definitely materially definable because it is merely secondary to matter (as emergence or whatever you want to call it). They posit some kind of primordial structure where production comes before everything else, and in producing, matter is able to represent itself. In creating its own representation, the representation can then reflect upon itself and from your point of view it seems like the representation was what came first. Or at least this is what I read from some of that mumbo jumbo, I don't know quite how I feel about it yet

> Increasing belief universe could be a simulation
> The soul can be possibly explained through quantum mechanics

"Grant science one free miracle and it can explain everything" ~T.Mckenna

Veeky Forums is just the worst

Attached: 235235235235.jpg (680x680, 82K)

any living thing with even the barest of senses has a nascent form of consciousness

Op is gonna be BTFO when we upload a human conscience to a hard drive

Focusing just on humans already includes a lot of aimless speculating and its probably more useful to start by understanding simple consciousness like those of plants before something as complex as a human.

>soul

Attached: 1512155538722.png (645x729, 32K)

>Predictive processing producing consciousness
>Flesh producing phenomenal experience
Neither the scientific community nor the philosophic community likes your theory. Why cling to it? It's no better than Descartes's pineal gland.

OP is retarded, but neither will we ever be able to "upload" human consciousness to a hard drive. At least not at all in the way people conceive of it when they say stupid shit like that.

Why is it retarded? Because you don't believe it?

Stirner Or Lacan

Attached: stirner.jpg (383x500, 35K)

>when body is destroyed soul no longer exist bro lol
>souls exist
What the fuck do you cunts smoke?

A lot of his arguments were a good start for the time, but as the ideas have progressed through history they have been shown to be unequivocally false

*tips*

epic meme friend see you at www.reddit.com for more dank memes

>read a jew
No thanks.

The soul is the self experiencing itself as an abstraction, rather than as a condition of a material world.

It seems like he's using a sense of the word "know" that means to experience, e.g. "I know your pain", and conflating it with the usual sense of "know" meaning to be aware of a fact. But knowledge about an experience and the experience itself are two completely different things. You can conceivably be aware of any fact you want about an experience without sharing it (e.g. you can know that a bat is using echolocation to find its way and any detail of that experience like where it's focusing its attention, what the limits of its current perception are, etc., all without yourself being able to echolocate) and you can experience something without being aware of any facts about your experience, even including the fact of its existence (bats themselves may not be very self-aware). They're different things in the same way that knowledge about a rock is not the same thing as a rock.

I think it's easy to confuse the two for a few reasons
1. Having an experience typically makes it much easier to learn about it, since we can now do so through introspection.
2. When we think of examples of things we experience, we necessarily pick experiences we are aware of having and therefore probably know a lot about.
3. We think about our own experiences mostly through memory and we may feel that remembering an experience is like reliving or having a weaker version of that same experience. But long term memory is mostly belief about our past experiences rather than a perceptual recreation of them. Unless you have a photographic memory, you remember very little of what you see in terms of images that can be recalled in detail and remember almost all of it in terms of facts about what was seen. (In fact, the general unreliability of eye-witness testimony suggests that when you seem to relive an experience through memory, you are to some extent making an imaginary reconstruction of it influenced by beliefs about what the experience was, beliefs that can themselves be influenced by things other than the experience itself.)

A scientific, reductive understanding of consciousness would mean knowing the principles that lead from "X has such and such brain state" to "X is afraid", which is admittedly nowhere close to being done, but it need not "tell" us what it is like to feel X's fear insofar as that is a subjective experience rather than a piece of information. Of course, all of this implies that science is aiming at knowledge in the first place, which is a whole other can of worms.

How do you explain transgender people then? To say otherwise would delegitimize them.

It's cyber Darwinism fella, if the thread was good, it would have lived.

desu his observation that the mind and senses are better at determining what's good/harmful for a person than at determining truth was ahead of its time given what we now know, namely that we are what we are because we're evolved to be good survivors rather than created to be good understanders.

>moistened them with your impotent Faggot prostate milk (which IS in fact impotent, because you're a fucking faggot)
user, being gay doesn't make you impotent.

That's more like if you believe life is only about pursuing whatever tickles your emotions and the lives of others are meaningless flesh bags to increase the activation of your glands and synapses, aka autistic, self-centered, nihilistic morons who think bring self aware about how shitty they are is smart.

>>Predictive processing producing consciousness
Information integration theory is the best explanation of consciousness atm

>>Flesh producing phenomenal experience
This is evidently the case according to the cogito and some notion of realism or materialism.

>Why cling to it? It's no better than Descartes's pineal gland.
Not true, this is where top flight neuroscience is pointing.

>Focusing just on humans already includes a lot of aimless speculating
No, observing consciousness in human is observation, not speculation.

>its probably more useful to start by understanding simple consciousness like those of plants before something as complex as a human.
lol no, plants are not conscious, I don't think you're very informed on this topic.

Do you think the voice you hear from the radio is a miniature man sitting inside of it speaking?

Are you saying it isn't?

Doesn't Descartes go on to say that they are intermingled?

B-but user haven't you read Leibniz's Mill argument a-and don't you disagree with Spinoza that it would be impossible for immaterial substance to interact with material substance without becoming material? And La Mettrie, he solved the mind-body problem immediately after Desctards, but w-what an idiot ha?

It was at one time not retarded at all to think that. But yes, if you still do, you are definitely retarded.

One of the key problems with Descartes's theorization of the Mind-Body relation was the interaction problem, which he never did surpass. You're just avoiding the question with "neuroscience." Besides, your "top neuroscience" isn't exactly well received by the scientific community. Your theory still can't explain the interaction problem, and cannot address or describe the phenomenal nature of consciousness. Even if it were to have something to do with microtubules, it wouldn't really tell us anything.

It can't be surpassed because material and immaterial logically cannot interact. It's the only objection you need to disprove a soul. Never been solved because it can't be

The interaction problem doesn't disprove a soul. You can just as easily use it to disprove the material world. In fact, that's easier, since we only have direct access to our minds.

Read Avicenna

I’m not even OP but please just shut the fuck up. No one is interested in your embarrassing little declarations - just leave if you want.
You too. This wasn’t an amusingly long-winded insult it was just tryhard garbage.

Just take this into consideration - you're defending Descartes' fucking dualism. Get your head checked. You're not only "defending" Descartes, you're throwing an absolute fit.

Yeah it can, bitch nigga.

>the interaction problem
Body is the physical part of the system, i.e. neuroanatomy of the brain, circulatory system, etc. Mind is an emergent phenomenon of neural processing. They interact in the same way that briskly moving your legs while standing produces running, particular physical interactions giving rise to outcomes greater than themselves.

>material and immaterial logically cannot interact
You're introducing immaterialism to a situation which involves only material objects and non-material phenomena. Immaterialist notions of the soul were always known to be bullshit, a fucking princess btfo'd Descartes retarded theory because it's so stupid.

We now know that unpredictable, non-linear systems of matter produce emergent phenomena (patterns) through attractors and feedback loops. Browsing Veeky Forums, sitting down, jerking off, these states are not merely their material substrate, but the accumulation of interactions among all necessary substrata. The emergent phenomenon is in itself not physical, but a particular pattern within a physical system and experienced/observed as something in itself. Thus it can be said that the mind and body are distinct if we take the body to be the material basis through which consciousness arises which every fucking neuroscientist will tell you is the case.

Attached: 1518680108316.jpg (1105x1456, 1.85M)

>he doesnt understand greentext
leave newfag

>plants are not conscious
But they are.

Still never understood what it was about bioelectric interactions that could give rise to qualia, subjective experience, anything more than a p-zombie. "Emergent phenomena" exist, but don't give rise to anything not possible from their basic materials- computer from electric signals, but not qualia from bioelectricity.

What's the difference between an alive and a dead body?

Slow Veeky Forums was the best thing that ever happened to this site.

Look at brain injuries.

When certain sections of the material is injured, the self is affected.

No better proof that the mind = the brain.

That does imply they're linked, but leaves the qualia problem as in and the symbolic/representational problem (eg chinese room) problems rather problematic for materialist metaphysics.

One of them has my cum on it.

I can't tell if this pic is just too smart for me or if it's nonsense made by a schizo.

corpses to some groups of people, are just vessels. They no longer hold the soul in the body.

It's belief in nonsense now that science has completely ruled out its possibility.

Science really hasn't ruled anything out. You should ponder the allegory of the cave.

Read a little bit. A methodology that uses physical experiments or results to vindicate its theories is not applicable to ideas which have no physical proof.

In other words, you cannot apply materialistic, deductive reasoning, to something that is inherently of the nature of spirituality or the soul.

You have failed to understand any of the implications of modern science if you think ideas have no "physical proof." YOU "read a little bit"; read someone who understood them excellently and was the first to fully realize them, Nietzsche.

>It's all like .. the higgs boson mane. If we can jus solve the string theory we'll find the big bang and then whoa....
Fuck materialists and your soulless, cowardly religion

I'm saying this as an unironic STEMfag about to enter a fully funded PhD program, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Dualism and empirical, materialist science are 100% seperate ways of looking at reality. By all means, keep it up though. Seeing science from the outside has truly helped me get a leg up on conformists like yourself who follow the chain of established logic all the way up the tree to top heavy retardation like string theory instead of breaking off a branch at a suitable point.

testing