Does consciousness arise from the physical world or does physical reality arise from consciousness?

>the words of not knowing how the universe works.

Guess what bud. You and I are the universe. So is every other faggot.

*tips fedora and fades into a vape cloud*

This.
The earth you're standing on existed long before consciousness did.

consciousness is interpreted from signs that represent the physical world.
The mind exists outside the brain and conciousness is a mind capable of experiencing itself

>>>>>reddit

>does physical reality arise from consciousness
That's nonsense.

>I know Jack Shit about QM but let me give you my opinion anyway

...

Neither

We can't know, but it sure looks like the former.

Obviously from the physical world, what else is there?

How would you do experiments to discover this?

If you could merge 2 sapient beings, what would the resulting entity say?

The latter, it's a top-down system

>that's nonsense
>why? because of le science XDDDD
>in a humanities board

your consciousness and your feelings are non-physical, fucktard.

Fuck off back to Veeky Forums if you can't even manage to get away from materialistic naturalism.

only real answer

& Humanities was a mistake.

Nah I will hinged my bet on the latter being true

>He doesn't QM showed that stuff is 99.999% empty space and forces
>He doesn't QM has broken Newton's dream of a clockwork universe with fuzzy af realms of probabilities

>implying QM fuzzyness means the physical can't give rise to consciousness

>mind exists outside the brain
Any proof?

Only backing up the first poster's second and third sentence in the reply chain not the OP's question

>asking for material evidence for the existence of something immaterial
God i hate sciencefags

Nice copout you bitch.

How is it a copout? Asking for material evidence to prove the existence of something immaterial is foolish. No matter how many pairs of stuff you can present, you will never prove that the concept of '2' exist. Why do the same of the existence of the mind?

Humanities that does not take science into account is a nonsense venture with no value.

...

making bold claims about something without any way to support your claim is even more foolish imo
If """the M I N D"'' is such a special immaterial notion that eludes "proof" than what makes you so cinfident in makingclaims about is nature?

by your own reasoning science is a "nonsense venture with no value" because the philosophy of science can't take science itself into account or be proven by the scientific method

the mind is immaterial
therefore it can't be "inside" any physical material

it's so fucking obvious you must be a retard

>therefore it can't be "inside" any physical material
non sequitur, you faggot

and for that matter, the claim about being "outside" doesn't make sense either, but it's certainly independent from the brain.

how can the immaterial be inside or outside of the material?

>does physical reality arise from consciousness

if someone drives a spike in your material brain, your consciousness cease to be, or it gets severely diminished

If I'd have to go with one over the other I'd go with the former.

you're gonna have a real hard time when AI comes to town.

>but it's certainly independent from the brain
And it couldn't possible be an emergent property of the brain?

>thinking AI having consciousness is a given
Yea way to prove little you know about AI or consciousness. If anything that would prove Dualism lmao

sure. at firts AI will be crude and not on par with humas.s
But consciousness is not on/off switch, it's a spectrum. From a Goldfish to Goat to Humans.
AI will walk through that spectrum. And perhaps faster than we'd like.

>mfw muh science turns out to be muh singularity
lol. And what pray tell do we define and measure this consciousness? You can't emulate what you never understood in the first place

>define and measure this consciousness

The ability to learn and react to external stimuli generally. A gold fish do this in a limited capacity. A chimpanzee can actually solve complex problems with no context and even taught the learned to it's offspring.

so If an AI displays ability to learn and improvise to solve problems we would consider it conscious

>The ability to learn and react to external stimuli generally.
Intelligence and reflex(or directives in AI) respectively

so from "the mind is immaterial" you have now stepped to "define and measure!"

welcome to Veeky Forums, you'll hate it

I mockingly asked if you can define and measure consciousness (which you probably can't). How has that interfere with the position that "the mind is immaterial"?

Even so measurement is information, which is not material...

When the brain is impaired problems with consciousness surface. So we can assume that consciousness arises from the brain.

Christ this may actually be a serious comment

Theistic shitposters give me a migraine. Fuck off if you want to act like a teenager.

>Quantum physics shows that physic reality isn't physical

...

The fuck does that have to do with what he said

Hurrdehurr

Physical world is a meme. Atoms are largely 99.999% empty space. We ourselves are made of combination of atoms, whom too are largely 99.999% empty.

Physical "feeling" also is not proof of physicality, but rather of force that's similar to gravity but on much small scale and much stronger.

Even the particles that make the atoms themselves aren't truly physical. They're Quarks are point-like particles whom have no concept of weight/mass/etc. The very concept of weight/mass is from quarks interaction with the underlaying "field" in where the quarks are interacting on.

...

>define and measure consciousness
here's just one proposal on how to do that
scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-method-to-measure-consciousness-discovered/

That's what we have axioms for. I propose the following three:
1) Existence exists. (There is something.)
2) Everything that is has a specific nature or identity. (A is A. Something that isn't something would be nothing.)
3) You possess a counciousness which allows you to percieve existence.

These three statements can't in themselves be proven, but any attempt to disprove them would necessarily mean that they were. I.e. you can't doubt existence without existing.

>Atoms are largely 99.999% empty space.
logically explain why this matters, why must particles have a larger volume

We can measure anything as long as we can understand the machine that is our nervous system.

A fly repeats itself with variables and scientists are developing a system so they can emulate an ant colony. It doesn't look as hard as emulating our brains but we must go through something that is visible, therefore, "material", so we can finally measure it.

If you measure content by using abstract criteria, we can't know for certain. But analyzing electrical impulses and patterns in behaviour, we might get a glimpse. We are all "material" after all, we can be dissected.

>Clinical utility is not automatically a guarantee of scientific understanding.
Read your own damn article. They created a measuring system to suit their needs, not an objective standard by any means.

The point is that most of what 'is' are rarely mass itself but rather immaterial relationships and interactions between said masses

Oh wow congratulations, that was the point i am trying to make

>We are all "material" after all, we can be dissected.
This is thing up for debate in the thread in the first place. It is only our body that gets dissected.

The follow up question is then, does any sufficiently advanced system have the capacity for consciousness?

>Read your own damn article
I didn't say it was the end-all solution. It is just a proposed method. One of many.

A method that is only meant to keep someone alive, not to accurate measure consciousness. It is not even trying to do the thing you wanted it to do

>The earth you're standing on existed long before consciousness did.
And the proof of this is...?

> This is thing up for debate in the thread in the first place. It is only our body that gets dissected.

I may be speaking from ignorance here, but I think that the mind is a material thing or at the very least the product of a physical thing, one cannot be conscious without the brain. since we do not know what happens after death, and with the lack of positive evidence of conscious after death, we cannot conclude that the consciousness of Man or a Man-like being can exist without material existence in the form of a Brain. In order to fit all the requirements for consciousness, man must have a body or some means of perception to begin conceptualization and all things that contribute to consciousness. Thus, the material (body) is -- by all current evidence -- required to possess a consciousness (immaterial).

hallucinations in a dead state before revival don't count and are at best simply hallucinations that any man who dreams could also experience. That, and the brain can function as long a 6 minutes without oxygen/bodily processes before permanent brain damage begins to occur, sometimes longer if one is in a medical environment with various machines to artificially boost longevity in the absence of bodily processes. (as far as I understand it anyway)

>And the proof of this is...?

1. Countless texts left by historians and various peoples. including those who asked the same question you are.

2. scientific testing that reveals the earth's age.

Even if you disregard this by means of a rationalist approach, you are violating empirical logic.

You cannot assert the existence of a negative due to the lack of a positive that abides by the rules of your experiment. Much like one cannot assert the existence of a god and act on the thought that god exists without evidence simply because nobody can prove that god does not exist.

Man has proof that the earth/universe existed before Man, all of which abide by the rules of the game/reality. So in closing:

> And the proof of this is...?

And your proof of this not being proof of that is?

>empirical logic
Refer to

>physical things existing

lol

"We should take all our neo-cortexes, and downgrade'em all to proteins "

They both existed eternally

It's impossible to distinguish.

Electrical signals in the brain are physical though. And we have yet to determine if minds can exist separately from these physical things to they are for intents and purposes physical actually.

>your consciousness and your feelings are non-physical, fucktard.
Wrong

>he doesn't get qualia

lel

>I give an essentialist (the view that for any specific entity there is a set of attributes which are necessary to its identity and function) statement that we should abide by logic as a means of having a discourse.

You then belittle me and respond/refer to a response in the form of a straw man. Said straw man lets on that logic is an arbitrary construct that has no weight or validity in this discourse. which is itself an essentialist statement statement.

There's no world where there is no mind to say so. Mind and the world evolved in parallel, all logic is based on the irreducible self-reflexivity of consciousness. In order for there to be logic there must be that which is pre-logical.

There is nothing to get.
That brand of philosophy is pseudoscience no better than religion or astrology or homoeopathy.

...James Rolfe?

You're trolling right? What are qualia?

There is an all pervading emptiness in which phenomena arise as 3D sense experiences.