Does the hard problem of consciousness invalidate materialism, Veeky Forums?

The question is always the same, as it for religion. Has it ever happened that a study fields went from religion to science? Yes, always. As it ever happened that a field of study went from science to religion? No, never.

As it ever happened that a cognitive problem was explained by materialism, end then it wasn't? No, never.

Until that thread will not stop, there is no reason to waste time hoping there is unexplainable by materialism

*Until that trend will not stop, there is no reason to waste time hoping there is something unexplainable by materialism

What does it have do to with my criticism of that philosotard? He's a shitty writer and an even shittier thinker.

I thought you were implicitly saying that the problem not included were impossible to solve by the materialistic side.

I concede that you haven't actually wrote that

Everything we have explained was through materialism. However we have a number of problems, we have no solution for, even for old problems. Maybe they are not solvable through materialism.

Yes, but you do not drop a system unless you have a better one to replace it with

I agree. However, there may be phenomenon which cannot be explained by humans.

Materialism is already invalidated by quantum mechanics.

Maybe, I haven't seen something convincing me that it is the case yet. But I could always be wrong, if it turn out that physics law can change at random and cannot be predicted that would probably convince me.

In the particular case human cognitive ability I would be convinced if in 500 years we will not have solved those problems yet. Too bad I'll be dead by then

Meccanicism is, the future state of the universe cannot be calculated, but that does not mean that there the are phenomenon that follows intelligible rules

If you have views of QM mirroring Deepak Chopra, maybe for you.

Tell me. what is matter made of? Perhaps you'll name some particles, e.g. electrons, quarks, gluons. But what are those? Are they fundamental? Are they indecomposable? Are they "particles" or just "fields"? The smaller you go, the more you leave the material world behind. Sure you can describe experiments, but in the quantum world all we have is abstract mathematical objects. You can't even tell me the ontological nature of a wavefunction. Let alone how the pure randomness of its collapse is instantiated physically.

It may be that there a basic structure of reality, it maybe that a god made it, it maybe that the universe is a simulation, it may be that there is a infinite regression toward smaller components that never ends and it may be that there are no rules at all.

So what? We have no idea which one is correct and therefore we cannot discard materialism without a better system to replace it with.

Reducing our understanding of physics to ever more fundamental and abstract concepts doesn't suddenly give rise to nonphysical realms of reality. It merely sharpens our concept of what "physical" means.

The evidence suggests "consciousness" is just one of the higher layers of this onion, and likewise reducible. It is as material as anything else we can experience or conceptualize. It is not a different onion.

>It is as material as anything else we can experience or conceptualize
perhaps, but it may be like trying to map the topography of the ocean's surface.

it's technically possible but in reality unfeasible because the scope and resolution are so vast that you'd barely begin before it had changed.

there's a difference between reducible in theory and in practice.

Yes but the thread is about theory, not engineering. I don't think we will ever be able to control someone thoughts but I think it's theoretically possible

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness#Responses

When the Wikipedia RESPONSES section exists and explains away all of your bullcrap, then it's a good clear clue you don't belong on Veeky Forums.
If the problem has already been solved, then don't come here.
And don't ask anyone to "teach you" shit you loser.

then one has to wonder what the point of materialism is as theory goes when we both agree that there are things happening at scopes and resolutions that we cannot know and presumably never will.

if something is theoretically possible and practically impossible, is it not also theoretically impossible?

>SOLUTIONS
>RESPONSES
take a minute and see if you can tell the difference.

Materialism says that every rule of nature can be understood. It's about finding the basics not using then to create something new. Creating stuff is engineering, and materials has no claim regarding how easy is to do that

>Materialism says that every rule of nature can be understood.
seems pretty optimistic when we know full well there are systems having behaviors we cannot understand and presumably never will.

Stating responses can not contain solutions is a fallacy.
Ipso facto, you and OP are both fags.

I'm just here to teach you English.

if they were solutions they'd be labeled as such.

We use the most specific language possible to prevent morons from hurting themselves.

No, there are things that cannot be proven right or wrong in math, there are problems that requires so much computational power that we cannot solve, there are things we don't know yet, but it had never happened that we did not managed to lie down the rules that govern a problem

*in physics

math isn't materialistic though.

ok, makes more sense.

I think we're agreeing here, you just don't see things that are unknowable as a problem for a system that claims everything is knowable.

We have no reason to think that math is right either. It just happens to be. That is a different thing from materialism, because materialism is about induction and math about deduction

Well, if it turned out that one of those unknowable math things was a inside physics then yes, it would be the death of materialism, but it does not, it just there to let us wonder what math really is

Listen to all the Platonists and Sophists in this thread.

You are all forgetting that the only thing you have is a story, a Narrative. And the only way to talk about the Narrative is through the Narrative.
The world is; the Narrative is not.
You equivocate existence when you make the story real.
Here is the Meta-Narrative functional model of the brain: the brain is a sense organ that can sense itself; sense itself sensing itself; and can filter and add senses. This model can detect patterns in randomness. Whether those patterns are useful is not determined by the functional model, but by the world.
The product of these senses, no matter if it is a simple binary comparison or the complex recursion of billions of comparisons both internal and external, is a narrative, as long as there is an intent that can be identified.

The world is. It is indistinguishable from the narrative of randomness without the intent of the narrator. It is indivisible without the processing of the narrator.
The world has no need to know itself; it simply is. The world has no intent.

The world cannot be wrong, but your story of the world can be false. The world has no truth, but your story can be useful to be believed.

And no matter how complex your narrative of the world, it is still just a proxy, a story, for a world you cannot know, that is either useful to be believed or it is not.

I think; therefore I am not!

It's substitutional representational, not symbolic.
If you were here, I'd kick you in the face for making such stupid fucking statement.
>math isn't real

*I think of it as 2 separate things where sometimes physics borrows stuff from math, and that stuff happens to be knowable.

Materials does not really make claims regarding philosophy of math, because that is where the real spook is

So where does math come from?

You beggar the question. First, math is the pathways in the brain associated with the millions of pathways of experience and corroboration of narratives from others.
Why does it work? It works because it is consistent with the world, and the way we view the world, but also it is consistent with the intents of human narratives.

The narrative of evolution is not a ladder; it is a sieve. The reason anything is is simply because it is, but we turn that around and make up objects with our narrative process that "explain" why something made it through the sieve, when in fact the only reason that it is here is because it is.

Things evolve because they didn't die. If you wanted to you could look at the object as being instead of the person, their family. Then you wouldn't even be asking why it evolved, and would instead simple see that it survived.

Math is the same way. There is no rule for the world. But there is consistency in our narratives.

Deduction works because big things don't fit into smaller things. Induction works because things happen before other things in time and space.
This consistency is consistent because all of our narratives that make up the Narrative are this way.

The Sophists knew we could force stories on others and so thought confused the world with the narrative and thought it was mutable.
The Platonists could not answer the eternal why and so made up a heaven where ideal forms controlled the world and thought the world was static.

Both were wrong. All you have is a story. It is either consistent and useful to be believed for your intent, or it is not.

And this is why analytic philosophy is the only one halaf respected

It is surprising to me. Used to be, you'd pick up any book on math or science and in the forward would be a lecture on models, and a warning on ever thinking you were doing anything but telling a story.

Even Plank warned that "science advances one funeral at a time!"

There is too much dogma in everything humans corroborate, but I would be the first to admit that the theory of gravity is useful to be believed.

Oh and Qualia? Just more Platonism.

You didn't quite understand my post. The underlying assertion of materialism is that in some sense everything is composed of matter. But the deeper we delve into the quantum world, the definition of matter breaks apart. Matter essentially must be decomposed into things which are not matter anymore, e.g. quantum information, abstract mathematical entities.

>The evidence suggests "consciousness" is just one of the higher layers of this onion, and likewise reducible.
Actually the evidence suggests that consciousness is at the lowest layers, as it is deeply intertwined with quantum phenomena.

>explains away all of your bullcrap
Where does it do that? It merely lists some philosotards' opinions.

I was thinking basically the same thing a few days ago. Kudos, one of the few philososhits on Veeky Forums who makes sense.

Oh look, it's the "cannot know nuffin" argument again.

200 years ago materialism did claim that. But nobody mean it since they found out waves pretty much.

Today materialism is about thinking that everything in physics has knowable rules

>narrative
Take your relativist postmodernist shit back to your "history of feminism" class or . Math is true and remains true, independent of humans. 1+1=2 is a universal truth. We might have invented those symbols, but the statement itself is fundamental to the universe.

>Deduction works because big things don't fit into smaller things.
Your inappropriately overinflated ego certainly did fit into your minuscule brain.

"Analytic philosophy" is merely an autistic circlejerk over semantics of words which are not rigorously definable. It's the academic analogon of Veeky Forums manchildren linking dictionary definitions of everyday language and vehemently insisting that this was the only way someone should be allowed to use that word. This nauseating display of pseudo-intellectualism does not subscribe to the search for truth anymore and hence does not deserve the title "philosophy".

>Oh and Qualia? Just more Platonism.
You seem to have the self-awareness and the linguistic comprehension of a femanon (i.e. none). The word "qualia" is a descriptive term denoting the phenomenon of subjective experience, observed through introspection. Contrary to what Daniel "strawman fighter" Dennett wants to make pop sci children believe in order to sell his dilettantish diarrhea of a book, the label "qualia" does not and did never imply an ontological statement about the nature of said experiences, let alone any allusions to them being a "substance" in the sense of substance dualism.

If there are multiple ways a word can be used, then that word is poor one. And allowing multiple interpretations of single word is stupidity at best and intentional misinformation at worst.

That is mathematical language is used in science.
Clearly redefining already existing words as they tried to do will never be successful and it's a waste of time , but writing pieces as the one above where not everything is clearly defined is despicable

Deepak pls go

physicists made the claim long before Indian pseudo-spiritual leaders took it up.

to a man which quantum physics, everything looks like quantum physics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann–Wigner_interpretation

Von Neumann was one of the smartest men who ever lived. He was a fucking polymath and a founding father of quantum mechanics, game theory and theoretical computer science, among many other things. But surely your tiny brainlet intellect can tell that he must have been wrong.

>linguistic prescriptivism

Quantum physics say jack squat about fuzzy, ill-defined concepts like "consciousness". This is New Age mumbo jumbo, and you should feel ashamed for being content in your ignorance. At the very least, elucidate us how you think QM is "deeply intertwined". I suspect it's the same old confused hogwash about the term "observing".

>Quantum physics say jack squat about fuzzy, ill-defined concepts like "consciousness".
absolutely true.
quantum physics says nothing about it.
quantum physicISTS on the other hand are always spouting off about things they don't understand.

>At the very least, elucidate us
I'm not the one that made the claim, and your English is terrible.

>and your English is terrible.
Completely irrelevant, and quite a gem coming from someone who wrote "to a man which quantum physics, everything looks like quantum physics".

>maybe there's one thing in the entire universe not explainable with a materialistic understanding of the universe
>conveniently, it lines up perfectly with religion

Or maybe consciousness is a poorly-defined idea as a result of the fact that the scientific method is relatively new and psychology is a crippled pseudoscience.

Some of the underlying phenomena of the brain (at a scale that is probably irrelevant) may be probabilistic. Therefore, souls are real.

fair enough.
My error was made by spellcheck though. Yours is entirely your own.

Look up Wigner's friend.

Materialism is now a big fat BS
youtube.com/watch?v=wJ71SXGEOCE

Physic of consciousness
youtube.com/watch?v=4F5dT2k4AQg

That's called fictionalism and it actually makes a lot of sense

that's not what fictionalism is

>fictionalism
You just made that up.

Why doesn't anybody just come out and say that the human nervous system is capable of some spooky feats that don't fit with current physical science, instead of half-committing their arguments while hiding behind a bunch of word games?

fictionalism makes a claim that "truth" or "knowledge" is a fiction and need not relate to the physical world. a somewhat common variety is the mathematical one, wherein mathematical theorems hold because the fiction is such.

like the statement: snape kills dumbledore.

it just doesn't mean that somehow there is no truth because truth forms a fiction.

Because the nervous system is a purely physical system, and claiming that it does magic will get you laughed at.

because autistic practitioners of "hard" science like to pretend they can reduce chaos while making fun of the "soft" sciences for failing at it.

Meanwhile the "soft" scientist enjoy poking fun at the "hard" sciences by demanding to see their reductionist proof of something they know full well isn't reducible.

Veeky Forums is particularly easy to troll with this stuff because:
1. there are no actual scientists here
2. the closest thing to scientists there are happen to be champions of "hard" sciences

which makes them very vulnerable to trolling since they're enthusiastic enough to defend their beliefs but naïve enough not to criticize them.

to my understanding, this is basically what dennet claims

:^)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

You don't have to "reduce chaos" to understand that a system's operation is merely complicated and chaotic, and is not spooky.

The mechanism that generates intelligent entities isn't really a philosophical problem, they can be considered really complicated machines. The real question is consciousness, the thing that distinguishes a philosophical zombie from something that's actually aware.

The brain somehow interacts with SOMETHING that doesn't really exist in any particular part of space, and this causes it to acquire information it shouldn't have.

Dan is literally the biggest hack. He doesn't even understand the hard problem.

Daily reminder that if you don't understand what's hard about the hard problem then you are not conscious.

:^)

lel

actual good shit post

You do have a point there, but well, he was wrong.

Why is consciousness considered to be inherent in the human species only? Why not other mammals. Then why not other animals, other lifeforms. Even more, why not inorganic chemistry?
Where do we draw the line? and why?
Seriously asking, what do you think about this?

does software invalidate materialism?

No one wants to think about it. The scinetific dogma surrounding our current standard model is so cancerous that any time someone points out a phenomona we don't understand most people go full deniel and try to explain it away without touching the hard problem because the thought of science not being able to explain everything for them is so scary. The guy who figured out that there had to be electromagnetism had to deal with the same autism.

It's so sad that most people at the core use the same framework to house their belief in science as other religions.

There is an interesting idea that sience slowly dying and soon will be unable to explain new shit, couse new shit will be so unbelivebly unintuative and contradictive.

Is this really happening?

Is consciousness brought up in physics? Besides the trip they had the last century with QM (which from what I know, that conscious observer turned up to be bullsh*t).
Does consciousness matter with particle physics?

Consciousness in terms of the pure subjective experience is not brought up by physics (at least not in the standard model) because the concept is not (yet) compatible with the materialistic world.

Ah ok, although it was brought up in QM

Only in Hollywood physics.

They latched onto this idea that we could prove dogs have souls, or some shit, because wave forms collapsed when observed.

The problem is, the observer doesn't need to be conscious (and there's always a machine involved anyways). The wave form collapses because there's no more fundamental particle with which you can measure it without collapsing it - as if you were trying to measure the surface of a balloon with a needle. Consciousness doesn't enter into it.

And then we cheat and pull this shit:
phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

But it was brought up by top physicists though.
"photograph of light" kek

We're a long, long ways off from exhausting the mysteries of the empirical world, but as there's always going to be things we can't break down into a communicably measurable fashion (ie. mathematically), I suppose we'll eventually hit a point where they only things left to explain are unexplainable.

It's much more likely we'll go extinct, one way or the other, first.

I was reading in a physics textbook that the future physics questions will be prefaced with "why" instead of "how."

Say hello to philosophy Veeky Forums tards, you're getting btfo by reality

Pop-sci physicists taking real physicists comments out of context.

The fact that there was a subject that you couldn't measure without altering, was interesting from a mathematical viewpoint, but some folks just ran off with that it entirely nonsensical directions for the sake of drama.

At the rate we're going with this "the humanities are obsolete" trend, no one's going to be teaching philosophy in a few decades, so it won't much matter.

But my point is that some of those folks were top physicists

I'd say [citation needed] but I don't doubt there's some dinner table talk from physicists trying to make their field more interesting than it is to the laymen.

Point remains, consciousness has no baring on the collapse of waveforms. Ya just couldn't measure them without collapsing them, be it done by man or machine.